December 7, 1941; a day that will live in infamy.
I just listened to a recording of FDR announcing to the country that the U.S. had been attacked the previous day and declaring war on the Japanese Empire. First and foremost, we must always remember those who served, defended and died that day. We must always be grateful for them and their sacrifice, not only those who served and died on December 7, 1941, but those who served, defended, and died throughout WWII, and everyone who has served, defended, and died since then.
ALWAYS REMEMBER. ALWAYS BE GRATEFUL.
What struck me while I was listening to that recording of FDR is the resolve with which the United States undertook the war and the tasks at hand. There were NO half measures. We did what was necessary to win the war.
Contrast that with what is going on now with the war in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama had to make a half-measured compromise with Gen. McChrystal's request for troops in order to appease the far left liberals and their cacophony calling for the immediate withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm praying it doesn't end up like this, but anyone old enough to remember Vietnam will recall the result of the bureaucrat's half measures in that war.
Enough of that. Today, let's remember those brave men & women who fought and died on this day 68 years ago, as well as all those who have served from then to now.
Thank you to all our servicemen & women. We owe you a huge debt of gratitude.
An Average Guy
Monday, December 7, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Remembering Aggie Bonfire - 10 years later
If you're a Texas Aggie, this video may move you to tears. If you're not an Aggie, hopefully this will give you some insight into how the Bonfire tragedy of Nov 18, 1999, has touched all Aggies.
Aggie Bonfire memorial
There aren't many words I can add to this today without lessening the memory of the fallen Ags, but this I will say. I have never had much love for anything related to the Texas Longhorns or the University of Texas. But I remember seeing in the news where so many students and football players from UT actually boarded busses bound for College Station just so they could give blood for those injured by the Bonfire collapse. I remember some of those UT students saying that in the end the rivalry, even hatred, between Texas A&M and UT becomes a distant second when compared to what happened in College Station that night, and they they felt they need to reach out to Aggies and help in whatever way they could.
I will forever remember Bonfire, the tragedy of that night, the Aggies that were killed and injured, and the kindness and respect of a rival school and its students. God bless Texas A&M and Aggies everywhere.
An Average Guy
Aggie Bonfire memorial
There aren't many words I can add to this today without lessening the memory of the fallen Ags, but this I will say. I have never had much love for anything related to the Texas Longhorns or the University of Texas. But I remember seeing in the news where so many students and football players from UT actually boarded busses bound for College Station just so they could give blood for those injured by the Bonfire collapse. I remember some of those UT students saying that in the end the rivalry, even hatred, between Texas A&M and UT becomes a distant second when compared to what happened in College Station that night, and they they felt they need to reach out to Aggies and help in whatever way they could.
I will forever remember Bonfire, the tragedy of that night, the Aggies that were killed and injured, and the kindness and respect of a rival school and its students. God bless Texas A&M and Aggies everywhere.
An Average Guy
Friday, November 13, 2009
Chicago Idiocy
Well there you go, friends. Someone actually suggested that the terrorist incident at Ft. Hood in which Maj. Hasan murdered 12 service men & women and 1 civilian - all unarmed - should actually be blamed not on extremist Islamic views, but on guns. That's right, the 2 guns killed those people, not Maj. Hasan. Go figure.
You may have seen this already, but I had to do some digging to find it. What loon actually said this? None other than Chicago Mayor Richard Daly.
If you recall, Chicago has a complete ban on all handguns, presumably in order to create a safer city. Uh-huh. So how's that coming? Anyone take a stroll through Chicago's South Side lately because they feel safe? Didn't think so. Why? Because regardless of the handgun ban in Chicago there are still guns on the streets. And who has those guns? The Baddies. The drug dealers, pimps, robbers, and general punks who don't give a rip about the ban. It always amazes me that the anti-gun crowd just doesn't get that point.
No, the massacre in Ft. Hood was caused, as the mounting evidence seems to show, by a radical muslim in the midst of the U.S. Army. He was a coward who by his own admission was a muslim first and foremost. The idea that he was about to be deployed to a country where we're at war with other radical muslims was counter to his beliefs. As I heard Mark Davis say on his morning radio program here in Dallas a couple days ago, what if, during WWII, the U.S. took the stance that we were NOT going to go to war with Hitler because the predominant religion in both Germany and the U.S. was Christianity? Evil would have reigned. That would have been unacceptable. Evil must be fought, regardless of the face it portrays or the religion it claims.
Back to Chicago...Obvoiusly, Mayor Daley's comments about are ludicrous and would be basically unworthy of attention if it weren't for the fact that the Brady Campaign essentially agrees with Daley. I supposed what I find even more reprehensible than Daley's comment is the fact that he was trying to politicize the Ft. Hood shootings and further push the anti-gun agenda.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is clear. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do those jokers not get?
An Average Guy
You may have seen this already, but I had to do some digging to find it. What loon actually said this? None other than Chicago Mayor Richard Daly.
If you recall, Chicago has a complete ban on all handguns, presumably in order to create a safer city. Uh-huh. So how's that coming? Anyone take a stroll through Chicago's South Side lately because they feel safe? Didn't think so. Why? Because regardless of the handgun ban in Chicago there are still guns on the streets. And who has those guns? The Baddies. The drug dealers, pimps, robbers, and general punks who don't give a rip about the ban. It always amazes me that the anti-gun crowd just doesn't get that point.
No, the massacre in Ft. Hood was caused, as the mounting evidence seems to show, by a radical muslim in the midst of the U.S. Army. He was a coward who by his own admission was a muslim first and foremost. The idea that he was about to be deployed to a country where we're at war with other radical muslims was counter to his beliefs. As I heard Mark Davis say on his morning radio program here in Dallas a couple days ago, what if, during WWII, the U.S. took the stance that we were NOT going to go to war with Hitler because the predominant religion in both Germany and the U.S. was Christianity? Evil would have reigned. That would have been unacceptable. Evil must be fought, regardless of the face it portrays or the religion it claims.
Back to Chicago...Obvoiusly, Mayor Daley's comments about are ludicrous and would be basically unworthy of attention if it weren't for the fact that the Brady Campaign essentially agrees with Daley. I supposed what I find even more reprehensible than Daley's comment is the fact that he was trying to politicize the Ft. Hood shootings and further push the anti-gun agenda.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is clear. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do those jokers not get?
An Average Guy
Monday, November 9, 2009
Riddle Me This, Batman
Well, they did it, but I guess its no surprise. The U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of the Healthcare Reform Bill. Even though some in the Senate (even some Democrats) are saying that the House version of the Bill is dead in the water, I'm not feeling very good about it being one step closer to becoming law.
So I've got a question for anyone, ANYONE, who can give me an answer:
Where do Congress and the President think they derive the authority and/or power to pass laws related to health care?
I've asked this question so many times that I've lost count, and am still waiting for a valid answer. Do they think it comes from the Preamble to the Constitution...the phrase "promote the general welfare....?" That would be ridiculous; but then, that's never stopped Congress before, has it?
So let's take a quick stroll down this road called "Average Guy Musings", allow for some rants, take a look at some of this Bill that was passed, and point out why Congress has no authority to mandate health care "reform."
First of all, the Bill that passed the House is outrageous. The GAO has said it will cost in excess of $1.2 billion over 10 years, which is several hundreds of billions more than they had said they were going to agree on. Now its not that I'm a fan of, or particularly trust, the GAO, but their numbers are what both sides of the aisle look to. And how are they going to pay for this? They're going to cut $500 million in Medicare payments to doctors, at the exact same time when doctors are saying they need increases to those same payments. They're either going to drive a lot of doctors out of medical practice, or force doctors to stop taking Medicare patients. I believe that's known as the Law of Unintended Consequences.
This Bill also forces the American people to buy health insurance, regardless of whether they want it or feel they need it or can afford it. "Oh," you say, " but they government will provide subsidies for those who can't afford it." What if those same people don't want to be forced to eat at the trough of government handouts and waste? Well then, they'll be fined, up to 2.5% of their income. Excuse me, where exactly in the Constitution do you, Ms. Pelosi, derive the authority to do any of that? Do tell!
And where and when has the government ever done anything well, or efficiently? You cannot point to Medicare as an example because its extremely inefficient. The whole point is that government simply cannot do anything as efficiently as private industry; there's no incentive whatsoever for more and greater efficiencies in government. As a matter of fact, the only incentives in government are what lead to gross INefficiencies.
I'm not saying something shouldn't be done to improve our health care system. Of course it could be better. But at most its a states-rights issue, not a federal issue. There are no provisions in the U.S. Constitution for a federally-mandated health care system. Full stop!
But hey, I'm open to correction. Please, anybody, show me where I'm wrong on this...if you can...
An Average Guy
So I've got a question for anyone, ANYONE, who can give me an answer:
Where do Congress and the President think they derive the authority and/or power to pass laws related to health care?
I've asked this question so many times that I've lost count, and am still waiting for a valid answer. Do they think it comes from the Preamble to the Constitution...the phrase "promote the general welfare....?" That would be ridiculous; but then, that's never stopped Congress before, has it?
So let's take a quick stroll down this road called "Average Guy Musings", allow for some rants, take a look at some of this Bill that was passed, and point out why Congress has no authority to mandate health care "reform."
First of all, the Bill that passed the House is outrageous. The GAO has said it will cost in excess of $1.2 billion over 10 years, which is several hundreds of billions more than they had said they were going to agree on. Now its not that I'm a fan of, or particularly trust, the GAO, but their numbers are what both sides of the aisle look to. And how are they going to pay for this? They're going to cut $500 million in Medicare payments to doctors, at the exact same time when doctors are saying they need increases to those same payments. They're either going to drive a lot of doctors out of medical practice, or force doctors to stop taking Medicare patients. I believe that's known as the Law of Unintended Consequences.
This Bill also forces the American people to buy health insurance, regardless of whether they want it or feel they need it or can afford it. "Oh," you say, " but they government will provide subsidies for those who can't afford it." What if those same people don't want to be forced to eat at the trough of government handouts and waste? Well then, they'll be fined, up to 2.5% of their income. Excuse me, where exactly in the Constitution do you, Ms. Pelosi, derive the authority to do any of that? Do tell!
And where and when has the government ever done anything well, or efficiently? You cannot point to Medicare as an example because its extremely inefficient. The whole point is that government simply cannot do anything as efficiently as private industry; there's no incentive whatsoever for more and greater efficiencies in government. As a matter of fact, the only incentives in government are what lead to gross INefficiencies.
I'm not saying something shouldn't be done to improve our health care system. Of course it could be better. But at most its a states-rights issue, not a federal issue. There are no provisions in the U.S. Constitution for a federally-mandated health care system. Full stop!
But hey, I'm open to correction. Please, anybody, show me where I'm wrong on this...if you can...
An Average Guy
Friday, November 6, 2009
Our Prayers for the Fallen
No musings...no ponderings...no rants today. Instead I'm just going to offer up prayers and condolences for those killed and injured in the senseless shooting at Ft. Hood. Prayers also for the families of those killed and injured.
Its sad, really. I heard someone say on the radio yesterday that her husband was safer in Iraq that at Ft. Hood. That's just not right.
Thank a soldier, Marine, airman, or seaman when you see them. I know I'm sometimes hesitant to walk over to them and shake their hands, but just do it. They need to hear that we appreciate their sacrifices to our country and their families.
An Average Guy
Its sad, really. I heard someone say on the radio yesterday that her husband was safer in Iraq that at Ft. Hood. That's just not right.
Thank a soldier, Marine, airman, or seaman when you see them. I know I'm sometimes hesitant to walk over to them and shake their hands, but just do it. They need to hear that we appreciate their sacrifices to our country and their families.
An Average Guy
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The 'F' Doesn't Stand for 'Federal'
Okay, so I know this is fairly old news, but this story is what finally got me to start this blog. Its not that this story was, by itself, all that significant; its just that the musings, ponderings, and rants that it caused me tipped the scales.
An article appeared on 28 Oct. at espn.com that reported Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, testifying before Congress. He was being grilled over several topics - head injuries suffered by NFL players and possible connections to brain disease later in life; the welfare of retired NFL players; and steroid use within the NFL. The article pointed out a couple instances in which members of the House Judiciary Committee were treating Goodell like a naughty child worthy of their rebuke.
I'm not defending Goodell or the NFL's treatment of former NFL players; frankly I don't really care that much about it. What brings me to the Average Guy Musings is the question:
What business is it of the House Judiciary Committee, or anyone in the federal government, what the NFL does about its former players? Or steroid use? Or whether Goodell believes there a connection between head injuries and brain disease?!
I mean c'mon! Steroid use, while distasteful and unethical, isn't illegal. Let the NFL deal with it. What makes Congress think they've got any jurisdiction over the business of the NFL? Granted, Congress passed a law in 1961 that grants professional leagues anti-trust exemptions for broadcasting, but that doesn't mean they have any say in everything else the NFL does. And for Rep. Maxine Waters to threaten Goodell with the revocation of that anti-trust exemption over the answer Goodell gave regarding the welfare of retired players, she showed just how power hungry those in Washington have become.
What's next? A federal take over of the NFL? Why not? The feds already apparently believe they've got more power than the Constitution actually grants. Then instead of the National Football League or the No Fun League, we'll have to come up with some other name for it. Perhaps it should be the National Federal League...
...no, that's somewhat redundant and gives no indication that it has anything to do with football. But then again, if the feds take it over it won't look like football anymore, will it? Anyone have any suggestions for the name of the NFL once the feds take it over? Hopefully we won't have to use any of them.
An article appeared on 28 Oct. at espn.com that reported Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, testifying before Congress. He was being grilled over several topics - head injuries suffered by NFL players and possible connections to brain disease later in life; the welfare of retired NFL players; and steroid use within the NFL. The article pointed out a couple instances in which members of the House Judiciary Committee were treating Goodell like a naughty child worthy of their rebuke.
I'm not defending Goodell or the NFL's treatment of former NFL players; frankly I don't really care that much about it. What brings me to the Average Guy Musings is the question:
What business is it of the House Judiciary Committee, or anyone in the federal government, what the NFL does about its former players? Or steroid use? Or whether Goodell believes there a connection between head injuries and brain disease?!
I mean c'mon! Steroid use, while distasteful and unethical, isn't illegal. Let the NFL deal with it. What makes Congress think they've got any jurisdiction over the business of the NFL? Granted, Congress passed a law in 1961 that grants professional leagues anti-trust exemptions for broadcasting, but that doesn't mean they have any say in everything else the NFL does. And for Rep. Maxine Waters to threaten Goodell with the revocation of that anti-trust exemption over the answer Goodell gave regarding the welfare of retired players, she showed just how power hungry those in Washington have become.
What's next? A federal take over of the NFL? Why not? The feds already apparently believe they've got more power than the Constitution actually grants. Then instead of the National Football League or the No Fun League, we'll have to come up with some other name for it. Perhaps it should be the National Federal League...
...no, that's somewhat redundant and gives no indication that it has anything to do with football. But then again, if the feds take it over it won't look like football anymore, will it? Anyone have any suggestions for the name of the NFL once the feds take it over? Hopefully we won't have to use any of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)