Seriously, I wish I knew the point of this whole school thing.  Am I the only one that sees how worthless it really is?  I mean, c’mon, sometimes it surely feels that way.  I often wonder why it is that I must take a slew of ridiculous classes in order to make myself a “better rounded” student.  Shouldn’t I choose to be a “better rounded” student?  I am glad that the school cares so much about me that it forces me to be “better rounded.”  Of course, they are vested in such because they stand to make an enormous amount of money off of my rounding.  I loathe few things more than them.  Aren’t the thousands of tax dollars that are thefted from me enough to satisfy their greedy hands?  Apparently not.  I am robbed on multiple levels because someone determined I would be better off that way.  But I fail to see just how that is.  I am my own person, and I am fully capable of making my own decisions.  I don’t need some administration who knows absolutely nothing about me telling me that I must critically think, that I need to expand myself with studying the humanities, learn the sciences, and you can’t forget about health.  Anyone should know the history of drug use in America.  Thanks hippies for giving me something more to study.  And I guarantee you I critically think everyday I waste another day marching to their demands.  Reverting to a previous point for a second, I guess said administration does know one thing about me, that I am a big enough sucker to pay them money for nothing in return.  I’ve got plenty of paper in my printer; I don’t need another one saying that I wasted my time and money studying some subject.  

I was thinking the other day about how this country was built post World War II.  Even before that.  Did every person that worked at every business have a four year degree in the area of his or her employment?  I will place my bet of $2000 on “no.”  Heck, I know people who started working in the 70s and 80s with maybe, at most, a two year degree.  They seem to have worked out fine.  But now the lie of a four year degree is engraved in each one of our heads.  If so much was made by “uneducated” people, why must we suddenly be “educated?”  Speaking of a four year degree, at my place of employment, a position opened up for the day time, a lead of two areas, and one requirement was a four year degree.  Alright, great, to head the two areas where no degree is required you need a four year degree.  Then I remembered some more or less worthless person that used to work in my area, an area that does not require a degree.  I am pretty sure that this person had a four year degree in education or something.  Strictly off of that, that person would be qualified for that job and I would not be.  Forget the fact I am a much better worker, I don’t have a magical four year degree.  So I am screwed.

Why do so many people pay tens of thousands of dollars for a piece of paper with their name on it?

Can I get a show of hands please?  How many actually thought it would make any sort of difference in the Middle East peace process if President Bush visited?  How many think that this time it will be the time peace is brought to the Middle East?  No one, ok, then we are on the same page. 

What I want to know is how many times we are going to try to make peace between terrorists and people they swear to wipe out of existence?  How many times are we going to fail at this before we realize it can’t be done, regardless how badly we want it to work?  It will not work.  The problem runs so much deeper than it seen by the eye; it goes back two thousand years.  Peace is wanted by the outsiders, but I am sure both the Israelis and the Palestinians know it will never happen, nor is it wanted.  I see it kind of like one of those toys a small child has, where the child has to put the plastic square piece in the square hole, the circle piece in the circle hole, and so forth.  Hoping for peace in the Middle East is like putting the square piece in the circle hole.  Yeah, you can get a little part of the piece in the hole, but it obviously won’t fit right.  It is the same in this instance.

Carrying forth the aforementioned analogy, part of the reason this won’t “fit” is because Israel  Being a democracy and being economically successful, like Israel is, is incompatible with all of the square pieces around them, like the Palestinians that occupy their land.  And instead of shaving the edges off of the square to become more circular in shape, instead they would much rather destroy the circle so they won’t have to deal with it.  Apparently having a functioning country is unwanted.  News flash, it is 2008, not 1008. is the circle hole and the terrorists are the square piece.

If you look at anything that has been given to the Palestinians it is complete and utter crap.  I recall pictures of either Gaza or the West Bank, perhaps even both.  And they were utterly terrible; it even made the Hurricane Katrina aftermath look civilized.  They managed to turn inhabitable land Israel gave them into what resembles the rest of the Middle East, nothing.  They don’t build countries and societies; they run dictatorships and steal from their citizens.  And the Palestinians want your own country?  Seriously, what do the people do all day, other than, of course, make suicide bomb vests and crappy rockets they shoot aimlessly (mostly because they can’t aim them, partly just because, praying to Allah, they can wipe out some Zionists randomly).  I didn’t see any thriving businesses, schools, or anything of the like.  Not to mention that Israel has given the Palestinians much more opportunity than any other country has given them; all any other country, Muslim countries, has given them is a one way ticket out.  But apparently Israel is bad for not doing the same. 

 President Bush was just there a few days ago touting some unachievable hope for peace. What else is new?  Does anyone keep track of the numerous times and amount of wasted money we’ve wasted on this before?  And then today on the news I see an Israeli city, one mile from the border with the terrorists, who got rockets rained down on them.  Apparently it is a daily occasion.  I’d imagine you could get cheap property there!  One of the rockets went through a house, into a room where two young children were playing just seconds before.  I guess when the warning sirens go off they have seven seconds, yes, seven seconds to take cover.  The children, one of their mothers, and a nine year old were injured somewhere between lightly and moderately.  Perhaps peace means something different over there.  Or the hot sun has caused them to become disorientated.

These people don’t want peace.  They just want to turn Israel from a thriving country into a piece of crap like the rest of the Middle East.  The Palestinians haven’t shown any reason as to why they should get their own homeland since they only terrorize that of others.  Plus, if you look strictly at the land already foolishly given to them, give me three good reasons why this proves they are deserving of more land to turn into a cesspool  Firing the daily rockets randomly into Israel certainly isn’t a peaceful gesture.  And they have the audacity to wonder why it is Israel occasionally responds and kills several Palestinians.  I would do the same if rockets were endlessly fired at me.  I guarantee you that the rocket firers would be dealt with in a way which would prohibit them from ever firing another rocket.  Mind you, not because I was the aggressor; rather, because I am the retaliator.  In addition to lacking the common knowledge of keeping and sustaining a functioning government and country, they seem to also lack common sense.  Big surprise. 

Rocket attacks speak louder than “promises” of peace.

Everyday at work I have the opportunity to read the Star Tribune.  Now, I do not pay for it, which, at the time of collection, I do feel slightly bad about.  But I refuse to give money to somebody who routinely publishes lies, libel, and liberal nonsense.  It is kind of like giving money to bums.  If you keep giving them money, they go to where the money is.  I hope the same for the Star Tribune when the money no longer flows their way.  I hope that they just goes away.  Its numbers don’t look too good; it seems as if some of the money that used to be handed to them is no longer.  Hopefully it is almost time for this bum to find somewhere else to hang out.

Anyway, the Star Tribune is very consistent; they publish, as aforementioned, lies, libel, and liberal nonsense on a regular, daily basis.  Much like the sun, the Star Tribune doesn’t disappoint.  Whether the point of undermining our troops, our president, our country, our values, or our security, the Star Tribune never lets down.  One of my co-workers, Bob, and I refer to them as the comics, because of the fact that they are funny.  Not in the hysterical funny way, but in the sad, terribly bad, how can they publish this stuff, hysterically terrible, funny type of way. 

Yesterday the sun rose and, of course, the Star Tribune didn’t disappoint.  Lately I have noticed them including a fair amount of either articles or letters to the editor from the ACLU.  Certainly this was not of a surprise to me and again just shows the ridiculousness of the Star Tribune. 
Yesterday they included a letter to the editor from the executive director of the ACLU of Minnesota, a man by the name of Charles Samuelson from St. Paul.  He wrote about Guantanamo Bay and how yesterday happened to be the six year “sad anniversary” of the arrival of the first prisoners at Gitmo.  After I am done writing this perhaps I will cry them a river.  According to him, the treatment of detainees at Gitmo “is a betrayal of American values and has shamed our country internationally.”  Continuing, he blasting our country (which fits into the aforementioned list of what the Star Tribune publishes on a daily basis) by saying, “Our country has held detainees, some for all six years, without granting even the most fundamental legal rights.  Most are being held without any charge, sometimes even after intelligence officials have determined they are not terrorists.”  He then goes on saying how Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell favor shutting down Gitmo and that the ACLU has set up a nationwide protest “declaring that it’s long past time that we end this nightmarish treatment and close down Guantanamo.”  I hope he, on behalf of all the ACLU protesters, at least appreciates the right to protest he has.  But the point is much bigger than this.

Obviously the Star Tribune has an agenda, something I figured out long, long ago, that they are trying to pass of to their readers, especially the ignorant ones who believe that they are objective and are truth tellers.  Speaking of such, some woman working for Al Franken’s campaign wrote an article Thursday mentioning his “truth telling” radio show.  Sure, and I can’t wait for him to be my next Congressman.  What the Star Tribune constantly fails to tell the reader is that the terrorists in Gitmo are not US citizens, thus they don’t follow under US law.  Moreover, they do not fall under the Geneva Conventions for several reasons, like no country of origin (rather a religion of origin) and no uniform.  But this would hamper the lies they are trying so desperately to pass off to the ignorant Minnesotans, and whoever else reads their waste of trees.  And all this time I thought liberals loved trees and wanted to see them last.  Boy was I mistaken. 

As far as I am concerned, the terrorists, who do not fall under our US laws or the Geneva Conventions, forfeited all “rights” when they signed up to kill as many of us as possible or at least give it a valiant effort.  Again, they have no rights.  How can these incompetent fools argue for their “rights” and how they are "violated" when they don’t exist?  I don’t argue the fact that I don’t have a Porsche in my garage because I don’t have a Porsche.  Then again, not being on the side of the truth hasn't stopped these kinds of people in the past.  You can’t lose something, or get something violated when you do not have it in the first place.  There is no reason as to why the same rights we are blessed with should also cover these cowardly murderers.  That is completely senseless.  True, this is America and we are supposed to care for everyone.  But the line has to be drawn somewhere, how about at the point of loss of life?  That sounds quite reasonable to me.  Arguing the fallacious points that we aren’t “granting [Gitmo prisoners] even the most fundamental legal rights” is completely asinine, not to mention an unfair assessment of the situation.  It is the same argument for illegal immigrants.  They don’t have the rights US citizens have because they aren't US citizens.  Duh!  It’s not that hard, believe me.

And for Charles Samuelson to charge America with betrayal, betrayal of American values and bringing shame to us internationally is without reasonable merit.  Why would our American values come at the expense of a roadside bomb maiming our own soldiers?  Note to Charles, Clinton is not our president anymore; instead, we choose to fight these savage murderers.  And is not freedom a large part of our American values?  Thus, preserving freedom would then be enhancing our values.  Besides, who cares if we bring international shame; this is not a popularity contest.  They all will hate us until they need us, because they know we are the only ones worth anything.  America does not betray itself by treating these prisoners like the scum they are.  If they killed Charles Samuelson’s family, perhaps he would change his view.  Then again, he may not, because he is much too concerned with the imaginary “rights” of some terrorists.  What about our right to be safe?  That must not be as important as the right of some Islamofascist to get a speedy trial and not to be “tortured” with loud music.  All this time of going to loud concerts, apparently it is actually torture.  Maybe the ACLU can help me sue the bands, claiming they were actually torturing me…  But why should we grant a savage Islamofascist the opportunity to waste our tax money so he can get a court date.  The only court date he needs is one with God, in which He can introduce the terrorist to the gates of hell.  Maybe he can room with others who had a taste for murder, like Hitler and Mao.  Perhaps even Dahmer as available room.  They could work out a good deal, the Islamofascist blows up 20 people then Dahmer could eat for weeks! 

Terrorists don’t have rights.  They aren’t us.  Our Constitution doesn’t extend to them, as it very well should not.  And when someone is hell-bent on killing each and every one of us, isn’t it better that they are locked up in some cell in Communist Cuba?  I don’t want them on our soil.  They don’t belong in our courts, our laws don’t apply to them, but still, somehow, some people think they do, like the ACLU and the Star Tribune.  Nice going, I’m glad they love their country so much, the only country that could give them the opportunities they take each day, and, in some way or another, dement and diminish them.  Like how Newsweek published the false story of us flushing a Koran down the toilet the Gitmo.  They were pretty much solely and largely responsible for deaths of American troops because of the reaction to the story.  And it was faked.  Of course there was no accountability, something I wish the Star Tribune had a little bit of.

But I can see two sides to this story, we can always get rid of Gitmo; we can just bomb it into non-existence.  Just take out all of our guys, leave the terrorist fascist there, and have away.  What good has Cuba done for us in the last 50+ years anyway?

The news broke a few days ago of some Iranian speed boats threatening a few of our American ships.  Of course the Iranians lied about it and so forth.  What else is new?  But this situation reminded me eerily of the USS Cole.

Back when America was much more cowardly under "the best president" we’ve ever had, Bill Clinton, the terrorists learnt a few previous times that there would be little to no retaliation for killing Americans.  There was the bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993; six people were killed, over 1000 wounded.  19 U.S. military personnel were killed and 240 Americans were wounded when a bomb aboard a fuel truck exploded outside a U.S. air force installation in Saudi Arabia in June of 1996.  August 7^th, 1998 saw U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania get bombed, about a dozen Americans killed many injured (though it didn’t compare to the 5,000 Africans wounded).  Finally, the USS Cole was bombed on October 12^th, 2000, killing 17 and wounding 39 American sailors.  But apparently the collective loss of life and even far greater number of injured Americans wasn’t enough for Clinton to take any significant action.  Then again, he was preoccupied with other affairs.  It is obvious that the terrorists knew that they could get away with whatever they did because there would be no retaliation.  So of course they continued, that is, until September 11^th when President Bush finally stood up to them.  Aside from the cowardly attacks on our troops in Iraq, there have not been any non war zone terrorist attacks since.

Another point that bears remembrance is that 15 British sailors got kidnapped by the Iranians in March of 2007 and apparently eight other British military personnel were kidnapped by the Iranians in June 2004.  Both times they accused the British sailors of illegally entering Iranian water.  Anyone who believes Ahmadinejad’s claims of “invasion” of Iranian waters is either completely uninformed, ignorant, or mentally unstable.  I can think of few less trustworthy people and few bigger liars.  Regardless, this act of war, too, was not dealt with in any way to show Iran who is in charge.  And that is the British’s fault.  I believe that if that happened to Americans, we would have shown them that they made a grave mistake.

It is the accumulation of these events, for the most part gone unchecked, that brought an uneasy feeling when hearing about what happened in the Straight of Hormuz.  On January 6^th, apparently Iranian speed boats approached three of our warships, threatening them by saying “I am coming at you.  You will explode in a couple of minutes.”  The people on the Iranian boats also supposedly dropped boxes in the water.  Reportedly the Iranian boats retreated just before we were going to open fire.  And, of course, Ahmadinejad said that the video that was of the incident was faked.  I was not on either ship, so obviously I cannot say exactly what happened.  However, thinking back to the USS Cole and what happened to the British sailors, it wouldn’t surprise me if either happened to these ships.  Granted they could’ve been blown apart instantly, but that would not have stopped the Iranians from trying. 

I have read that some sailors on the USS Cole wanted to fire at the approaching ship because they knew what it was going to do; however, the rules of engagement prohibited it.  These idiotic rules of engagement cost us 17 lives.  Nice going Clinton.   Who is to say that the boxes the Iranians were dropping in the water were not bombs?  They easily could have been and, thus, it could have been the USS Cole, Version 2.  The Iranians directly threatened the well being of the ships, saying that, not only are they pursuing, but also that the ships were going to blow up in a couple of minutes.  Luckily they did not.  But if I was on one of the ships and I saw that unfolding, I would have immediately thought of the USS Cole and how Americans were killed by some Islamofascist.  I likely would have had a hard time not blowing them to pieces, or at the very least fire some warning shots. 

For a moment, going back to the fact that these Iranians said “I am coming at you.  You will explode in a few minutes,” is like calling the cops and saying that you are going to blow up a nearby school.  Of course the police would immediately respond to the threat and, if you did not comply, would likely use deadly force because of the aforementioned situation.  Upon arrival of the police, if you also started pulling out bomb detonators or something to show the intent on blowing up the building, that too would be of more reason for them to take action.  Using this analogy, it seems that, in any domestic threat involving a similar situation, chances are very good that the potential “bomber” would be killed.  So why not these Iranians?  It certainly would not have been any “rush to judgment” or “rush to war” since we were obviously provoked and directly threatened with loss of both life and ships.

Thankfully this situation in the Straight of Hormuz was not deadly for Americans.  It’s happened before under a different, less effective administration.  But this administration made sure that, after the grand scale in which over 3000 people were savagely murdered, that it would not happen again in any like fashion.  And it didn’t happen like it previously did either.  Perhaps if those Iranian boats were blown up and those on board got to go meet their virgins, it would have sent a message to Iran to stop harassing America because we will not take it.  It is important that we keep with that message and not go back to the unresponsiveness of the Clinton era.  If the Iranian leaders are too ignorant to realize that we will retaliate when American lives get lost, perhaps they need to wake up and smell the fuse burning. 

Because of what our military is today, another USS Cole did not happen, nor did our military personnel get kidnapped.  But I will mark this threat up at USS Cole, Version 1.5.  The same thing almost happened, and I trust that the commanders on those ships accurately accessed the situation, it appears so anyway.  If history repeated itself in such a violent way as before, Iran would suffer the rightful consequences. 

It’s nothing a few thousand bombs, dropped on our plotted out strategic targets, can’t take care of.

In the Cold War, we were determined, and, thanks to Reagan, finally defeated the threat of Communism when the Soviet Union dissolved.  However, it seems that we neglected to defeat such Marxism here in our own land.  And that is the treat that is looking us square in the face this very day, and more importantly, in this very important upcoming election. 

It is frightening to hear all of the candidates with a "D" behind their name speak of what they are "promising" they will "change."  Whether or not they will follow through on such promises is another story; look at the "promises" that Pelosi and company promised after seizing our Congress.  They must be batting around the Mendoza Line, at best.  Regardless if they will or will not follow through on their Marxist speech, it should be telling enough that they are at least vocalizing such wishes.  And what is their big, albeit homogeneous, idea?  Roll back the tax cuts on the rich and pay for health care for the poor and/or children.  For a moment, never mind the fact that these people are completely ignorant of economics, and just focus strictly on the precise Communist style in which they advocate.  The basic, asinine idea of income redistribution is straight out of socialism.  Who are these people trying to please?  Marx, Lenin, and Stalin are dead; there is no need to please them.  Moreover, there is no need to carry on their legacy.  Personally, I would not want to be caught dead carrying on such legacy.  Apparently they find such a thing noble, however. 

There is no reason why we should punish the rich to favor the poor.  The simple fact is that everyone has the same opportunity, it is what a person does with the opportunity that either results in being taxed in the 30%s or having that tax money benefit himself or herself.  Of course there is often no personal accountability or self-reliance any longer, which apparently makes anyone entitled to take from anyone else, in a completely legal fashion nonetheless.  And this is what the people with the "D" behind their name love.  They want to promise "free" health care, but they rarely, if ever, tell how it is free.  I doubt the ignorant people are smart enough to realize that little in life is free.  All of the hundreds of billions upon hundreds of billions of dollars to support such a Marxist health care system has to come from somewhere.  That is where, in the true Marxist fashion, income redistribution comes in.  And, yet, hypocritically they complain how much the War on Terror is costing us.  I guess if that money was socially redistributed from the rich to the poor it would then be fine.  But may I ask, what good is “free” health care when you are dead, maimed by some Islamofascist?  That “free” Marxist healthcare won’t bring you back to life, I’m pretty sure of that anyway.

Why is this?  It is not the problem of the "rich" that the “poor” don’t have health coverage.  The “rich” made it for themselves, they did what they had to do to survive and achieve what they wanted.  So why is it that others are entitled to their money?  It is theirs and they can do much better with it than the government can.  The responsibility of the “rich” isn’t to provide no-cost health care to the “poor;” they have enough to do and enough to spend their money on, like creating new businesses which then creates new opportunities for the poor.  To advocate such income redistribution that would make Karl Marx smile should scare us all, scare us all to the point of staring fear in its socialist face and say no more.  We defeated it once and we can defeat it again.  All the Democrats are right (I suppose there is a first time for everything), we do need change.  We can start at no more socialist Marxist ideas, regardless how well they are hid behind the veil of “it’s good for the poor and the rich are evil.” 

“Change” this, “change” that.  Ironically, that’s exactly what they want; not change, rather, our change; billions upon billions of dollars of it.