Screw the ACLU! or Should You Take Responsibility For Your Outgoing Email?

It starts innocently enough. You make an acquaintance and exchange email addresses. What fun to keep in touch! After sending the obligatory "test" message, you anxiously check your inbox, waiting to be regaled with witty repartee on a daily basis.

Suddenly your inbox spews forth a message promising a free Applebee's gift card simply by forwarding to 8 friends.

You then find yourself wondering, would it be easier to switch email addresses or just never open Outlook again?

Given the high profile of the aforementioned email, I always thought that at some point, someone would decide, "Not one more inbox shall be darkened by this empty promise."

I picture those someones hitting their delete button thinking, "It ends here."

Maybe I expect too much from people.

I expect that from the people who send me God's Blessings three times a day and Prayer Wheels for the troops would refrain from using their email irresponsibly.

Again, maybe I expect too much.

I do not fully understand the reason why certain people feel no personal responsibility for what they send on to their email network.

And so, in my inbox this week, I received the email about the ACLU objecting to Marines Praying.

As I do when I receive these emails, I surfed over to snopes, found the truth of the matter and sent the link back to the sender.

I did not get a response back from the sender.

I expected to be removed from their network.

I wasn't.

Again, maybe I expect too much.

My first real memory of the ACLU was watching Michael Douglas play President Andrew Shepherd in The American President. He defended his ACLU membership by saying, "For the record: yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the Constitution?" (imdb)

The American President went on to be one of my most favorite movies of all time and I have watched it 700 times.

The ACLU on the other hand, I never gave much more thought, until I started getting these evil ACLU emails. And there are quite a few of them out there. Punching in "ACLU" in at snopes yielded 13 links. The "urban legends" that snopes has cataloged on the ACLU are overwhelmingly negative and more often than not proven to be false.

Now, I can understand why people hate the ACLU. Any organization that is dedicated to preserving the principles this country was founded on gets a frowny face emoticon from me.

Why would we care about things like Amendment XIX which states: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Or Amendment IV which states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Or Amendment II which states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To you NRA members........want to keep your AK-47 for hunting and personal protection? Guess who will defend that right against those evil liberals who want to take your rights away?

DING DING DING.....the ACLU!

Which brings me to my favorite, Amendment I, which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I can totally see why people hate this organization. I don't know of anyone who actually exercises these rights and would ever need the services of the ACLU. Do you?

Another one of my favorite lines from The American President is when Sydney Ellen Wade played by Annette Bening busts out with, "How do you have patience for people who claim they love America, but clearly can't stand Americans?" (imdb)

So why do these America lovers that hate Americans feel the need to spew forth propaganda via email that they would never utter in a verbal conversation?

I have two explanations for this.

1. Sender of offensive and false email does not know the validity of said email but figures that the person that sent it to sender is of repute and certainly they wouldn't spread lies.
2. Sender of offensive email is aware that the email is false but they send it on anyway because they know that the people they are sending it to do not know better and will not bother to look up the facts before sending it out to every contact in their book.

Either way, email user, you are looking like a fool. How does it feel?

Consider this your intervention. Put down that mouse, I am here to start the healing. But I will not hug you. I do not buy into the I'm ok, you're ok crap. Out of the two of us, I am the one who is ok.

In order to raise your email IQ to an acceptable level, it takes only one rule to follow.

1. Check all questionable emails for accuracy and truth whether you plan to send it on or not.

Not only will this increase your level of knowledge and make you much more fun to talk to but when you find one that is false, you can send the proof back to the person who sent it to you in the first place. My best practice is to hit "reply all" if the sender hasn't figured out how to "Bcc:" and hide everyone that got the email originally. It is fun and educational for all!

So the next time you get the Andy Rooney, Barack Obama, or the Congress/Taxes email, remember, only you have the power to say "It ends here."

I Watched Both the Democratic & Republican Debates.....Why Didn't You?

Hitler detailed his master plan quite explicitly in Mein Kampf. The few people that read it never imagined he would actually be able to put his plan into action. It is for that reason I watched ten of the whitest men I have ever seen on one stage compare themselves to Reagan. You never know when a politician will actually do what they say they will do.

I will admit, I watch MSNBC. I feel guilty about it. It must be the same for the 40% of people that shop at Wal-Mart and feel guilty about it. I love Keith Olbermann though. I like to watch Tucker Carlson be an idiot (he called the Democratic plan to bring the troops home from Iraq "toothless"), Chris Matthews pretend to be a liberal, and Joe Scarborough call his pundits by their first and last name.

So imagine my joy when the first debates were on MSNBC. Finally, guilt free for three hours!

And of course, when you experience anything that is guilt free, I am now more terrified than ever. Mostly over the fact that the GOP candidates are more concerned with dealing with Iran while ignoring the domestic issues because, we have to cut taxes and build defense!

Do you know why Democrats always have to raise taxes? Because Republicans were out using the credit card. (This perspective was brought to you by my Dad.)

One of my biggest complaints about modern politics is that the GOP has convinced this country that the biggest issues facing the United States as we plow ahead into the 21st century is abortion and gay rights. And this from the party that thinks smaller government is better government. I do not solely blame this on the GOP though, the bigger share of blame belongs squarely on the shoulders of my fellow Americans. 51% of you are drinking the Kool-Aid.

Put down the Kool-Aid and read what you missed........

Let's start with the GOP and abortion. This was the most disturbing exchange.

Starting with you, Governor, would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America.
Romney: Absolutely.
Moderator: Senator?
Brownback (?): It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.
Moderator: Governor?
Gilmore (?): Yes, it was wrongly decided.
Moderator: Governor?
Huckabee (?): Most certainly.
Moderator: Congressman?
Hunter (?): Yes.
Moderator: Governor?
(Unknown): Yes.
Moderator: Senator?
A repeal.
Mayor?
Giuliani: It would be OK.....(I took out the Giuliani exchange here, tune to any 24 hour news network, they have it on a three minute loop)
......Moderator: Congressman?
Tancredo (?): After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, I would say that that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that, in fact, is overturned. MSNBC

THE GREATEST DAY IN THIS COUNTRY'S HISTORY??????????????????????????

Are you kidding me?

Better than the day when the last American soldier finally makes it home from Iraq?
Better than the day when every single American has health coverage?
Better than the day when every single American has a roof over their head and food on their plate?
Better than the day every single child in American graduates from High School?
Better than the day unemployment is at 0.0%?

Can you honestly tell me that the day Roe v. Wade was overturned would be better than all of those days?

If you can, please email me at englishdeb@hotmail.com. I would love to hear from you.

Moving on to the real issue at hand:

Moderator: Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?
Romney: You have got to be kidding.
Moderator: No, I'm not. His wife's running, haven't you heard?
Romney: The only thing I can think of that'd be as bad as that would be to have the gang of three running the war on terror: Pelosi, Reid and Hillary Clinton.So I have to be honest with you, I think it'd be an awful thing for a lot of reasons. MSNBC

These must be a few reasons that Mitt was thinking about when he spewed forth his verbal diarrhea:

• In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion, a record dollar high. In 1999, we had a budget surplus of $124 billion -- the largest dollar surplus on record (even after adjusting for inflation) and the largest as a share of our economy since 1951. With the President's plan, we are now on track to eliminate the nation's publicly held debt by 2015.
• More than 20 Million New Jobs -- more than 92 percent (18.5 million) of the new jobs have been created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years. This is the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. Under President Clinton, the economy has added an average of 244,000 jobs per month, the highest of any President on record. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.
• Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Two Decades -- Since 1993, real wages have grown 6.5 percent - compared to declining 4.3 percent during the previous two administrations. In 1998, real wages were up 2.7 percent -- that's the fastest annual real wage growth in over 20 years.
• Unemployment Is the Lowest in 29 Years -- down from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4.1 percent today -- staying below 5 percent for 29 months in a row.
• Highest Homeownership Rate in History -- In the third quarter 1999, the homeownership rate was 67.0 -- the highest ever recorded. PBS

And here we are, the better part of a decade later.

16 Million American families (two adults, two children) are living on less than $9,903 per year, which is at a 32 year high. (USA Today)

Our national debt is almost 9 trillion dollars. (US Treasury)

And so on.......

Yup, I can't think of anything else worse than Bill being back either Mitt.

From the other side, the support that I threw behind Dennis Kucinich a few months ago was reaffirmed by this exchange.

Williams: Congressman Kucinich, you were anti-war before the anti-war position started surging in the polls. The question is, why don't you think you have more traction politically in the United States?
Kucinich: I think tonight's debate is going to help change that, Brian, because I think when people understand not only that I opposed the war from the start, but I opposed the idea of using war as a matter of policy. I don't think it reflects America's greatness, and I also think that this process -- this isn't "American Idol" here. We're choosing a president. And we have to look at the audition that occurred that in 2003, when my good friends were called upon to make a decision and then made the wrong decision. Apologies aren't enough, because we've had 3,333 Americans die. Perhaps as many as over 650,000 innocent Iraqis die. People are looking for a president who has the wisdom to make the right choices about America's security and who also has the integrity to be able to take a stand that may be unpopular. And so, I think that when people see that this campaign comes from a place of the heart and wants to reconnect with the world, I think they'll be ready to support it. (MSNBC)

And while I do not share his optimism, he is still my candidate of choice. His best line of the night was:

"Furthermore, I don't think that it's sufficient to say that if we had the information at the beginning that we would have voted differently. That information was available to everyone. And, if you made the wrong choice, we're auditioning here for president of the United States. People have to see who had the judgment and the wisdom not to go to war in the first place, and I made the choice not to go to war." (MSNBC)

It was the perfect jab to Hillary's "I take responsibility for my vote. Obviously, I did as good a job I could at the time. It was a sincere vote based on the information available to me." (MSNBC)

The biggest complaint about the debate was the mainline candidates got the majority of mic time. I would have like to have heard more from Mr. Gravel. I was unaware that he was in the running and enjoyed the passion he brought to the debate. He has a unique plan for getting us out of Iraq:

Well, first off, understand that this war was lost the day that George Bush invaded Iraq on a fraudulent basis. Understand that. Now with respect to what's going on in the Congress, I'm really embarrassed.
So we passed -- and the media's in a frenzy right today with what has been passed. What has been passed? George Bush communicated over a year ago that he would not get out of Iraq until he left office. Do we not believe him?
We need to find another way. I really would like to sit down with Pelosi and with Reid, and I would hope the other senators would focus on, how do you get out? You pass the law, not a resolution, a law making it a felony to stay there. And I'll give you the text of it.
And if you're worried about filibuster, here's what you do tactically. They can pass it in the House. We've got the votes there.
We've got the votes there.
In the Senate, let them filibuster it. And let Reid call up every -- at 12:00 every day to have a cloture vote. And let the American people see clearly who's keeping the war going and who's not. And that's just the beginning of the tactic, if they're tough enough to do it. (MSNBC)

What I find even funnier is that on Hardball last night, one of the pundits said that the way the Democrats can get their Iraq funding bill through was to take these very same steps. I doubt they will.

When Hillary, Obama, and the rest of 'em were asked how many supported Kucinich's bill to impeach Dick Cheney, not one of them raised their hands.

So these candidates, who screamed and hollered that they would get us out of Iraq and hold this administration accountable aren't doing what they said they would do, nor does it appear they are even willing to support the steps that some candidates are willing to take.

What a surprise.

Like I said, you never know when they will actually do what they say they will do.

http://kucinich.us/

How Old Are You?: A perfectly rational question or a level of rudeness that can only be expected from liberals?

Facts. You can use them to prove anything.
--Homer Simpson

Some people would say the biggest news story of 2006 that was ignored by the liberal media was the fact that Barack Obama smokes cigarettes.

Some people would say the biggest news story of 2006 that was ignored by the liberal media was the report that stated Iraqi casualties of this war could be as high as 600,000.

Some people would say that biggest news story of 2006 that was ignored by the liberal media was the fact that the US Military did not count deaths from bombs, rocket and mortar attacks in their official death count from Iraq.

I, of course, would like to go in a different direction with my most glossed over story of 2006.

It begins with a question. A question that when you ask your Mom, she glares at you. A question that when you ask a 2 year old, you get a show of fingers.

The question is: How old are you?

Just for funsies, let's ask the Grand Canyon.

Grand Canyon, how old are you?

Speaking on behalf of Grand Canyons everywhere, the National Park Service will promptly answer, "No comment."

Hmmm, perhaps my Mom is at the helm of the NPS.

Or, another logical conclusion is that the NPS "In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology." PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch

So why is geology going the way of stem cell research?

Because of commerce and the right-wing of this country of course!

Currently for sale in the Grand Canyon gift shoppe is a novel by Tom Vail called Grand Canyon: A Different View.

The novel claims that the Grand Canyon developed on a biblical time scale as opposed to Satan's evolutionary time scale.

Shockingly enough, there are a few people who can still think for themselves and think that this book of religious fiction has no place in a National Park. Park Superintendent Joe Alston tried to have the book blocked but was denied. The NPS Chief of Communications David Barna assured him there would be a "high-level" review in order to quash any further outrage.

That was back in August of 2003.

No such review has taken place.

Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book. (PEER)

Is it any wonder that US children are being left behind when it comes to science?