Friday, April 13, 2007

Scarred for life?

Okay, I just heard that the women team members from Rutgers described themselves as "scarred for life."
 
How?  Why?  I know words hurt...I'll be the first to say it because I've been hurt by them...but scarred for life?  Are you telling me that when one of these ladies is in her 60's, she's still going to be saying to herself, "Curse that Don Imus, I can still feel the sting of his words!"
 
I don't buy that.  I've had some hateful/hurtful things said about me because of being blind/legally blind.  Was I scarred for life?  No!!  In fact, I look back and see things for what they are.  The persons who said those things to me were either immature or ignorant.  If I'm still hurt by them, it is my choice.
 
That said, if those women are "scarred for life" that's there choice, and not Imus' fault.  They choose to be hurt or scarred and Imus cannot control that. 
 
If we let others dictate our feelings or emotions that gives them the power.  If these women want to stay empowered after their NCAA success, they could try not letting Imus have the impact on them that they claim he did.
 
 

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Imus in the hot seat.

Okay, first of all, I am not a racist person.  I don't hate any minority, and in a very real sense (being blind) I am part of a minority.
 
That said, I want it understood that what I am about to say may offend some people, and maybe even surprise them, but can we shut up about Don Imus and the rather stupid remarks he made?!  He apologized, got suspended, can we please not run this into the ground, especially since, in their ever-hypocritical fashion, the media that is so viciously lambasting Imus barely blinks when Rosie O'BigMouth spouts her anti-America rhetoric. 
 
I'll be honest, there are far worse things Imus could have (and has) said.  At the same time, though, the women have the right to be offended, and I understand their reasons for being thusly offended.  I just don't want Imus raked over the coals for this remark when he's said far worse, and the media knows it.  Imus is an equal opportunity offender, and he admits it.  Everyone is fair game.  Heck, my blindness would probably get me poked fun at by the I-man, not to mention my blindingly pale skin. LOL!
 
If we're going to act as if Imus should be run out of town on a rail, could we have (at least) the courtesy to be consistent enough to want the same thing for Rosie?  That's all I'm asking.
 
 

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

The truth grows more inconvenient...

...for Al Gore.  Hmmm, heard about the NY Times piece on Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."
 
Seems like the most inconvenient truth of all is how Al Gore is exaggerating his claims to the point of hysteria.  See for yourself.  The article is titled: "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype."
 
Personally?  I think God is in control, and no one, especially Al Gore can predict how the world will end or anything like that.   If I were to venture a guess, I would bet that God is snickering at Al and the fact that the *REAL* fate of the world would (ultimately) surprise Mr. Gore.
 
 

Monday, March 12, 2007

The Big What?

Okay, putting aside my severe disagreement with Chuck Hagel over his stance on the war in Iraq, I have to comment on his press conference today.  I say
I am putting aside the disagreement for now because it doesn't even color my opinion.  His stance on Iraq has little (if anything at all) to do with the
fact that this so-called announcement was the biggest waste of logistics and time I've seen in a long while.  I wouldn't blame the press, UNO alumni (University
of Nebraska at Omaha), and numerous others for being a bit miffed at Mr. Hagel for wasting their time. 
Wouldn't an e-mail or press release have sufficed?  I know it's spring break, but couldn't the space used on the UNO campus have been used for something
more productive than a gathering in which Mr. Hagel basically says "I'm here to announce that the real announcement will come some time next year."  
It wasn't even the whole "non-announcement" aspect of this event that has me asking this.  For the most part, Mr. Hagel had the charisma of Gerald Ford
covered in a huge wet blanket.  I began to wonder if he wouldn't go stumbling away from the microphone. 
Even if he runs for president and wins, I couldn't imagine watching him deliver a state of the union address without falling asleep.  I'd have to watch
it with two triple shot espresso mochas from Starbucks. 
I'm sorry to have to say it, Mr. Hagel, but you're not presidential material.  Again, not because of your stance on the war, but because having to watch
any press briefing, speech, or whatever given by you would inevitably put me to sleep.  I'm just glad, regarding today's press conference/non-announcement,
that you weren't the Apostle Paul and that there was no one napping in a window.  

Monday, January 15, 2007

Just passing this along as a concerned UNL student. The opinion part? That's up to you. I'm just posting it for the info. Methinks, however, my use of the word "concerned" a moment ago ought to be a clue to my feelings on the matter.
Proposed budget lower than expected for UNL - News

Monday, January 08, 2007

Something to ponder about the war in Iraq.

I just got this in an e-mail.  I think the point it makes is extremely valid.
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlotte Thornsberry" <
goldengirlsvc@sbcglobal.net>
To: "lIST SERVE MBC" <
missouri-l@acb.org>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:07 AM
Subject: [missouri-l] A Point To Consider
 
A point to consider:
The other day, my nine year old son wanted to
know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at
me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be
honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband
would give him a good explanation. My husband thought for a few minutes and
then told my son to go stand in our front living room window.
 
He said "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"
 
"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.
 
"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the
United States of America and you are President Bush."
 
Our son giggled and said "OK."
 
"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every
house and yard on this bl ock is a different country" my husband said.
 
"OK Dad, I'm pretending."
 
"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you
see Saddam come out of his house with his wife, he has her by the hair and
is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face,
he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death.. Their
children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are screaming and crying,
they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and they
are afraid of their father. You see all of this, son....what do you do?"
 
"Dad?"
 
"What do you do son?"
 
"I'd call the police, Dad."
 
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations. They take your call.
They listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do
you do then son?"
 
"Dad.......... but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
 
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place
or you r place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my
husband
says.
 
"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
 
"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want
you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're
pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his
children."
 
"Daddy...he kills them?"
 
"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
 
"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next
door neighbor to help me stop him," our son says.
 
"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get
involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him,"
my husband says.
 
"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"
 
"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.
 
"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask
for help and saw that no one would help yo u stop him. He stands taller and
puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?"
 
"What Daddy?"
 
"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her
door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and
then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in the
window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"
 
"Daddy..."
 
"WHAT DO YOU DO?"
 
Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I'd close the
blinds, Daddy."
 
My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him.
"Why?"
 
"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help people who needs
them...and they won't help.... You always say that neighbors are
supposed to
HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop
him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself Daddy.....I can't look out
my window and just watch him do all these terrible things
an d...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds...
so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it
is not happening."
 
I start to cry. My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in
the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husband's
questions and he says...
 
"Son"
 
"Yes, Daddy."
 
"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door... "WHAT
DO YOU DO?"
 
My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his
tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he
says: " I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR
MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
 
I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs our son to his
chest and hugs him tight, and says... " It's too late to fight him, he's too
strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped
him BEFORE he killed his wife, and his children and the old lady across the
way. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before
its too late." my husband whispers. THAT scenario I just gave you is
WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen son,
THAT is the greatest atrocity in the world.
 
"YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO
IT
ALONE!" BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!! SUPPORT
THEM!!!
SUPPORT AMERICA SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO
CLOSE THEIR BLINDS..."
 
This should be printed in every newspaper and posted in every school in
America. Of course that won't happen so we'll use the internet. If your
blinds are closed do nothing with this email. If they are open I do
not need to tell you what to do.
 
GOD BLESS!
 
 
 

Alan Wheeler
awheeler@neb.rr.com or alan_wheeler@neb.rr.com
redwheel1 on skype
http://alan-wheeler.blogspot.com/
“Tell the people the truth and the country will be free”
  --Abraham Lincoln

 

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Sorry I kept you on hold for so long...

...and you probably think this is addressed to you, the reader.
 
Well, you'd be right...sort of.  Yes, I have kept you on hold.  For that I do genuinely apologize.  A lot has happened over the past several weeks, and rather than write about it while it's still so fresh, I wanted to take time to process it...especially the dream I put on hold...my dream of becoming a journalist.  That dream's fruition is on the distant horizon now that I've been admitted to UNL's college of journalism.  I start classes in just under a month.  That is the apology referred to in my title...I apologize to the essence of that dream for having had it on hold for so very long. 
 
I always knew the dream was there, but it seemed so fantastical, so drenched in a special kind of magic that it didn't seem possible I could make it come true.  Even as a boy, when other kids pretended to be cops, football players, or movie stars, my fantasy character of choice?  An investigative reporter.
 
So, now, the work begins.  It is going to take time.  Some would argue that it's awfully late in my life to pursue this.  I disagree.  For me, there's no better time.  I know what I want (truly know what I want) for the very first time in my life, and I am going after it.  This is no dream that rides on another's coat tails, this is a dream that belongs soley to me.  It is the dream I should have followed all along but denied even existed because (quite honestly) I was afraid to try and fail.  I'm talking about all of this (or maybe you'd call it rambling) because I am anxious, nervous, excited, and yes even a bit scared.  The University of Nebraska Lincoln is no small potato, and I hope I can live up to what being a "husker" means.  I pray for God's guidance at each and every step.
 
 

Friday, November 17, 2006

Hmmm, Freudian Liberalism,.

Okay, the subject/title is a joke of my own creation.  I came up with it because I was doing some googling to find descriptions of Freud's concept of the Id, the ego, and the super-ego.  In the process, I came across the article below.  I hope the copyright information below is sufficient.  I don't want to be in violation of such laws, and I want the author to get full credit...especially since I really like his approach here.
 
Okay, when I went to look for information about Freud's concept of the Id, the Ego, and the super-ego, this isn't what I expected to find, but it is a very fascinating read:
 
Leftists: Servants of The Id
Written by
Gabriel Garnica
Saturday, October 14, 2006
 
          I have always been fascinated by psychology despite its tendency to justify and rationalize liberal behavior and beliefs.  As a psychology major
in college, two particular notions caught my intellectual interest.  The first was Freud’s conception of the Id, Ego, and Super-ego as the triangle of
personality.  The second was Leon Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance which sought to explain how rationalization becomes reality.
 
Simplified Messages
 
          Freud’s personality triangle simply stated that our personality is composed of three parts, the Id, the Ego, and the Super-ego.  The Id represents
our base instincts, impulses, and bare emotions.  It is the core of aggression and houses the pleasure principle.
 
The Ego is the center of rational, logical reality.  It is the mediator between the physical and the spiritual.  The Super-ego, on the other hand, is the
center of conscience, spirituality and moral codes.
 
            As one of my professors put it, the Id is about what I want to do, the Ego is about what I can do and the Super-ego is about what I should do.
 
            Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance holds that people seek balance and order in their physical, emotional, and mental states and will
do whatever it takes to maintain and regain that order.  Thus if I steal and feel guilty about it, I will seek to rationalize or justify that theft in
order to relieve my mental and emotional stress and regain a state of calm in those areas.  Simply put, people will do whatever it takes to make what they
do appear acceptable, even if that means twisting reality to fit perception.
 
Leftists As Servants of The Id
 
          Anyone wishing to see leftist mentality need only look to Columbia University, where less than two weeks ago protesting punks charged the stage
to stop Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist’s speech, unfurled inflammatory banners and then gleefully jumped of the stage once they knew the entire event
had been cancelled shouting “Si se pudo, Si se pudo” which means “yes, we could.”
 
            Leftists are not about intelligent discourse or debate.  They have nothing to do with calm dialogue or reasoned discussion.  Theirs is not the
world of logic, common sense, or intellectual exchange.  Rather, as shown by this mob of animals, leftists are all about emotion, instinct, aggression,
violence, and impulse.  They derive pleasure from inflicting displeasure, satisfaction from creating dissatisfaction and purpose from instilling disorder.
 
            Those seeking a reason for why leftists act this way need only realize that their smoke is merely concealing the fact that their points, issues,
causes and methods have been repeatedly proven asinine, imbecilic and overblown.  Their crusades have been repeatedly shown to be smokescreens for a darker,
more complex inner agenda.
 
At the end of the day, leftists are all about bells and whistles concealing smoke and mirrors.
 
            Given the empty, shallow, and hollow nature of their issues, causes, methods, and beliefs, liberals are forced to make scenes to both gain attention
and distract others from just how thin their rationales are.  Taken in this light, one realizes that leftists are like the guy who starts a fire in the
barn to conceal the fact that barn was not well kept.
 
Having already sold themselves to the Id, liberals quickly become servants to its promises of prompt, undeserved satisfaction.  Once addicted the Id’s short-term
pleasure principle, leftists cannot free themselves to think about the long-term impact of their actions and beliefs.  In the Columbia episode, the protesting
punks were surprised to discover that many people frowned upon their arrogant display of disrespect.  They had ignored the real, long-term implications
and perceptions of their deed while bowing to its short-term message.  The protesting illegal immigrants who stomped on the American flag were the epitome
of impulsive behavior devoid of intellect.
 
This impulsive, arrogant and stubborn emotionality on the part of leftists, this bare reflection of genuine leftist thinking, is too much for the average
American to take, not to mention a horrible election tactic.  Thus we see that liberals spend half their time disrespecting this country and the other
half seeking ways to conceal that disrespect.
 
Slaves of Cognitive Dissonance
 
            If leftists are servants of the Id, they are also prone to become slaves of cognitive dissonance.  Once you project to the world a particular
instinctual, impulsive and emotional state, you better do something to paint that approach and perception as normal, rational and acceptable.  In comes
cognitive dissonance theory telling us that people will distort their perception of reality to carve a reality consistent with their agenda and beliefs.
 
            Thus we see mindless protests defending illegal immigration rationalized into protests defending all immigrants, a public education establishment
trying to justify its obvious liberal bias under the guise of tolerance, respect and social compassion.
 
            Nowhere is this more visible than in the abortion issue.  First, liberals and feminists tell us that the only thing that matters is what women
want and that it is their body involved and nobody should violate that.  Confronted with evidence harmful to their claims, pro-aborts then speak of the
unborn as if they were removable waste and certainly not human.  Realizing the possible public outcry against speaking of the unborn in this way, leftists
have taken to euphemisms and flowery words to conceal the blood on their hands.
 
            The past decades of Democratic dissolution from a party of noble causes to its present state as a rag-tag bunch of interests and agendas perfectly
illustrates how Democrats progressively or, should we say, digressively, boil in the soup of their own moral absurdity waiting for the next pack of fools
ready to buy the empty platitudes and promises they sell.
 
Holders of The Ego and Soldiers of The Super-ego
 
            If liberals have title rights to the Id, then where do conservatives reside?  It turns out that political conservatives call the Ego their home
and the Religious Right hangs its hat in the Super-ego.  Unlike leftists, conservatives enjoy and respect debate, discourse and the intelligent exchange
of ideas.  They get their points across by calm discussion and interaction, not by jumping stages like crazed zombies seeking new victims.
 
            The Super-ego is home to the Religious Right, which favors its conscience and moral codes.  Regardless of religious affiliation, conservatives
enjoy a society where faith, spirituality and tradition are highly valued and respected.
 
Conclusion
 
            The student ambush of speakers at Columbia University should not shock or even surprise anyone versed in where such leftists come from, namely
the Id, with its focus on emotion, impulse and aggressive.  Intelligent debate, dialogue and discussion, the cornerstones of a good education, are not
even in the vocabulary of leftist thugs like those who rushed that stage.
 
            The fact that the protesting aggressors could even dare to justify the nature of their actions combined with their imbecilic perceptions of
what transpired that day in that place is a classic serving of cognitive dissonance.  Faced with the possibility that you acted like an animal, you turn
around and express shock at such claims.  Accused of inciting misbehavior and embarrassing displays of arrogant, ignorant aggression., you turn around
and claim that your invading group was victimized by a much smaller band.
 
            Nowhere is this classic two-way skill of liberals more on display than with regard to the Clintons.  It is an accepted fact that Hillary and
especially Bill Clinton act on impulse and emotion via her mouth and his zipper.  Once they have done so, these two often proceed to twist reality, history
and public discussion to suit their agenda.  This is the reason that Bill and Hill can, with a straight face, proclaim his administration a great one and
its accomplishments, good or bad, as being all positive, watershed moments for mankind.  Despite the reality of a failed Clinton North Korea agreement,
for example, the Clintons pretend that the agreement was great and blame everything on Bush now.
 
            Once we accept that leftists live in the Id and spend their waking hours rationalizing away their foibles and failures, there is very little
that they can come up with which will surprise us.  The greatest irony may well be that precisely these leftist imbeciles who proclaim the loudest about
choice and personal morality are the ones most enslaved by the chains of the Id and the eternal battle to rationalize their mess with their image.
 
            At the end of the day, one might say that leftists are all about being below the belt, with their impulses coming from the front and the justifications
for those impulses coming from the back.
 
About the Writer: Gabriel Garnica, Esq., is an educator, licensed attorney, and resident of Long Island, New York. As a conservative Latino college professor
working in New York City, Mr. Garnica feels that his picture is found in the dictionary under the term "exception." He can be contacted at
gbgmyarticles@yahoo.com.
 
Copyright © 2006
ChronWatch.
All rights reserved.
Questions?
images/email_icon
Contact us today
!
 
 

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Blind leading the blind?

Okay, I'm stepping aside from politics (for once).  I want to talk about a young man who was on Oprah Winfrey's show.  Ben Underwood was on her show to demonstrate a form of orientation and mobility for blind people known as "echo location."
 
The problem I have with this form of navigation is that, if used without a white cane, it has a potential to be dangerous.  Mr. Underwood expressed a dislike of using a white cane that I cannot fathom.
 
I realize that, for some people,  it's a source of wounded pride to admit to being blind.  For most blind people, the white cane is a sort of badge saying "I am a person who happens to be blind."  For others, however, such as Mr. Underwood, carrying the cane might as well be a stigma against him...a not-so-scarlet letter, if you will.  After all, to a lot of people Mr. Underwood's age, carrying a white cane isn't very cool.  It certainly doesn't get you into the "in" crowd.
 
As I may have stated before, or at least in my profile, I belong to the National Federation of the Blind, and subsequently, to the Nebraska affiliate of the NFB student division.  This has exposed me, obviously, to young people (I'm a sort of young 41) who see carrying a cane as both necessary and important.  To them traveling safely, confidently, and independently is more important than finding the "in" crowd.  Not that they don't have a desire to be a part of that crowd, but they won't compromise using their white cane to get there.  To them, their white cane is literally a part of them.  To them, the white cane is an indespensible tool of independence.
 
I am not knocking echo location.  It is a valuable tool for any blind person who wants to move about a city independently.  That said, however, I do not think that echo location ought to be the sole means by which someone gets around.  In conjunction with a white cane and other skills, a person can move fluidly around any city or town they wish...assuming they have proper training in the use of a white cane.  Without a cane, there are things a person may miss such as stairwells, manholes, and other potential hazards that could cause injuries of varying severity. Personally?  I'd rather have a cane in hand and find these things than rely solely on sound cues and miss something that could be, literally, right under my nose.
 
I hope that, some day, Mr. Underwood discovers a desire to use a cane as well as echo location.  Until then, in all bluntness, I fear for his safety.
 
 
 
 

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Let Freedom Ring!

Today is a very significant day for me on a number of levels.  Any election day is significant because of the impact that I (as an individual voter) can have.  Today, however, was even more significant because for the first time since losing my usable vision, I voted totally free of any major assistance to mark my ballot!  Thanks to the work of the National Federation of the Blind (www.nfb.org) I (and other blind voters) had access to voting independently thanks to an electronic voting machine that allowed us to mark our ballots for ourselves.  It was a feeling of freedom unlike any I can describe.
 
When I say this, I mean no ill will towards anyone who has helped me or another blind person vote.  It's just that, for us as human beings, there is nothing like taking that definitive action of marking the ballots for ourselves, and we may not even realize just how deep that feeling runs until we've done it...until we've used these voting machines and done the actual deed.
 
As the song used for the theme for Sean Hannity's show says, "Today is independence day!"
 
 
 

Alan Wheeler
awheeler@neb.rr.com or alan_wheeler@neb.rr.com
redwheel1 on skype
http://alan-wheeler.blogspot.com/
“Tell the people the truth and the country will be free”
  --Abraham Lincoln

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Ironic.

Did some research on the church in Kansas.  Ironically, the pastor (though he ought to be stripped of that title) fixates on the verse that says "Your sin shall find you out."
 
Here's a major expose of the man and his family.  God has moved me from anger to shock and compassion...and a need to pray for the Fred Phelps's of the world and their victims.
 
 
 
 

Alan Wheeler
awheeler@neb.rr.com or alan_wheeler@neb.rr.com
redwheel1 on skype
http://alan-wheeler.blogspot.com/
“Tell the people the truth and the country will be free”
  --Abraham Lincoln

 

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Sick sick sick!

Don't let the title fool you, I am not going to rail about the Foley scandal. 
 
I am not going to talk about the creepy gunman in Pennsylvania who shot a bunch of girls...not directly anyway.
 
I just heard on Hannity & Colmes this interview with a woman from this church that has protested at the funerals of American soldiers in Iraq, and wanted to (but gave up the idea) protest at the funeral of those very girls killed in Pennsylvania.  Why?  Because they (meaning these girls) brought this shooting on themselves by not being obedient to God!
 
You'll be relieved to know (I hope) that I don't share this view.  I don't believe in an angry God who sits on His throne waiting to drop the hammer on the disobedient. I don't believe in a God that appears to show no mercy, no compassion, and no grace.
 
This woman appears to believe in a vengeful, angry God who would smite the disobedient.  Sadly, for someone who claims to believe in Jesus, she strikes me as someone who is very much like the very people Christ took on in His day for their legalistic and simultaneously corrupt way of approaching believing in God...the Pharisees.
 
Yet, the belief system she (and her "church" believes in leaves out God's life-changing, awesome, inexplicable grace in that He sent His son, Jesus, to die for all of us, whether we deserved it or not.  He knew we could never earn redemption, so He gave us His son as the ultimate sacrifice.  If we fall, God forgives us...he doesn't smite us for being weak and sinful by nature.  No father in his right mind, upon seeing their child fall and become injured is going to say, "How dare you allow this to happen!  Now I have to punish you!"
 
Rather, the opposite happens.  The father takes the child up, tenderly, in his arms and makes sure they get the care and healing they need. 
 
I once heard a story, and I hope it isn't copyrighted because I am about to paraphrase it.  If so, my apologies to Greg Laury. 
 
There once was a well-known judge.  He was known for handing down the toughest sentences to the criminals in his courtroom.  He would routinely give the maximum sentence at any trial he sat in on.
 
Then, one day, the judge's son is in court before his father for some of the vilest, most horrific heinous crimes imaginable.
 
As the judge prepares to render his sentence, the courtroom is silent as everyone breathlessly awaits the sentence he will hand down on his own son.  "Will he be as tough?" they wonder.
 
Then the judge looks at his son and calmly but firmly says, "It is obvious to this court that you are guilty of the crimes you have been charged with.  So, I have no choice but to give you the maximum sentence...to apply the maximum penalty."
 
It is at this moment, however that the judge's look turns tender as he stands, walks down from his bench, and around to his son.  Facing his son, the judge continues, "However, you are my son, and I do love you.  Because I do love you so much, I will serve your sentence in your place.  I will take all the penalties and punishments upon myself."
 
That is a picture of God's love for us.  Since Jesus is God (being part of the Trinity), it can be said that God suffered the penalty for us that we should have paid.
 
Hopefully, the people in this pharisaical, legalistic church will wake up and comprehend God's endless mercy and grace.  All I can do is pray for people who have such anger burning in their hearts that all they can imagine is an angry God.
 
Lord, forgive us, we *STILL* don't know what we're doing.  Amen!   
 
 

Alan Wheeler
awheeler@neb.rr.com or alan_wheeler@neb.rr.com
redwheel1 on skype
http://alan-wheeler.blogspot.com/
“Tell the people the truth and the country will be free”
  --Abraham Lincoln

 

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

A very "liberal" idea for President Bush.

I know some of you are going to think I've lost my mind, especially considering how hard I've been on you liberals of late.  
As I watched President's address to the nation last evening, I had an idea that I believe would help Mr. President's sagging credibility, and could help
to unite the country, and the irony is the idea came from a liberal...a president of the US, but a liberal nonetheless.  Here's my idea: 
Any of you old enough will remember FDR's old fireside chats. 
For those of you too young to remember, or those old enough to want to warp back in time, here's an explanation of what the fireside chats were:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireside_Chats  
The thing I find interesting, and this is where I get back to riding hard the liberals of today (yes, you
www.moveon.org 
 types, I'm talking to you).  While FDR was a liberal, he wasn't afraid to take on Hitler and the Nazis and our other enemies in WWII.  You liberals of
today could learn something from FDR.  I think that it's the current democratic party's shift so far left that now FDR may be too far right for them that
caused me to leave the democrats.   
For some history on FDR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt  
Why do I think these "fireside chats" would help Bush?  Because, as with FDR, he could rally the country behind him and help them understand better the
war we find ourselves in.  He could talk plainly and calmly to the nation about the things he is doing.  Now I believe this would have to be different
from his weekly saturday address (the ones presidents have done for I don't know how long now) in the tone and message (at least to a degree).  The fireside
chat was just that...a "chat" with the nation.  It would be done as if Bush were talking one on one with each and every American. 
I know that FDR had some advantages that Bush doesn't have (as in radio being the only medium, and as the article linked to above points out, people could
hear the address from a neighbor's open window), but Bush has several things FDR never had...IPod's, Cable TV, the Internet, cell phones, etc.  I really
think in this technological age a genuine "fireside chat" in the FDR tradition could gover over well today.  That, however, is just my opinion

Monday, September 11, 2006

Ah, dem arrogant types...and their most arrogant leader...


...Hmmm, so Howard Dean knows so much more about how things are in Afghanistan than anyone else that, on
Fox News Sunday he has the balls to claim that Secretary Of State Rice is *WRONG* about how things are going there?! I didn't know, Mr. Dean, that you knew more about her job than she does.

I think, Mr. Dean, the truth is you have the same grasp on the subtleties of the war on terror that a 1 year old has on the laws of physics! So, to hide your lack of knowledge and ineptitude, you act like a blowhard and open your mouth when you ought to, in reality, take a cue from the 80's band the Go Go's and say "my lips are sealed."

Just be quiet and let Bush, and Secretary Rice and all the others do their job.

Frankly? Your attitude on FNS was a disgrace.

Friday, September 08, 2006

The 9/11 Problem

Okay, don’t let the title wrankle your nose…don’t bombard me with nasty notes and comments saying that I’m trying to stir trouble. This is not a forum in which I am going to politicize 9/11 in any way, shape, or form.

What I do want to do is try to explain an understanding I reached the other night. It’s an understanding of why some people (you know who you are, liberal democrats) don’t understand the connections between 9/11, the war in Iraq, and the war on terror. It’s also an understanding that not only liberal democrats have this problem, but so do conservative republicans (at least some of them) and any person, for that matter, in their right (correct) mind.

The problem as I see it is this: no one wants to begin to think that we could have ever been attacked on our own soil. All the suicide bombers, car bombs, etc. happened on “that” side of the world (meaning the Middle East) and certainly couldn’t ever (and wouldn’t ever) happen on our own shores, or so we all thought before 9/11.

So, 9/11 happens; the towers fall, the Pentagon is severely damaged, and we lose civilians in flight 93 in a field in Pennsylvania. It is so appalling so heinous that we can’t wrap our brains around it. Yet, in light of the worst, most violent event on American soil, we still cannot fathom it. “How did this happen?” we ask God, ourselves, and others. “Who is so vile, despicable, so thoroughly and completely evil that they would want to do this?” We know, intellectually, that it is the Islamic terrorists, the neo-fascists who are out to destroy our way of life, and yet, what we don’t know is just why, just what it is that makes them so evil that they would want to do this.

Part of the problem is we don’t want to know. Our culture, which ironically can watch horrific images in movies they simply call “scary”, don’t want to see the horrific realities of the world…a world torn apart by people evil to the core, people bent on our destruction, and the annihilation of Israel.

I admit that even I, nearly five years later, have trouble believing what happened that horrible day in September. It took me a long time, too long frankly, to understand that the people who did this, right on up to Osama bin Laden himself, aren’t going to give up, back down, and change their minds about the objective of obliterating America and the American way of life. It took me nearly five years to comprehend that these people need to be stopped. Not with diplomacy, not with negotiations and sanctions, but strong, bold, courageous military might. No, it isn’t a pleasant thought, especially to someone (such as myself) who fancied himself a hippie born way too late, to think that war is so drastically necessary, but it is drastically necessary.

We need to, as a nation, wake up and realize that:
*We have enemies on our own soil as well as middle eastern soil. Enemies whose sole objective is our collective death. These people would gladly strap a bomb to themselves just as their brothers in the cause in the middle east do, and they live in states like California, Washington state, and not places like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. They are on OUR soil.
*They will never give up, back down, be negotiated with or whatever. We must step up to the plate and be ready to fight, even if it means going on the offensive. *Remember, to them, our deaths at their hands means glory in heaven for them. Fools have died for much less.
*Because they won’t stop, we can never lull ourselves into thinking that another 9/11 type of attack is not in the works, because it is. The foiled London terrorist plot is proof of that.
*While very valid analogies have been made to Lenin and Hitler, we face a foe much worse in ways. It isn’t just Jews they want to utterly destroy, but we “infidel” Americans as well.

As I write this, my heart breaks. In so many ways, 9/11 was the loss of American innocence, and for me, it was the slow shattering of my rose colored glasses. As long as the Islamic Fascists, the Al Qaeda’s and Bin Laden’s of the world, the Ahmadinejad’s who want nothing more than to destroy us completely, to wipe us out of existence are allowed to walk freely, we will never be safe…ever.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

What are the clinton people/liberals afraid of?

When you were a kid, did you ever do something wrong, you knew you'd be in trouble, and you did whatever you could/whatever it took to get rid of any evidence (no matter how weak and tenuous) against you?

Well, it would seem that President Clinton, some of his administration, and his liberal cronies are trying (yet again) to cover something up. What? Of all things...a TV miniseries.

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk-channel7sep07,0,6155461.story?coll=cl-tv-features

Why? Who knows? What is Clinton, Berger, et al so afraid of? Is Clinton's legacy as president so shaky, vulnerable, and at risk with this film that they have to block it? Or is it that he screwed up that badly in not going after Osama and he knows it, is ashamed of it, and doesn't want to be humiliated on the world stage?

The other big question is this: is ABC going to actually bow to their pressure and change the film so the truth is inaccurately portrayed to an even lesser degree?

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/9367b3cd-be2a-40a3-b927-1854a0115108

Rush Limbaugh validly points out that President Bush (the current) doesn't raise this kind of stink with negative portrayals of him in the media. He doesn't deem it worth his time.

Clinton, by contrast, is so worried about his image (with or without the cigar and the intern in the cocktail dress) that he is moving to block this miniseries....a *TV SHOW* from airing! I think it speaks volumes about the stark differences between the two men in terms of the level of integrity.

If Clinton really thought he was a good president, and wouldn't be in trouble (somehow) over what this film depicts, he wouldn't be trying to bury it. What he is doing has the same effect as what I tried to do as a kid to hide the fact that I didn't clean my room...I just shoved everything either under the bed or into my closet. Maybe Rush is right, maybe Sandy Berger ought to go steal it for Clinton, and maybe Clinton could take a cue from me and find a bed to hide it under, or a closet to hide it in.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Okay, I am really really steamed! I know it's been a while since I posted, and I apologize for coming back in full rant, but this is unbelievable!

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Iran_s_Ahmadinejad_to_attend_UN_ass_09022006.html

Why are we even allowing Ahmadinejad on to our soil?? Isn't enough that
we let
Ex-Iranian president Mohammad Khatami speak in Illinois? What are we thinking?

We never invited Hitler or Moussolini to speak at the UN, so why the former and present Iranian presidents? Have we as a nation truly lost our collective mind?

Farmers don't encourage visits by foxes into the hen house...the crips don't invite the bloods to their "hood" to sit and talk...bankers don't take known armed robbers to lunch. Isn't that exactly what the UN/US is doing with Ahmadinejad and Khatami?

I suppose it will take our country being run roughshod by our enemies before we wake up and go "Oh, yeah, these guys? In our country? Ah, er, uh, not a good idea!"

Come on! Don't let it take another 9/11 before you wake up and realize that having the enemy in your back yard is not the better part of wisdom! Wake up and smell the coffee! These people don't want debate...these people don't want negotiations...these people want our annihilation, and the complete destruction of Israel. Can we please keep the Khatamis and Ahmadinejads of the world off of our shores? Please?

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Let me clarify something for you liberal readers out there.

When I talk about positively supporting the president, I am not saying I support every single thing he does to the letter.

That said, however, I do believe that the war on terror is one thing that we Americans (liberal or conservative, democrat or republican) ought to get firmly behind him on. Why?

Because we need to show the radical, islamic fascists that we, as a country are united against them, and that we won't back down.

I won't rehash my comments about how we cannot negotiate with these terrorists. I brought this up because of a comment I received that implied I am blindly following Bush without seeing the wrong or bad side of him.

I get the impression that a lot of liberals (notice I didn't say "all liberals") try to paint us conservatives with broad strokes and want to think we're blind little sheep, just following our leaders into some kind of oblivion.

This is ironic coming from the same faction that back stabs anyone who doesn't buy off on every jot and tittle of their rhetoric...need I say Joe Lieberman? He supports Bush on the war on terror and the liberals all of a sudden treat him like he has the plague. Just some food for thought. Granted, I get the impression that the poster of the comment was from Europe, and may not understand the Joe Lieberman comment, but I think if he's reading enough American papers, he will.
We interrupt my political rants...
...to bring you some news about me, personally. LOL!

Part of the purpose of this blog is keeping my typing and writing skills up to snuff. In case I haven't said it, or if you just now started reading this blog, I've had aspirations, off and on throughout my life, to be a writer, and now (as mentioned in previous entries) I am pursuing something exciting...a bachelors degree to become a journalist. Yeah, some of you think that I'm crazy for doing this at my age, but why not now? That's my thought.

So, starting in the spring, Lord willing, I'll be starting at UNL and winding up at their college of journalism. As time goes on I'll update y'all, and believe me, when I'm actually in the thick of it, I'll most likely have quite a bit to say.

If you want to check out the place I'll be attending school (specifically my journalism courses) here's a link.

http://journalism.unl.edu/