The Quick Slant

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=95 BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> <FONT SIZE="6" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Vrinda" ><B>the</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="6" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Vrinda" ><I><B><U>right</U></B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE="6" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Vrinda" ><B>slant.com</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Vrinda" ><B>.......... never afraid to be </B></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Vrinda" ><I><B><U>right</U></B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Vrinda" ><B>!</B></FONT><B>  </B><B> </B><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B> </B><B>|     </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="therightslant.com"><U><B>home</B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> The Quick Slant   |   <A HREF="id194.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Guest Column"><U>Guest Column</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id195.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="TEA Party Pics"><U>TEA Party Pics</U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=190 BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> Back to the home page...<A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="therightslant.com"><U>therightslant.com</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> Comment by email:</div> <div> <A HREF="mailto:respond@eatananimal.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:respond@eatananimal.com"><U>respond@therightslant.com</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id196.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U>The Right Slant 2010</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#emmanuel_promises_a_blast_from_the_past" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Emmanuel promises a blast from the past</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#obamacare_power_ego_and_control" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">ObamaCare power ego and control</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#good_work_has_its_enemies" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Good work has its enemies</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#i_agree_with_pelosi__yaaaahhhh" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">I agree with Pelosi? Yaaaahhhh</U></A>!</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#the_democrats_permanent_campaign" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The Democrats permanent campaign</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#intimidation_reigns_after_tiller_s_death" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Intimidation reigns after Tiller's death</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#nancy_pelosi_seeks_climate_change_1" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Nancy Pelosi seeks climate change</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#textbook_totalitarianism" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Textbook totalitarianism</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#thank_you_pfizer__thanks_a_lot" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Thank you Pfizer. Thanks a lot</U></A>!</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#world_s_smartest_woman_does_it_again" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">World's smartest woman does it again</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#getting_your_money_s_worth_from_jackson" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Getting your money's worth from Jackson</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#to_nuke_or_not_to_nuke" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">To nuke or not to nuke</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#abstinence_produces_children" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Abstinence produces children</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#three_reasons_not_to_fear_acorn" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Three reasons not to fear ACORN</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#a_headline_worth_a_thousand_words" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A headline worth a thousand words</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#a_plant_is_a_plant" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A plant is a plant</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#barak_obama_man_of_vision" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Barak Obama: man of vision</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#when_was_american_better_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">When was American better?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#government_in_action_again" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Government in action again</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#what_s_in_a_name_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">What's in a name?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#roads_are_for_cars_not_kids" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Roads are for cars not kids</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#obama_can_t_become_president" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Obama can't become president</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#the_extended_forecast_for_2108" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The extended forecast for 2108</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#meet_a_real_teenage_idol" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Meet a real teenage idol</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#my_kind_of_people" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">My kind of people</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#from_the_litigation_department" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">From the litigation department</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#the_religion_of_irresponsibility" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The religion of irresponsibility</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#get_out_of_town_fast" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Get out of town fast</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#if_you_build_it_they_will_come" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">If you build it they will come</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#i_ll_take_some_pain_and_suffering" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">I'll take some pain and suffering</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#so_you_want_to_be_like_europe" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">So you want to be like Europe</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#birds_of_a_feather" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Birds of a feather</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#texas_compounds_prefer_bush" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Texas compounds prefer Bush</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#obama_supports_price_gouging" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Obama supports price-gouging</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#the_answer_to_crude_oil_prices" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The answer to crude oil prices</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#give_khalid_sheikh_what_he_wants" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Give Khalid Sheikh what he wants</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#cold_or_hot_it_s_global_warming" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Cold or hot it's global warming</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#is_that_how_you_do_it_up_north_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Is that how you do it Up North?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#good_riddance" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Good Riddance</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#the_great_force_for_evil" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The great force for evil</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#obama_s_memorial_to_the_living" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Obama's memorial to the living</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#he_s_in_the_doghouse_now" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">He's in the doghouse now</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#germany_s_tribute_to_the_sa" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Germany's tribute to the SA</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#no_cause_for_jubilation" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">No cause for jubilation</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#justice_is_served" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Justice is served</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#should_every_disability_be_accommodated_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Should every disability be accommodated?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#place_trust_where_it_belongs" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Place trust where it belongs</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#desertion_isn_t_heroic" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Desertion isn't heroic</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#you_could_ve_bet_on_it" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">You could've bet on it</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#take_a_bite_out_of_crime" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Take a bite out of crime</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#government_in_action_part_ii" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Government in action Part II</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#that_s_imperialism" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">That's imperialism</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#a_sign_of_the_gop_s_illness" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A sign of the GOP's illness</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#oil_futures_and_the_pump_price" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Oil futures and the pump price</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#mccain_gets_one_right" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">McCain gets one right</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#a_man_wiser_than_he_knows" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A man wiser than he knows</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#social_programs_are_getting_results" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Social programs are getting results</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#christianity_mocked" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Christianity mocked</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#write_right_please" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Write right please</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#ah_to_be_old_one_day" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Ah to be old one day</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#a_tax_refund_is_in_order" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A tax refund is in order</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#arrogance_on_display" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Arrogance on display</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#big_gov_plays_us_for_fools" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Big Gov plays us for fools</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#oh_no_no_agenda_here_1" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Oh no, no agenda here</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#i_smell_a_plant_1" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">I smell a plant</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#old_enough_for_war_old_enough_for_guns" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Old enough for war old enough for guns</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#o_government_our_lord" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">O Government our lord</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#government_in_action" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Government in Action</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#the_price_of_the_spotlight" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The price of the spotlight</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#armed_pilots_aren_t_a_tragedy_in_waiting" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Armed pilots aren't a tragedy in waiting</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#is_he_or_isn_t_she_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Is he or isn't she?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#why_buy_trouble_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Why buy trouble?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#barak_obama_buries__white_guilt_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Barak Obama buries “white guilt”</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#the_problem_with_government_schools" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The problem with government schools</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#why_not_charge_the_judge__1" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Why not charge the judge?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#the_untaught_lesson_of_gov__spitzer" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The untaught lesson of Gov. Spitzer</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#political_arrogance_and_race_baiting" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Political arrogance and race-baiting</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#provocation_breeds_contempt" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Provocation breeds contempt</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#the_gift_that_soon_quits_giving" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The gift that soon quits giving</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#mccain_and_the_media_wolves" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">McCain and the media wolves</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#who_needs_jenny_craig_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Who needs Jenny Craig?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#maybe__star_wars__can_work_after_all" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Maybe “Star Wars” can work after all</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#michael_moore_sicko" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Michael Moore: Sicko</U></A>!</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#sharon_stone_useful_idiot" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Sharon Stone: Useful Idiot</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#a_good_judge_of_fresh_meat" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A good judge of fresh meat</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#hillary_s_chances_improve" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Hillary's chances improve</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#making_a_super_mountain_from_a_molehill" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Making a Super mountain from a molehill</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#it_s_not_the_stork_after_all" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">It's not the stork after all</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#blitzer_hears_a_who" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Blitzer hears a Who</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#what_s_the_forecast_for_tomorrow_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">What's the forecast for tomorrow?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#the_coming_mormon_migration" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The coming Mormon Migration</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#reparations_so_foolish_they_re" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Reparations so foolish they're</U></A> acceptable</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#it_s_a_dog_s_life" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">It's a dog's life</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#no_buff_bluff_climbing" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">No buff bluff-climbing</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#the_not_quite_sincere_paris_hilton" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The not-quite-sincere Paris Hilton</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#here_s_your_sign" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Here's your sign</U></A>!</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#a_diatribe_against_hollywood" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A diatribe against Hollywood</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#a_tip_of_the_hat_is_in_order" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A tip of the hat is in order</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#health_care_professionals_play_the" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Health care professionals play the</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#who_is_really_unbalanced_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Who is really unbalanced?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#mighty_jesse_has_struck_out" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Mighty Jesse has struck out</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#throwing_rocks_in_a_glass_house" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Throwing rocks in a glass house</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#war_zone" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">War Zone</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#truth_strikes_a_nerve_in_japan" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Truth strikes a nerve in Japan</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#get_used_to_it_life_is_seldom_fair" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Get used to it life is seldom fair</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#appropriate_charges_should_be_filed_in" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Appropriate charges should be filed in</U></A> Ohio</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#seven_people_have_gone_to_the_dogs" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Seven people have gone to the dogs</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#is_there_a_free_market_in_oil_and" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Is there a free market in oil and</U></A> gasoline?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#let_us_celebrate_heroism" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Let us celebrate heroism</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#family_values_left_coast_style" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Family values Left Coast style</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#you_can_get_away_with_murder" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">You can get away with murder</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#journalists_defend_their_own_turf" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Journalists defend their own turf</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#deplorable_politics_in_the_house_of" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Deplorable politics in the House of</U></A> Representatives</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#another_step_toward_gomorrah" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Another step toward Gomorrah</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#even_quarantines_are_politically_correct" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Even quarantines are politically correct</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#from_the__déjà_vu_all_over_again_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">From the “déjà vu all over again”</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#immigration_reform_finds_a_poster_child" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Immigration reform finds a poster child</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#has_the_west_accomplished_the_radical_s" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Has the West accomplished the radical's</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#congress_lacks_much_but_not_nerve" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Congress lacks much but not nerve</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#yet_another_sign_of_u_n__incompetence" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Yet another sign of U.N. incompetence</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#breaking_bread_with_an_enemy" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Breaking bread with an enemy</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#there_s_a_man_somewhere" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">There's a man somewhere</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#congressional_chutzpah" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Congressional Chutzpah</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#colorado_s_memorial_day_weather_global" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Colorado's Memorial Day weather Global</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#police_are_bound_by_the_law_too" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Police are bound by the law too</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#all__elf__needs_is_a_sheet" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">All “ELF” needs is a sheet</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#john_edwards_mess_cook" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">John Edwards mess cook</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#virginia_tech_and_the_dangers_of" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Virginia Tech and the dangers of</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#iran_land_of_gall" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Iran Land of gall</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#ignoring_the_higher_authority" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Ignoring the Higher Authority</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#what_is_science_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">What is science?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#dem_stands_for_demagogue" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Dem stands for Demagogue</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#tom_vilsack_has_his_price" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Tom Vilsack has his price</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#hillary_stalin_lenin_marx" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Hillary Stalin Lenin Marx</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm#a_family_worthy_of_death" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A family worthy of death</U></A></div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=385 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B><U>The Quick Slant</U></B></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="emmanuel_promises_a_blast_from_the_past"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Emmanuel promises a blast from the past</div> <div> July 24, 2009</div> <bR> <div> It has been said often enough: those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Why hasn't our government and our population learned that lesson and why don't we apply it to government controlled health care? We've been down this road before. We have historical perspective and the results aren't stellar.</div> <div> There's Medicaid, Medicare, S-CHIP. There's the Veteran's Administration and the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed a couple of years ago. Horror stories abound from the UK and Canada of long waits for both routine and life-saving treatment and treatments that are denied altogether. There is ample evidence to know how national healthcare will manifest itself. Thus there's every reason to resist socialized medicine, a.k.a., healthcare reform.</div> <div> White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is now taking our refusal to learn from history a step further. He says healthcare reform's goal is to expand coverage and control costs. Hmmm. Control costs. That sounds a bit like price controls, doesn't it? Now, where have we heard this before?</div> <div> Oh yes! There was this thing called the energy crisis, oh, about 36 years ago. In the face of the Arab Oil Embargo and rising energy prices President Nixon called for price controls on gasoline. The result should serve as a case study in trusting government to control costs.</div> <div> Gas prices did not remain static and supply faltered. Despite price controls, people across the country waited in gas lines and paid more for the dwindling fuel supply. Drivers found themselves able to buy gasoline only on certain days, as determined by the last digit on their license plate. What a joyous time that was!</div> <div> Lesson learned. Government cannot control costs; it can only ration supply. The rationed supply seldom, if ever, meets the demand. Eventually the consumer pays a higher cost for an insufficient supply or an inferior product, if there's supply or product to be had. And now we should trust government to control the cost of medical treatment? It would be laughable if it weren't so serious.</div> <div> We can learn from history, or we can repeat it. I'll give great odds on which option the current administration and Congress will choose.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="obamacare_power_ego_and_control"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>ObamaCare: power, ego and control</div> <div> July 22, 2009</div> <bR> <div> So, Obama says healthcare reform isn't about him and it isn't about politics. It is about a healthcare system that is breaking families, businesses and the economy. At least that's what he says.</div> <div> It's more factual to believe that record deficits, unchecked borrowing and printing dollars like pin-up pictures would have more to do with our sour economy than medical spending. And let's not forget the mortgage meltdown brought on by the government mandated manipulation of lending practices. But I'm getting off subject.</div> <div> Even the most avid supporter of Chavez's northern brother must wonder how Obama can say such things with a straight face.</div> <div> Of course healthcare reform-better described as socialized medicine-is about him. It was about him when he first mentioned it, it's about him now and it will remain about him long after it has been decided one way or the other. It is about his power, his ego and his self-righteous attitude, an attitude that bestows upon him and his cronies both the intellect and the moral authority to decide who should be treated, when, how and for how long. It is about being the sole arbiter of life and death, the god-like power Obama so craves and from whence his aspirations arise.</div> <div> If this weren't the case he wouldn't be pushing so hard to see this measure become law before the details become public. If this weren't the case he wouldn't have told opposition Blue Dog Democrats, “You're destroying my presidency.” It is about him, him and an agenda that would make Vladimir Lenin swell with pride.</div> <div> Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who opposes the current healthcare proposal, doesn't believe Obama made that statement to the Blue Dogs. Stupak said, “I can't see him saying that. He's got too much self-confidence.” But I think Rep. Stupak, like many Americans, just can't believe a sitting president could be so sinister.</div> <div> Obama's persona isn't one of self-confidence, Rep. Stupak. Self-confidence is virtuous. Arrogance is the more appropriate term for describing Obama's drive for socialized medicine.</div> <div> If this plan is so grand there's no reason why the President himself shouldn't participate. His lovely and gracious wife Michelle can select the “public option” when her next Pap smear is due. And President Obama should expose his children to the same “healthcare for everyone” that he and his ilk would so blithely impose upon, well, everyone else.</div> <div> It's only fair, isn't it? But don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.</div> <div> Obama is promoting healthcare “reform” legislation that he hasn't read and, for what it's worth, is beyond the federal government's constitutional duties. He is disregarding his oath of office, abridging his duty to his constituents and encouraging Congress to follow suit. Yet he accuses people who have read the proposal of lying about its contents.</div> <div> Come to think of it, his actions extend beyond simple arrogance. Obama's actions are tyranny in its purest form.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="good_work_has_its_enemies"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Good work has its enemies</FONT></div> <div> July 13, 2009</div> <bR> <div> It is said that no good deed goes unpunished. That adage is holding true for Crisis Pregnancy Centers. In fact, some CPC opponents are downright maniacal.</div> <div> The National Organization of Women has accused CPCs of using scare tactics on pregnant women and disseminating false information. They claim CPC volunteers have harassed, intimidated and manipulated women, even to the point of lying about pregnancy test results so clients won't seek abortions afterwards.</div> <div> And get this, NOW says the CPC's prime interest is sharing Christ and preventing abortions. I guess that's meant to be an insult. But it's sort of like insulting a little boy by saying his main interests are playing baseball and riding bikes.</div> <div> It's hard to believe that a ministry as simple, straightforward and uncontroversial as the CPC's could draw such venom from anyone, especially a group that claims to put women's health first. Of course, NOW isn't about women or their health. NOW is about preserving abortion-on-demand at any cost.</div> <div> I suppose their shrill fabrications should be expected; it's exactly what Jesus Christ promised. “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you,” Christ said in John 15:18. And in Matthew 10:24, “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.”</div> <div> However, despite Christ's promises of struggle, there's another Scriptural passage that provides comfort for CPC workers who face unfounded criticisms, “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.” Good works may not go unpunished in this life. But they don't go unrewarded in the next one, either.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="i_agree_with_pelosi__yaaaahhhh"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>I agree with Pelosi? Yaaaahhhh!</div> <div> July 9, 2009</div> <bR> <div> News flash: Michael Jackson remains dead. Now, should the US Congress pass a resolution honoring the late pop star? Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) thinks so. She has introduced a resolution to honor the “King of Pop” on the House floor. But there's a snag; she has little support.</div> <div> Whatever Michael Jackson was or wasn't in terms of being an entertainer, a dysfunctional father and an all-star weirdo, he was nothing if not divisive. In that area he has indeed found life after death. Jackson is dividing the House of Representatives and it's not along party lines, or even racial lines. </div> <div> For instance, when the House held a moment of silence following Jackson's death many representatives walked out of the chamber. Democrats have expressed little interest in Lee's resolution and she has but one co-sponsor thus far. Heck, even the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't see fit to honor Michael Jackson.</div> <div> Whatever you think of Michael Jackson the icon, Michael Jackson the man is not one who should be honored on Capital Hill. Congress should have better things to do than waste time debating an utterly worthless resolution honoring this contrary figure. And this is where I have to (this is going to hurt) join sides with Nancy Pelosi.</div> <div> Essentially Pelosi said that the resolution was a waste of Congress' time and would divert attention from more pressing matters. Considering that Pelosi's legislative concerns include dictating our medical treatments and forcing higher energy bills on every productive American, a diversion may not be that bad. Even so, I have to agree with Nancy that the House floor isn't the place for a resolution honoring Michael Jackson.</div> <div> There, I've said it! I agreed with Nancy Pelosi on July 9, 2009. I've even put it in writing so liberals can hold it over my head from now until kingdom come. And although she's (ugh!) right in this case, at least in part, it still leaves me felling hopelessly violated.</div> <div> Pardon me while I go wash my hands.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_democrats_permanent_campaign"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The Democrat's permanent campaign</div> <div> July 5, 2009</div> <bR> <div> I ran across a blog this week concerning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraqi cities. The writer lamented the fact that current Democrat leadership is taking credit for success in Iraq when they were proclaiming defeat less than a year ago. He then informed Barrack Obama that the campaign is over. But it isn't over, not by a long shot.</div> <div> The campaign is never over within the Democrat Party. Their campaign to destroy liberty and prosperity never ceases. Their campaign to instill more dependence and entrench their power is insatiable. The Democrat campaign to establish its perpetual power at the expense of our republic and our Constitution is unquenchable.</div> <div> Propaganda disguised as a political campaign will never cease for Obama, just as it never ceased for Bill Clinton. It is a trait of Democrat politicians. They will take credit for accomplish in which they had no part, such as Iraq. And they will blame others for problems they were instrumental in creating, such as the mortgage problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.</div> <div> Conservatives must recognize this perpetual campaign as our adversary's preferred tactic and fight accordingly.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="intimidation_reigns_after_tiller_s_death"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Intimidation reigns after Tiller's death</div> <div> June 15, 2009</div> <bR> <div> Intimidation is an effective tactic. If one side of a debate can force the opposition to abandon their beliefs, or to shrink from defending them, the first side is a step closer to victory. Since George Tiller's death, intimidation has become the pro-abortion community's preferred strategy.</div> <div> Ellen Goodman, a pro-choice columnist for the Boston Globe, blamed Tiller's death directly on the entire pro-life movement. Every person who calls abortion-on-demand what it is-the murder of an innocent child-is, in her eyes, responsible for lighting the shooter's fuse.</div> <div> No pro-lifer wants to be associated with a murderer. Ellen Goodman and her ilk understand this perfectly and they're using it to their advantage. They know that they can gain an upper hand if they can silence our voice by linking our cause with Tiller's death. We can't allow that to happen.</div> <div> Our opposition to George Tiller's murder is no reason for us to defend or excuse what he did with his life. When we denounce his murder and disavow responsibility for it we are entirely consistent with our pro-life message. However, abortion supporters (such as Goodman) must condemn Tiller's death while defending the deaths Tiller caused. Our position is consistent, rational and defensible. Theirs is not.</div> <div> The pro-abortion use of Tiller's death is a test we must pass. We cannot be intimidated. We cannot abandon our principles in the face of false accusations. We cannot be silenced and we cannot shrink from defending innocent life. Ours is the righteous cause.</div> <bR> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="nancy_pelosi_seeks_climate_change_1"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Nancy Pelosi seeks climate change</FONT></div> <div> May 26, 2009</div> <bR> <div> Well, well, well. Nancy Pelosi has gone to China . . . and to Shanghai no less. How fitting, seeing that she's made a career out of shanghaiing the United States, our Constitution, our values, our liberty and just about everything else associated with limited government and a free republic.</div> <div> Pelosi described her expedition in typical political speak. “The purpose of this trip is to follow up on meetings we've had here with representatives of the Chinese government on the subject of climate change and energy and how it relates to our economy,” she claimed in a thoroughly unconvincing attempt at sincerity.</div> <div> All I can say is bull!</div> <div> Friend, if you buy the sack of manure that she's selling you should have gone to China right alongside her. She probably could have sold you the Great Wall while you were there.</div> <div> On second thought, the purpose of her trip is-in a way-climate change. Pelosi was becoming increasingly uncomfortable in her climate. She needed a change and she needed it fast! It was far too hot for her in Washington, where not even her allies were backing her CIA conspiracy nonsense.</div> <div> She got out of town to deflect attention from her latest bout with leg-in-mouth disease. No, that isn't a typo. The House Speaker doesn't do things halfway. She didn't stop with the foot. Not Pelosi. She stuffed her entire leg down her throat, burying it right up to her scrawny buttock.</div> <div> It's beyond incredible to believe that the CIA lied to her about the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques.</div> <div> If she's telling the truth why wouldn't Democrats pounce on that revelation to completely embarrass the Republicans once and for all? Why would other high-ranking members of the House and Senate know all about the methods employed while she remained in the dark?</div> <div> Oh, wait; Pelosi in the dark. I think I just answered my own question.</div> <div> No one cared about waterboarding when the constituents back home were hot for vengeance following 9/11. Only after the initial calls for retribution waned did Democrats, Pelosi included, notice that political hay could be made from the “abuse” of detainees. Now not one Democrat, Pelosi included, knows what to do with the violent cutthroats they claim we have mistreated. And Pelosi, above all, doesn't have the sense to know when to quit.</div> <div> Her claims that the CIA lied to her are contradicted by her own party. Leon Panetta, the current director of the CIA, has called her hand on her absurdities, distortions and outright fibs. </div> <div> Panetta, by the way, isn't exactly a card-carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy or the conservative cabal. You have to know that he-just like Congressional Democrats-would jump at any opportunity to discredit a Republican president's policies. After all, Obama appointed him and he is a former Clinton adviser. He's not Rush Limbaugh. It just makes his contradiction of Pelosi's hallucinogenic fantasies all the more damning.</div> <div> Pelosi didn't go to China to talk energy, climate, pollution, policy, or even San Francisco Giants baseball. She went there to hide, to “CHA” if you get my drift.</div> <div> With even her allies distancing themselves from her she needed a change of scenery. She won't be home until she thinks the CIA flap has died down, which is enough reason for conservatives to keep it alive.</div> <div> Pelosi's trip is about climate change alright. She needed to change her climate to one as far from Capital Hill as possible. It's the first wise choice she's made in a long, long time. In the process she may have given America a prime bargaining chip with the Chinese. We'll let her back in the country if they'll buy a few trillion dollars more of our national debt.</div> <div> Even at that, the Chinese may be getting the best of the barter.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="textbook_totalitarianism"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Textbook totalitarianism</div> <div> May 16, 2009</div> <bR> <div> Say what you will about Fidel Castro and his 50-year stranglehold on Cuba, but he is a master of the tyrant's craft. The Cuban dictator knows exactly how to manipulate events in order to enhance his power. Fidel recently put that expertise on display in defending Cuba's response to the swine flu.</div> <div> Castro defended Cuba's efforts to avoid an outbreak by blaming the island dictatorship's chief oppressor, the United States. Fidel said Cuba is vulnerable to an epidemic because the US embargo prevents his government from buying the medical equipment needed to ward off the virus. What a classic example of totalitarianism.</div> <div> The totalitarian-in this case, Castro-places blame on a perceived enemy-the United States-so his government won't be held accountable for the dilapidated society it has produced. His policies have created mass poverty in Cuba. But his heavy-handed control has convinced an indoctrinated population that the regime's failures are the fault of exterior manipulation.</div> <div> Most of the world trades with Cuba. Many of the United State's allies trade with Cuba. Fidel has no legitimate scapegoat for Cuba's unpreparedness in the face of a possible medical emergency. Furthermore, didn't Michael Moore inform us that Cuba's healthcare system should be the envy of the United States? Then how is it America's fault that Cuba isn't prepared to cope with a viral outbreak?</div> <div> Sadly, as foolish as Fidel's antics appear to most of the world his words will play well among his own people. If swine flu infects Cubans they will blame it on the US “blockade” while praising as savior the man responsible for their hardship. It is a textbook example of totalitarian rule. And while Fidel may not have written the book he is certainly on of its most successful students.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="thank_you_pfizer__thanks_a_lot"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Thank you, Pfizer. Thanks a lot!</div> <div> May 15, 2009</div> <bR> <div> Who can complain about a freebie when times are tough? Well, you have to consider what is being offered and its potential effect on the future. Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer will give away up to a year's worth of Viagra to anyone who has lost their job since January 1. Just let that sink in for a minute.</div> <div> Isn't that just what we need in these days of unprecedented federal deficit spending, rising unemployment and economic recession, to make sure that people who can't get it done can get it done? Think about it. People without jobs have all day and night to make use of their Viagra-induced virility. And those Viagra-enhanced episodes can produce a new baby boom that unemployed parents can't financially support. Where do you think the financial burden will fall? If you said the taxpayer take a gold star.</div> <div> Good move Pfizer. Thanks to you we'll soon be up to our eyeballs in erectile functional people who have plenty of time for making babies. Couldn't you just leave bad enough alone?</div> <div> On a side note, this program might have solved a separate problem. Securities analyst Steve Brozak told the AP that Pfizer's program will, “go down as a Harvard Business School textbook example of what to do with product when you can't sell it.”</div> <div> That's good news for those of us who are driving worn out vehicles. When a company can't sell their product good business practices now demand that they give it away scot-free. Rush to your local GM or Chrysler dealer. The first five million or so customers have a free car coming.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="world_s_smartest_woman_does_it_again"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>World's smartest woman does it again</div> <div> May 2, 2009</div> <bR> <div> Say one thing for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; she will waste no opportunity to prove that she remains “the world's smartest woman.” But even this “brilliant” lady doesn't know what to make of Iran's nuclear ambitions.</div> <div> Clinton said that Iran must abide by international obligations concerning its nuclear program. “We're going to . . . insist on that,” she stated. Really? Or what?</div> <div> Democrat administrations and their leftist appointees have done nothing to deal with previous external threats. Why change course now? Can't you see Iran becoming a repeat of the 1994 deal with North Korea? Look what that did for us. The North claimed to have abandoned all of its nuclear ambitions in exchange for international welfare. All the while they were working on the clandestine nuclear weapons program that exists today.</div> <div> It's true that North Korea's missiles can barely hit the Pacific Ocean-a truly large target I'd say. But their advancements are troubling due to their proliferation capability. They can sell their technology to countries that have a greater axe to grind with Western Culture, a country like Iran. Yet Hillary Clinton doesn't “know what to believe about the Iranian program.”</div> <div> Here's a few hints Hillary. Iranian President “I'm-in-a-jihad” has declared Iran's desire to “wipe Israel from the map” and to accomplish a “world without America.” He has hosted events where he declared the Holocaust a “myth” and a “legend.” Those events featured such luminaries of human liberty as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad.</div> <div> Furthermore, Iran has been at war with the United States for at least 30 years. They invaded our embassy in Tehran-an embassy being considered the sovereign soil of the occupying country-and have funneled cash and supplies to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, which was responsible for the deaths of 200 marines in Beirut, Lebanon in 1982. They also funneled weapons to our enemies in Iraq and shelled Iraqi border towns and farms.</div> <div> And Hillary Clinton, the worlds smartest woman, the woman ready to lead when the red phone lights up in the middle of the night, doesn't know what to make of Iran's nuclear ambitions? It's not a very comforting thought, is it?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="getting_your_money_s_worth_from_jackson"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Getting your money's worth from Jackson</div> <div> May 2, 2009</div> <bR> <div> Jesse Jackson-that pontificating purveyor of political propriety-is being sued, and in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois no less (How odd that so many liars, crooks, and charlatans hail from there?). It seems that the good “reverend” had a contract to speak in Trinidad. When the time came for Jackson to appear he was nowhere to be found. Therefore, the event's organizers have filed suit against Jesse to the tune of $100,000. The sum is meant to recover lost revenue and the cost of the privately chartered jet Jackson demanded for his non-appearance.</div> <div> Isn't it odd how a leftist lunatic like Jackson can demand a private jet and not one leftist lunatic in Congress (like Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, etc.) pays attention? I suppose that only a jet carrying corporate executives produces earth-destroying carbon emissions. When a private aircraft ferries a loudmouthed “activist” like Jackson, its exhaust is undoubtedly beneficial to the environment. They are hypocrites one and all, beginning with Jesse “Hack”son.</div> <div> Jackson's snub notwithstanding, American Entertainment International (AEI) has no case. AEI may be the first customer to ever actually get their money's worth from a Jesse Jackson speech. They paid him $75,000 and never had to look at him. Furthermore, they never had to hear a single word from this fool's mouth. That's money well spent.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="to_nuke_or_not_to_nuke"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>To nuke or not to nuke</div> <div> April 18, 2009</div> <bR> <div> Whatever President Obama may and may not be he is a pure politician. How can someone utter such sacrilege about the ordained messiah of hope and change? Just look at his anti-nuclear weapons speech in Prague.</div> <div> Obama catered to the no nukes crowd by promising that the United States will take the lead in delivering a world free of nuclear weapons. He stated that America has a “moral obligation” to start the process and his arms control coordinator said abandoning nuclear arms would grant the United States the “high moral ground” in negotiations with Iran and North Korea. It will likely garner us a good bargaining position with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, too.</div> <div> Leftists who consider peace to be attainable only through U.S. weakness or surrender hailed his lofty promises. But Obama, true to the nature of double-talking politicians, covered his bases.</div> <div> Would the world be better off had nuclear weapons never been invented? It doesn't matter. That genie is out of the bottle and no one's going to put it back. To think that states such as North Korea and Iran will surrender their programs if we surrender ours first is laughable. That's were Obama changes course.</div> <div> Obama promised that as long as nuclear weapons exist that the United States will maintain an arsenal sufficient to deter our enemies and protect our allies. Obama, speaking from both sides of his mouth, has promised the naïve peaceniks everything they desire while simultaneously telling them that it isn't going to happen. Either that or he's prepared to present America defenseless before a hostile world.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="abstinence_produces_children"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Abstinence produces children</div> <div> April 17, 2009</div> <bR> <div> Alright, I'll be the first to admit that the headline above makes no sense whatsoever. Abstinence cannot produce pregnancy, right? After all, if a man and a woman don't, well, you get the picture. It's just common sense, unless you're a politician.</div> <div> Sexual education curriculum has become a hot topic in North Carolina. The legislature is working to make both abstinence and contraception based courses available in government schools. But whether that's desirable or not isn't the purpose of this column.</div> <div> Rep. Bill Faison (D-Orange Co.) promoted the contraception based plan this way: “I've got a 42-year old son. I love him. But the reason I've got [him] is that abstinence-only doesn't work.” Should we conclude that Faison's son was the result of an immaculate conception? Look for the younger Faison healing the lame and walking on water near you.</div> <div> How can there be a serious debate over sex education when such nonsense serves as an argument. Faison didn't have a son because he refrained from sexual intercourse, thus remaining abstinent. Faison's son was born because he failed to remain abstinent, if only once. No one, except the Virgin Mary, ever became pregnant because they didn't have sex.</div> <div> Rep. Faison's son, whom I'm sure he loves greatly, did not result from abstinence failing Faison but from Faison failing abstinence. If you want to argue that teenagers won't remain abstinent that's another topic. But to argue against abstinence on the grounds that it leads to pregnancy is utterly ridiculous.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="three_reasons_not_to_fear_acorn"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Three reasons not to fear ACORN</div> <div> April 10, 2009</div> <bR> <div> Have you heard that ACORN will try to infiltrate the Tea Parties? Yes, that same ACORN that's been accused of everything from false voter registration to election fraud. But I don't think their presence at a Tea Party presents a problem. Here are three reasons why.</div> <div> First, free speech is free speech. Conservatives defend free speech even though we'll fiercely oppose points with which we disagree, and we do so without apology. Keep in mind that free speech does not protect the speaker from having their ideas, or lack thereof, challenged and criticized. Therefore, if ACORN activists attend the Tea Party you should treat them to a dose of facts and logic while refraining from allowing their idiocy or provocations to goad you into a confrontation. Confrontation will be their sole motivation for attending, which the national news media will undoubtedly play to their advantage.</div> <div> Second, the truth is on our side. The direction our nation has taken cannot be rationally or truthfully defended unless the defender admits to being a disciple of Karl Marx. If they claim to promote freedom yet defend the enslaving nature of the current policy direction they contradict their own argument, which renders their claims null and void and they themselves irrelevant.</div> <div> Lastly, identifying ACORN infiltrators should be relatively easy. They may dress like the tea partiers and even try to speak like the tea partiers. But they will ultimately return to their core nature, which generally means charging genuine tea partiers with racism, sexism, or some other unsubstantiated “ism” or phobia. No nut, not even an ACORN, can change its meat.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="a_headline_worth_a_thousand_words"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>A headline worth a thousand words</div> <div> December 13, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Piracy off the Somali coast, launched from Somali shores and coordinated by Somali warlords is no laughing matter. These bandits have commandeered 20 ships and their actions have wrought condemnation from most countries and military responses from a few. No, it is no laughing matter. So why am I laughing?</div> <div> It has to be the headline of a Reuters story found on Yahoo! News. I don't know how so few words could so adequately express the current state of affairs in our nation's capital. “U.S. lacks intelligence to fight pirates in Somalia,” it read.</div> <div> I understand the serious nature of the article and what the headline meant to imply. We don't have sufficient intelligence to pursue the pirate groups on the ground in Somalia. If we did possess the needed knowledge I'm supremely confident that our military could annihilate these cutthroats in the bat of an eye. But the headline brought another though to my mind.</div> <div> Let's consider the current state of politics in Washington in light of the first four words of the title. Congress is lampooning banks, mortgage lenders, automakers and other businesses for lack of fiscal self-control. All the while our “leaders” are running up debt three-quarters the size of our entire national GDP. Furthermore, the federal government is losing money (i.e. deficit spending) to the tune of $458 billion with a promise that it will more than double next year.</div> <div> “The U.S. lacks intelligence. . . .” It does have a certain ring. But I'm beginning to wonder why I'm laughing.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="a_plant_is_a_plant"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>A plant is a plant</div> <div> October 23, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Talk about your conspiracy theorists. No wonder the left believes 9/11 was an inside job carefully orchestrated by Dick Cheney to further his visions of imperial grandeur. All you need do to confirm the left's wild imagination is listen to their assessment of Joe the Plumber.</div> <div> In case you haven't heard, he's a plant. Joe Wurzelbacher is a GOP operative sent to an Obama appearance to trap the Great One in an embarrassing moment. It's all part of some vast right-wing conspiracy or conservative cabal, I'm sure. Now ask yourself, if Joe attended the Obama function with the sole purpose of tricking the Democratic candidate, what does it say that the eloquent, educated, international unifying Barak Hussein Obama can be so easily tripped up by an Ohio plumber?</div> <div> Liberals should use caution in tossing such conspiracy theories around; their chickens may come home to roost. After all, two can play the conspiracy game.</div> <div> If liberals are going to make such an accusation why can't conservatives do likewise? Remember the alleged hostile remarks toward Obama that were uttered at McCain's rallies, like “terrorist” and “kill him?” Who's to say the people who made those comments weren't liberal plants, even members of the media? Think about it. Who better than a media reporter to properly position themselves so such comments would be picked up and broadcasted?</div> <div> If unfounded rumors and conspiracies are going to define liberal tactics (and we know they will), then it's time that conservatives took the gloves off, too.  When a fight turns dirty you have to abandon the Marquis de Queensbury rules in favor of gouging an eye or two.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="barak_obama_man_of_vision"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Barak Obama: man of vision</div> <div> August 13, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Barak Obama has decreed that we must eliminate our need for Middle East and Venezuelan oil within ten years. Thus, he appears to have contradicted himself yet again. He tells us that drilling for domestic oil is an unproductive solution to the current energy situation because we won't see the oil for ten years. However, if we can't develop supply for at least ten years, and it will take Obama ten years to eliminate the need for oil, what will we do for energy in the meantime?</div> <div> I think I may have figured out Obama's plan. Let me tell you, he's a man of vision, a man of change.</div> <div> We can only eliminate the need for oil if we eliminate the products that need oil. Therefore, Obama's desire must be to legislate the automobile, the airplane, the diesel locomotive, and nearly all modern conveniences and wealth-generating products out of existence before 2019. It only makes sense. If all products that require oil are eliminated within ten years, there'll be no need for oil.</div> <div> Of course, the United States of America will then become a third world country, something like Zimbabwe. How's that for change you can believe in?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="when_was_american_better_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>When was American better?</div> <div> August 11, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Barak Obama has stated that this country is not as good as it used to be. If that is the case, then the country must've been better at another time. When might that have been?</div> <div> Was it better during slavery? No, we can scratch that one off the list. Perhaps it was better during the Great Depression. No, that can't be it. Could it have been the pre-1964 civil rights era? Certainly that wasn't the case for Barak Obama's ancestors. So when was this nation better than it is today for black Americans, like Barak Obama?</div> <div> I have to conclude that the only time the country could've been better than it is today in terms of economic and social equality was during the 1980s, the era of Reagan. We enjoyed a robust economy, a powerful military, and an enemy (the USSR) that was folding before our very eyes. This is the only time Obama could possibly mean, considering that his people weren't afforded equal footing at other high points in American history.</div> <div> This being the case, I must conclude that this man is an absolute plant. He's not the socialist he would have us all believe. Barak Obama is a closet conservative, a fact that will come to light after the election. Following Election Day we will learn that all of the socialist ramblings, the big government promises, the race-baiting, the class envy, and the pacifism is a smokescreen.</div> <div> Barak Hussein Obama, the next Reagan. Who'd a thought?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="government_in_action_again"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Government in action again</div> <div> August 9, 2008</div> <bR> <div> The federal government has finally decided to take action against the illegal alien invasion. Everyone who has demanded deportation should be happy, for deportation it will be. Our government, in its infinite wisdom, has adopted a program where illegal aliens can volunteer for deportation. What a great idea! Let's see if we can apply this logic to other areas in which rules are routinely broken.</div> <div> I propose that the NFL adopt a program where offensive linemen can call holding on themselves, or where defensive backs and wide receivers can call pass interference on themselves. Maybe Major League Baseball can institute a program that allows hitters to call themselves out on strikes, or pitchers can call their own balks.</div> <div> On the legal end, why not establish a program where serial killers, rapists, child molesters and child pornographers can turn themselves in to the police? Surely they are all honorable people. We can expect them to do the right thing, can't we?</div> <div> This program is just as foolish as the gun buy-back programs that big city politicians claim will reduce their crime rates. Anyone who trusts government to provide for their needs should stop and take a good look at this idea. You decide who or what is most capable of providing for you and your family. Is it you, or is it a government that expects illegal aliens to simply turn themselves in for deportation?</div> <div> This voluntary deportation program was implemented in several major cites this past week. Would you believe it, there were no takers. Only a bureaucrat could've believed otherwise.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="what_s_in_a_name_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>What's in a name?</div> <div> August 2, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Rap stare Ludacris has released a rant in support of Barak Obama's presidential candidacy. If you're unfamiliar with this “song” you can read the words and view the video on the Internet. What is most disturbing, however, is not the lyric, which Obama himself has denounced.</div> <div> Most disturbing is the fact that the people who consider this art are the same mindless dolts who clamor for a bigger government in the name of freedom. They are the same people who will support a socialist candidate like Barak Obama. Before accepting this “art” as a legitimate political statement, it would be a good idea for them to consider the source.</div> <div> The performer's stage name, Ludacris, is obviously a combination of his given name, Christopher Bridges, and the word “ludicrous.” To gain a better understanding of the level to which popular political discourse has sunk, an understanding of the word is in order.</div> <div> The word “ludicrous” describes something ridiculous. Or, as the Random House Unabridged Dictionary describes it: “causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable.” Synonyms are as follows: nonsensical, foolish, stupid, and daft. The antonym is anything sensible.</div> <div> Since this performer's chosen name parlays a word meaning a lack of reasonable and intellectual content, it's no wonder that his statements follow suit. Therefore it is his “musical” endorsement of Obama-not necessarily Hillary Clinton or George Bush-that is “irrelevant.”</div> <div> It's true that Obama's “hope and change” is a mere repackaging of the same old divisive, class envy politics that Democrats have long employed. He supports higher taxation. He supports more government regulation. He supports more anti-poverty federal spending, meaning more wealth redistribution. Obama offers no hope, he offers no change. He merely offers the same old thing is a slick, teleprompter message.</div> <div> Sadly, there are people who will take Ludacris' words as an authoritative political message and vote accordingly. That, my friends, should send a shiver down your spine. </div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="roads_are_for_cars_not_kids"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Roads are for cars, not kids</div> <div> August 1, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Do parents teach their kids how to deal with traffic these days?</div> <div> When I was a child my parents taught me to move out of the way of passing cars. Whether I was walking down the road or riding my bike, I was expected to yield the right of way to the automobile. Not only for safety's sake, but because it was the right thing to do.</div> <div> I passed a kid who was walking on a rural road earlier this week. He wasn't walking on the side of the road. He wasn't even walking on the white line. He was at least two steps to the left of the white line. Did he move? No! He didn't move. He didn't move a bit more than the man on the moon. He maintained his position as if he were a 40-ton tractor-trailer.</div> <div> He had nerve; I'll give him that. Nerve yes, but nerve isn't brains. Or perhaps he was never taught roadway safety and common courtesy to begin with.</div> <div> Parents, get off your butts! Teach your kids to interact with traffic if you're going to allow them to walk or bike on roads meant for automobile traffic. Make sure your kids understand that they are in a vulnerable position.</div> <div> However, I'll bet next month's rent and grocery money that if the kid had fallen and I had run over him his parents would've been on me like buzzards on carrion. Sue? Why, they would have dialed the Law Offices of James Sokolove so fast it would've made their fingers bleed.</div> <div> The boy could've been hurt, or worse. I could've been financially ruined. And the parents who never bothered to impress upon this kid the uncompromised necessity of yielding the right of way to automobiles could've been rich. What's wrong with this picture? Everything!</div> <div> It's time we tossed this guff about how discipline harms a child's self esteem and began teaching them how to get along in the world. Why not let it begin with teaching kids to observe common sense rules that could save their lives.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="obama_can_t_become_president"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Obama can't become president</div> <div> July 26, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Yes, you read the headline correctly. Barak Obama cannot be elected President of the United States. He is, by his own admission, constitutionally disqualified. Let's look at it.</div> <div> Obama told a German audience that he is a “citizen of the world.” Now, according to Article II, Section 1 of that little used document known as the U.S. Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Since Obama obviously didn't become a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted and is a “citizen of the world” rather than of the United States, he is constitutionally barred from filling the Office of President.</div> <div> Yeah, I know, he didn't really mean that he's a citizen of the world. It's just a figure of speech, meant to show that all humanity is in this thing called life together. But can you imagine the reaction if a conservative made such a statement? The press would crucify him, as if he had claimed to have visited 58 states. Wait, Obama claimed that, too, and was given a pass.</div> <div> All kidding aside, who wants a “citizen of the world” as our president? I want a president who will put the United States of America first on the world stage, and our Constitution first on the domestic stage. If we desire anything else from a president we are setting our selves, and our country, up for a disaster.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_extended_forecast_for_2108"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The extended forecast for 2108</div> <div> July 25, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Last weekend's extended weather forecast for the Charlotte, NC area called for temps in the upper 90s with high humidity on Monday and Tuesday. This is not at all uncommon. In fact, it's expected in July and August. As long as I can recall, and I've lived here nearly all of my life, summer has been hot and sultry.</div> <div> But when the forecast was given, meteorologists said the weather by week's end would be cooler. Highs were predicted to reach only the mid-80s and humidity was to be non-existent. By mid-week those predictions had changed. We were to reach the low 90s, but still with low humidity. When Thursday and Friday arrived, temperatures were a little bit lower than the original forecast had projected, and substantially lower than the altered mid-week forecast.</div> <div> I bring this up because it highlights the fact that forecasters can't accurately and consistently predict local temperatures four days in advance. Yet according to Al Gore and the eco-warriors we're supposed to alter our entire way of life because the scientists who can't predict what the local temperature will be next weekend can predict what the global temperature will be in 2108. Put that in your globe and warm it.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="meet_a_real_teenage_idol"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Meet a real teenage idol</div> <div> July 24, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Teen idols come in all shapes and forms. Most of them don't deserve the adulation bestowed upon them. In fact, few of them do. Dante Gardin does deserve adulation and I'll bet you've never heard of him.</div> <div> Dante was home alone when two burglars broke into his home. He took the safe route and hid in his bedroom closet. But before he went into hiding he grabbed his pocketknife. Dante is now glad he did, and I am, too.</div> <div> When one of the burglars broke down his bedroom door Dante decided that his best chance for survival was to take action. He charged from the bedroom, slashed the burglar across the stomach, grabbed the intruder's gun and sent the two thieves scurrying for the nearest door. Good for Dante.</div> <div> How often do we hear high-ranking authorities tell us to simply let a criminal have what they want? “Don't resist,” they say. “Don't fight back,” they say. “Nothing is worth your life,” they say. Well, had Dante took that advice he may well have lost his family's property and his life to boot. If more people took the action Dante took criminals would soon get the message.</div> <div> I have no idea what type of person Dante Gardin is overall. He could grow up to be a star athlete, a corporate CEO, or President of the United States. He could be a troublemaker and the next person in town to be arrested. But in this instance, at least, Dante is a teenage idol and he deserves the recognition that goes with it.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="my_kind_of_people"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>My kind of people</div> <div> July 22, 2008</div> <bR> <div> We live in a day of political correctness. Yes, I know that isn't exactly breaking news. It is, however, disturbing. More and more, our basic liberty is being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Too many Americans will forego their rights to avoid offending increasingly delicate sensitivities. What a shame. Yet, once in a while, something happens that restores your faith.</div> <div> In Boise, Idaho a group of people dedicated to bearing arms toured the Boise zoo while packing heat. There was some initial resistance, but it faded when zoo officials realized that carrying an unconcealed handgun isn't against the law. So, would the presence of these pistol-packing patrons stress other visitors? It shouldn't, and here's why.</div> <div> If someone intends to use a firearm to commit a firearm crime, do they announce it to the world? Do they walk around with their gun in plain sight? Of course not! It's like the old adage about snakes. It's not the snake you see that bites you. It's the snake you don't see. The same applies to guns.</div> <div> “What about concealed carry?” you ask. That's another animal altogether, and I'm all for it. But again, no criminal will subject themselves to the scrutiny and time of obtaining a concealed weapons permit. They just hide their weapon and continue along their merry way, in complete disregard for the law. That's why they are criminals and concealed permit holders are law-abiding people.</div> <div> However, arguing over concealed or open carry misses the point. The general public has nothing to fear from a lawful citizen exercising their right to bear arms whether concealed or in open carry, and they have nothing to fear from this group of Idahoans.</div> <div> It's become politically incorrect to carry an unconcealed firearm in public. These guys have thumbed their noses at such politically correct nonsense. That alone makes them my kind of people.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="from_the_litigation_department"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>From the litigation department</div> <div> July 19, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Who would've thought panties could be dangerous? Macrida Patterson claims they are, if they're sold by Victoria's Secret, and she's suing to prove the point.</div> <div> Patterson's suit claims that a Victoria's Secret v-string thong was so ill-conceived and poorly designed that it poses a danger to consumers. A small metal piece, attached to a studded heart on the right side string, popped off and struck her eye. She claims negligence on the part of the company.</div> <div> I suppose she'll include mental anguish as well. From henceforth she'll no longer be able to put on undergarments without fear of an eye injury. Passing a ladies' underwear display in a department store will undoubtedly cause severe mental anguish. Poor Macrida will probably never be able to buy or wear underwear again.</div> <div> But could she have been negligent as well?</div> <div> Wouldn't it be interesting to see what size butt Macrida Patterson was trying to stuff into the v-string thong? Good luck finding out. All available pictures of Macrida are taken from the waist up (likely at the advice of her lawyer). Yet even with the limited views you might assume that she sports a rather hefty derriere. If she was stuffing a size 20 rump into a size 8 thong she has no one to blame but her self.</div> <div> Even a properly fitted thong could've broken. The metal hook could've popped loose. But we've all seen such things happen before. We've had buttons pop off a shirt or a pair of pants. However, unless the clothes were excessively tight, the button didn't become a projectile. It merely fell off. The metallic object in Macrida's case must have been under extreme stress not only to become a projectile, but to fly upwards and with sufficient force as to damage her eye, which-if I remember my anatomy-is a good distance from a person's hip.</div> <div> There's more here than meets the eye (pardon the pun). Maybe that's a good thing. If Macrida's booty is large enough to turn a thong into a slingshot, it's a sight better left unseen.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_religion_of_irresponsibility"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The religion of irresponsibility</div> <div> July 17, 2008</div> <bR> <div> You'd likely bet that the headline tells you all you need to know about this column. I'll bet you're wrong. It has nothing to do with Islamic radicals, the ACLU, or prayer in public schools. It has to do with litigation, one man's irresponsibility, and the effect both have on our nation's future.</div> <div> Matt Lincoln prayed for a unique experience while worshipping at Lakewind Church in Tennessee. He got what he asked for. In fact, Lincoln says he was so consumed with the Holy Ghost that he fell and hit his head. He now claims Lakewind should cover his medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost income to the tune of $2.5 million. When it comes to his settlement, I'm sure he'll give the customary ten percent to the Lord.</div> <div> Lincoln should be tossed out of court right on his big, fat . . . uh, ear, and his lawsuit right after him. He has no basis to sue anyone, not even God. After all, he did pray for “a real experience”. But his explanation for bringing the suit indicates what a bum and a slob this guy must be.</div> <div> Apparently, Matt has swooned under the influence of the “spirit” on previous occasions.  He explained that, previously, someone had always broken his fall. That statement, right there, is a perfect indicator of the attitude that is tearing this nation apart.</div> <div> Matt Lincoln hasn't suffered the consequences of his prior actions so he's come to expect others to bear his responsibility on all occasions. He reserves the right to flop around like a fish out of water. But someone else better put him back in the pond or else!</div> <div> Friends, I have been mistaken. The greatest threat to our republic, to our nation, to our very way of life, doesn't lie in Islamic fundamentalist. It doesn't come in the form of liberal politicians or activists. And you can't find it in welfare programs or government handouts.</div> <div> The greatest threat arises from our escalating refusal to take responsibility for our selves. Unless we begin telling people like Matt Lincoln to take a hike, and soon, there won't be anything left for the more noted enemies of freedom to destroy.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="get_out_of_town_fast"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Get out of town, fast!</div> <div> July 12, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Sometimes you get the truth from politicians, even though it may be in the form of a Freudian slip.</div> <div> North Carolina's legislature is approaching recess. And, like most people, members can't wait for the vacation to start. In their haste they have revealed that we are getting far more government than we need.</div> <div> House Speaker Joe Hackney said, “I really don't think there's anything else that's in a `has-to-happen' category. If the legislature has pending bills that don't “have to happen”, why were they introduced to begin with? How did they make it out of committee? We wonder why government is growing so intrusive and taxes are rising. Hackney's admission that government conducts business that doesn't “have to happen” should tell us all we need to know.</div> <div> Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand (the same Sen. Rand who proposed enslaving college kids to perform the will of the state) said the only pressing business was “the adjournment resolution.” Hallelujah! The sooner the better! Once Hackney, Rand, and their colleagues are out of Raleigh our wallets and our freedom will breathe a huge sigh of relief.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="if_you_build_it_they_will_come"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>If you build it, they will come</div> <div> July 12, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Well, maybe you don't have to build it. Maybe you don't have to plan it, or even apply for the permits. Maybe all you have to do is talk about it. What is “it”? “It” is a nuclear power plant that Duke Energy plans to construct near Gaffney, South Carolina. And it proves once and for all that any talk of producing energy will bring the “greenies” out of the trees.</div> <div> The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League issued a list of grievances against the proposed nuclear station. They say it will not withstand massive earthquakes. There's no provision for preventing airplanes from hitting the cooling towers. It doesn't improve the general welfare and standard of living of nearby residents. The list could go on.</div> <div> Suffice it to say that earthquakes aren't every day occurrences in South Carolina, and nothing is safe from an airplane crash. To argue those points are as stupid as banning interstates because trucks carrying hazardous materials can crash while traveling on them. </div> <div> Constructing a nuclear plant can't help but improve the local economy. High-paying construction jobs will be added during that phase, and the staff of an operating nuclear plant earns a pretty fair wage. As for the general welfare, producing enough energy to keep the lights on would seem to benefit everyone, including the Blue Ridge activists. They have to power their compact florescent light bulbs somehow.</div> <div> Friends, nuclear power plants aren't constructed willy-nilly. Duke Energy would not invite the litigation from a haphazard approach to nuclear construction or operation. What's more, there's been no calamitous nuclear accident in the United States since the introduction of nuclear power, Three Mile Island included.</div> <div> Whether it's a coal plant, oil exploration, natural gas, or nuclear power, any attempt to provide efficient power to the general population will bring a howl from environmental groups. Keep that in mind when the power bills rise and the energy delivery subsides.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="i_ll_take_some_pain_and_suffering"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>I'll take some pain and suffering, please</div> <div> July 4, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Mark Dean Schwab is dead. And no, it isn't a shame. Following his unsuccessful appeal, Schwab became the first convict to die under Florida's revised execution method. Schwab had claimed that the method of execution would cause him pain and suffering.</div> <div> Back in the 1980s, when I was in high school, we had a saying for times like this. We'd extend a cupped palm to the whiner and invite him or her to cry us a handful. The phrase always seemed to fit the situation. How much more in this case?</div> <div> Don't misunderstand. I hope Schwab made his peace with the Lord before taking his seat on the eternity express. But I have a tough time feeling sympathy for this pathetic murderer. Who cares if he suffered a little discomfort? He displayed no major concern for his victim's well-being. Therefore, we need have no major concern for his.</div> <div> Don't you think 11-year-old Junny Rios-Martinez suffered great stress when Mark David Schwab kidnapped him? He must have experienced anxiety beyond belief. How much physical pain and emotional embarrassment did Junny experience while this slob, Mark David Schwab, was raping him? How much pain did Martinez feel while Schwab was killing him? And now we're supposed to be concerned with making murderous pedophile's death as comfortable and pleasant as possible? Hogwash!</div> <div> I'm not for torturing convicts, no matter how heinous their crime. But I really don't care about the comfort of a kidnapping, child-raping, murdering homosexual-one Mark David Schwab-who had previously served prison time for raping another boy at knifepoint. So what if he suffered a minute or two! He received nothing less than his just due.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="so_you_want_to_be_like_europe"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>So, you want to be like Europe</div> <div> July 4, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Leftists are incessantly comparing the United States to Europe, encouraging us to adopt the collectivism and political correctness that has run amok on that once great continent. Is the following what the leftists would have us adopt? I'm afraid so.</div> <div> A Swedish school confiscated invitations to an 8-year-old boy's birthday party. The boy had distributed the invitations in class. However, he didn't invite two boys who weren't his friends. The school said it objected because it had a duty to prevent discrimination. Their decision presents the rational mind with a couple of problems.</div> <div> First of all, a school is an inanimate object; a school has never confiscated anything. A school cannot object, nor can a school prevent discrimination. It is the people behind the school who make such judgments. People who can allegedly instruct and think and reason made this ignorant, thoughtless and illogical decision. Isn't it sad that such minds are instructing (perhaps indoctrinating is a better description) the next generation of Swedes?</div> <div> Secondly, this boy and his family have every right to choose who attends their party. Unless the boy disrupted class while distributing the invitations, what place do school officials have in determining which kids are included or excluded at a private gathering? Simply put, they should've kept their meddlesome noses out of the situation.</div> <div> Discrimination, if you can apply the term to this matter without laughing, is a fact of life. Everyone discriminates in some way, and it doesn't make us evil people to do so. It doesn't make us racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or Islamophobic, or anything else. It merely means that we are emancipated and capable of choosing with whom we will associate.</div> <div> So what if this kid didn't want people he doesn't know or like at his birthday party? What business is that of the school system or of government in general?</div> <div> American schools have enough busybody administrators clamoring to control our children, molding them in their own self-righteous images. Do we really want to follow the example of their European counterparts? Do we really want to be like Europe? With this episode as an example, I hope to God that's not the case.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="birds_of_a_feather"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Birds of a feather</div> <div> June 18, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Al Sharpton. Jesse Jackson. Jeremiah Wright. They could be three sons separated at birth, or three stooges separated at Columbia Pictures. Wright joined the club when some of his, shall we say, eccentric sermons came to light. But his accusation that the US government is responsible for developing the AIDS virus to infect black men is downright ridiculous.</div> <div> Even if his wild accusations were true, who is being promiscuous? Who is out getting the AIDS virus? It doesn't fall upon its victims out of the clear, blue sky. One must actively pursue an AIDS infection. It isn't a disease contracted passively.</div> <div> I suppose the government could develop heinous sexually-transmitted diseases by the test tube full. Government scientists could create viruses that would make us cringe at the thought of their potency. But if intimate contact is required to get the virus, and you avoid the activity that causes the disease to spread, what danger can it be to you? AIDS is the same thing. It is a wholly preventable disease, unlike Jeremiah Wright.</div> <div> If Wright were serious about combating the rise of HIV/AIDS in black males he would use his pulpit to preach a little responsibility and abstinence, not portray the infected people as victims of a sinister government plot. But like his counterparts in the “civil rights” movement, he is about solidifying his power, influence and standing.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="texas_compounds_prefer_bush"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Texas compounds prefer Bush</div> <div> June 14, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Say what you will about the Bush administration. You can question the response to 9/11. You can debate the wisdom and success of the Iraq War. You can call him a warmonger who planned the Iraq invasion from the get-go, all for the sake of his powerful oil buddies. You can accuse him of allowing 9/11, unless you believe that he personally planned the entire attack. You can even accuse him of bombing the levies in New Orleans so black neighborhoods would be flooded.</div> <div> However, if you poll Latter Day Saints separatists in Texas, they must prefer George W. Bush to the previous administration by a wide margin.</div> <div> When a group of these religious eccentrics holed up on a Texas ranch with harems full of wives and hundreds of kids, George Bush didn't order an invasion. His administration didn't assault the compound with machine guns and tanks. And his justice department didn't conduct an operation that culminated with hundreds of people, including women and children, burned alive.</div> <div> Now, how did President Clinton handle that situation?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="obama_supports_price_gouging"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Obama supports price-gouging</div> <div> June 12, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Barak Obama is vehemently against eliminating the federal gasoline tax this summer. He says it's nothing more than pandering, an election year political ploy. And in reality, saving eighteen cents per gallon isn't that much. If you purchase 40 gallons of gasoline each week for the twelve weeks between the first of June and the end of August, the gas tax repeal will save you less than a hundred bucks.</div> <div> Obama considers this amount insignificant, and to most Americans it won't make much difference. However, if he thinks the government's eighteen cents per gallon tax on gasoline purchases is an inconsequential amount, why does he favor price-gouging legislation and windfall profits taxes on oil producers?</div> <div> Oil companies make ten cents per gallon on the products they produce and Obama thinks it's outrageous. Yet, the federal government makes eight cents more per gallon than the oil companies on a product they neither produce nor market and it's considered insignificant.</div> <div> If anyone is pandering it is Barak Obama. He's using an emotional subject (gasoline prices) to enhance his political position, which is the modus operandi of the Democratic Party. Anyone who will publicly ignore such basic economics-no, make that basic mathematics-should only enter the White House on a guided tour.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_answer_to_crude_oil_prices"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >The answer to crude oil prices</FONT></div> <div> June 9, 2008</div> <bR> <div> The old saying holds that everyone complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it. Well, don't apply that adage to oil prices; I'm going to do something about them. But I'll need your help.</div> <div> Here's the plan. Each person who reads this column should send me a dollar bill. I'll invest the money in crude oil futures for July or August delivery. Crude prices will begin to drop almost instantly, and will likely fall at least 25-percent in the next month. If you'll extend this invitation to your family and friends, and raise enough money for me to invest long-term, it's possible that crude could be down to $60 a barrel by Thanksgiving.</div> <div> How do I know this will work? Well, when I first invested in mutual funds the stock market took a severe downturn. When I invested in futures once before the price tumbled and I lost the investment. I purchased a home a few years ago and now the value of real property is faltering. I may be the only person alive who could make gold be worth nothing.</div> <div> Past performance is no guarantee of future results. But whenever I make an investment it immediately goes south. There's no reason that you can't enjoy lower gasoline prices by following my plan. And it'll only cost you a buck.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="give_khalid_sheikh_what_he_wants"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Give Khalid Sheikh what he wants</div> <div> June 7, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind 9/11, wants to be executed, to die the death of a martyr. This raises two lines of thought.</div> <div> First, do we want to make him a martyr in the world of Islamic fundamentalism? Do we want his name to serve as motivation for a new generation of America-hating, bomb-wearing radicals? But the fact is that he'll be a martyr no matter what we do with him. If we execute him he has died for the cause. If we keep in jail for life he's a political prisoner who will serve as motivation for further jihad. So it matters little in way of public relations what we do with Sheikh Mohammed.</div> <div> I say we call his bluff and honor his request. Let him have his opportunity for martyrdom and we'll see how quick he changes his tune. If he was so gung-ho about dying for Allah, why didn't he board one of those fuel-laden jetliners on September 11, 2001? Oh no, he doesn't want to die a martyr. He doesn't want to die at all. He figures that this request will get him off the easy way; that we'll reject the idea of granting him martyrdom at his request, and therefore he'll live.</div> <div> Let's oblige this man his last request. Let's send him to the hereafter. Let his stand before his Maker. There he can explain how it glorifies God to kill nearly 3000 people who didn't know what was happening or why they were being killed. </div> <div> Yes, sir! Let us show Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the radical Muslim world that we are tolerant of their requests. His time to go has come.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="cold_or_hot_it_s_global_warming"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Cold or hot it's global warming</div> <div> June 6, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Whenever there's a heat wave, especially an unseasonable one like now grips North Carolina, we're told it's the result of global warming.</div> <div> Record highs are forecasted for the next few days. The temperatures are already well into the 90s, and that is unusual for this area at this time of the year. In fact, we're going to challenge the record high for June 6th (98 degrees) set in 1943. The weekend forecast claims that we'll chase record highs of 98 and 99 degrees, which were established in 1899. What was causing such high temperatures so long ago?</div> <div> The Saturday and Sunday records were established even before the advent of the internal combustion engine, which is now demonized as the ultimate enemy of all things natural. It was set before the desire for modern convenience led to the demand for electricity, which in turn lead to the demand for coal.</div> <div> Every day of hot weather is blamed on global warming. However, when record snows fell in Minnesota in late April no scientist, bureaucrat, or environmentalist lamented the onset of global cooling. No one wrote about it on the New York Times editorial page. No one claims cold weather events signal the onset of global cooling. But when there are record high temperatures, that's when Al Gore and his prophets of green gloom surface to decry capitalism.</div> <div> Man-caused global warming is theory. It cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It's ambiguous. It's duplicitous, and I'm sure a few other things. But one thing it's not is set science. If we continue to believe that it is we will surely sacrifice our economic future on the altar of what may be the greatest hoax in the history of mankind.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="is_that_how_you_do_it_up_north_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Is that how you do it Up North?</div> <div> June 6, 2008</div> <bR> <div> If you haven't seen the hit-and-run video from Hartford, CT you owe it to yourself to look it up.</div> <div> A video camera filmed an old man being struck by a car while attempting to cross the street. The impact flips him through the air and he lands in the middle of the road. The driver of the car that hit him keeps going. Worse yet, other cars simply drive around the old man's body. Not a one stops. Some passers-by call 9/11. But no one checks to see if the victim is alive. No one even tries to stop traffic to protect the old man. No one seems to care whether he's alive or dead.</div> <div> People who live in my part of the county, the South, are constantly ridiculed by the people who live in the Northeast, people like those in Hartford, CT. We're called hillbillies, hicks and rednecks. We're asked if we married our sisters, or if we're cultured enough to have chosen our first cousin. And we're incessantly informed that the way we do things isn't the way it's done Up North.</div> <div> If you're a Yankee and you want to know why Southerners don't want to do things “the way you did it up North” just watch that video from Hartford.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="good_riddance"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Good Riddance</div> <div> June 3, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Guess what? It's an Election Year and Susan Sarandon is threatening to leave the country if John McCain gets elected. She reminds me of the kid on the playground who always threatened to go home if he didn't get his way. He never got his way, and he always stayed. The same holds true for Susan Sarandon. This actress knows only one role, and it would be exceedingly boring if it weren't so laughable.</div> <div> How many times has she tried this tripe? She was leaving the country in 1992 if George H.W. Bush won. She was leaving the country in 1996 if Bob Dole won. Sarandon was saved both times. But she threatened to leave in both 2000 and 2004 if G.W. Bush won. He did, both times. Did she make good on her threat? I guess not. If she had, she wouldn't be here to make the same, tired, childish threat in 2008.</div> <div> If you're a regular reader you've figured out that I'm no big fan of Sen. McCain. However, I'll vote for him if Susan Sarandon will be true to her word this time around. Heck, I'll vote for Obama if she'll promise to leave the country, and take Tim Robbins with her. If they'll pick up Jane Fonda and leave as a trio I'll write in Karl Marx. It would be worth that dirty, used, one-night-stand feeling to finally get rid of these three stooges.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_great_force_for_evil"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The great force for evil</div> <div> May 30, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Remember how liberals accused our soldiers of abusing prisoners? American troops allowed dogs to bark in the face of Islamic terrorists. They stacked naked Iraqi prisoners in piles. They held them in solitary confinement and gave them only one helping of lemon-baked chicken for dinner. Marines and Rangers actually had the gall to shoot their enemies before their enemies shot them.</div> <div> All told, American liberals concluded that the US Military constitutes the greatest force for evil and threat to peace in the world today. Liberals claimed that if only we would subjugate our armed forces and national sovereignty to the United Nations the world would be a better place. As usual, liberals were wrong.</div> <div> The United Nations has not only failed every time it has tried to fight a war, it has failed every time it has tried to keep the peace. And now, as if its history of accomplishment weren't sordid enough, UN peacekeepers and aid workers are abusing children in the nations they're supposed to be helping.</div> <div> According to Save the Children, UN workers have forced kids as young as six-years-old to perform sexual acts and engage in child pornography. They've groped kids. They've kissed kids, and not like you kiss your kid after they've said their nightly prayers. Most disgusting of all, UN aid workers are reported to have denied food aid to children unless they first performed sexual favors. Where is the liberal outrage against this most vile and useless of governmental organizations?</div> <div> Now, tell me again how the US military is the greatest force for evil in the world.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="obama_s_memorial_to_the_living"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Obama's memorial to the living</div> <div> May 28, 2008</div> <bR> <div> I can forgive Barak Obama for using the wrong concentration camp name when telling a story about his uncle's war service. Auschwitz, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Dachau. What's the difference? But he made another statement during his Memorial Day speech that isn't so easily overlooked.</div> <div> Obama said, "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes-and I see many of them in the audience here today-our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." If we don't understand what's wrong with this statement then we have lost our concept of Memorial Day's meaning.</div> <div> Memorial Day isn't Veteran's Day. It isn't a day to honor every one who has served in the military, nor even those who were wounded in combat. A memorial by its very nature remembers those who are dead. Honor is bestowed on the living. Veteran's Day honors our countrymen who've served in our nation's defense, whether wounded or not in both war and in peace. Memorial Day is set aside to remember our fellow Americans who were killed in action, and those who survived beyond their service but have since passed on.</div> <div> For a presidential candidate, of any party, not to understand that distinction is an abysmal indictment not only on the candidate but on this nation as a whole. We're the suckers who may soon elect this clod to the highest office in the land.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="he_s_in_the_doghouse_now"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>He's in the doghouse now</div> <div> May 28, 2008</div> <bR> <div> When can hiring a maid land a husband in the doghouse? As Paul Harvey says, wait until you hear the rest of the story.</div> <div> A Florida man needed the house cleaned before his wife arrived home from her vacation. He turned to the Internet and found a nice cleaning service. He hired the service, at $100 per hour, and a young maid arrived at his home wearing a one-piece dress. Soon thereafter the young maid was as naked as the day she was born and cleaning house to beat the band.</div> <div> She was doing such a wonderful job that the man left her alone while she cleaned the bedroom. She finished her chores, put her clothes on once again and left. But she left with a bonus.</div> <div> When the wife returned home she found $40,000 worth of jewelry missing. You all know how nosy the police can be when it comes to taking a crime report, especially when the crime involves theft on so great a scale. Now, married men, how'd you like to explain the presence of a naked maid working in your bedroom while your wife's on vacation? Yeah, how'd you like to explain that?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="germany_s_tribute_to_the_sa"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Germany's tribute to the SA</div> <div> May 27, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Germany has memorialized the homosexuals who were persecuted by the Nazis during World War II. It is said that 50,000 homosexuals were tried in Nazi courts and shipped off to concentration camps. I wonder how many people remember, or ever knew, that many SA leaders (Nazi storm troopers, or brown shirts, who aided Hitler's ascent to power) were homosexual?</div> <div> Ernst Rohm was known to swing from the other side of the tree. He was the head man in the SA and an ally from the very beginning of Hitler's ambitious rise to dictator. Edmund Heines was also known to be gay. In fact, he was found in bed with a man on the night of his execution. Karl Ernst was a part of the Reichstag arson in 1933. Was he homosexual, too, and now memorialized? Indeed, some of the persecuted homosexuals now honored in Germany were also some the most notorious of Hitler's henchmen.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="no_cause_for_jubilation"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>No cause for jubilation</div> <div> May 26, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Sen. Ted Kennedy's brain cancer is no cause for a conservative celebration. I remember how the Left reacted when Ronald Reagan announced his coming bout with Alzheimer's. I remember the tasteless jokes and the childish sarcasm. The vitriolic hatred the Left had for Reagan went beyond political ideology to the very core of their, and his, existence. The hated him personally and passionately because he dared confront their erroneous version of reality. Charlton Heston was treated likewise.</div> <div> Conservatives hold no such ill feelings toward political adversaries. I'll never be accused of supporting Sen. Kennedy's policies. I consider him an enemy of all America should hold dear. However, personally, I don't hate the man. In fact, I hope and pray that he makes a full recovery. I hope he continues to enjoy life, his family, and whatever else may be important to him.</div> <div> However, if his illness were to force him to relinquish his Senate seat, that's not such a bad thing. The fact that he's sick, though no cause for joy, shouldn't change the impression of Sen. Ted Kennedy, the way he pursued his job, his policies, or the way he promoted them. His illness doesn't change the fact that he's dead wrong on the role of government, that he's a socialist, and that he's been bad for America during his entire 40-plus years in the Senate.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="justice_is_served"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Justice is served</div> <div> May 26, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Martin Mustapha found a dead fly in a bottle of water, and did he ever suffer. He claimed depression, anxiety, and some kind of phobia resulting from his “ordeal”. He sued, of course, and won $345,000. But Martin's depression, anxiety, and phobia had just begun.</div> <div> The Supreme Court of Canada agreed, in a 9-0 ruling, that Mustapha does indeed suffer from the calamitous mental disorders he claims. Now-Paul Harvey forgive me-comes the rest of the story. The court also ruled that a fly in a water bottle wouldn't have so affected a well-adjusted person, meaning that Martin was nuts to begin with. Therefore, the bottled water company isn't obligated to compensate Martin. What's more, he will have to pay thousands of dollars in court costs.</div> <div> Finally there's a sign that common sense and rationale aren't dead in judicial rulings, even if the ruling wasn't issued in a US court. This same breed of frivolous litigation imposes untold millions of dollars on our country each year.</div> <div> We're always told that we should be more like Canada, France, and Britain. Here's our chance to do it. Hopefully, our courts will soon begin telling such frivolous and unwarranted plaintiffs to take a hike, just like Canada did.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="should_every_disability_be_accommodated_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Should every disability be accommodated?</div> <div> May 25, 2008</div> <bR> <div> I feel for people with disabilities. I really do, and I have some idea what it's like. My sister was born deaf. The special attention and consideration she needed was obvious. But that didn't mean that the entire world changed to suit her. Nowadays, everyone and everything must change to accommodate the disabled or the handicapped.</div> <div> A federal court has ruled that US currency discriminates against the blind. The ruling resulted from a lawsuit filed by the American Council of the Blind. The suit claimed that paper money denies the blind “meaningful access to currency”. Thus, they want the government to print denominations in different sizes. The ruling raises a few questions.</div> <div> First, how have blind people managed money up until now, before the court ruling? Second, what will be the taxpayer's cost for printing the new money? Will it simply place an undue financial burden on taxpayers in return for a very limited benefit? Third, is society as a whole obligated to make accommodation for each and every disability? If so, nearly anyone can claim some form of handicap and demand forced sacrifice from everyone else. And if you leave anyone out, that is a form of discrimination in itself.</div> <div> When the Americans with Disabilities Act passed years ago, opponents warned that it would grow far beyond its good intentions. It appears to be doing just that. But in this age of political correctness anyone who questions the legal idea that currency discriminates against the blind will be quickly labeled “blindaphobic”. Who wants to wear that label?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="place_trust_where_it_belongs"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Place trust where it belongs</div> <div> May 18, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Every reader knows that I'm no fan of government, and of politicians to an even lesser extent. However, both are a fact of civilization. Therefore, we must analyze leaders to determine which one is most worthy of our faith.</div> <div> Osama bin Laden has allegedly released another statement, this time claiming the heart of al-Qaida's jihad against the West is the plight of the Palestinians. If the news accounts are accurate, all bin Laden and his henchmen desire is a Palestinian state and all will be well. However, his promise to not surrender “an inch of the land of Palestine” tells the true story. Where is the area of Palestine? Osama is reaffirming the jihad mantra for Israel's destruction. Even this is misleading, for Quranic passages teach Muslims to kill the unbeliever. Even if we helped Islam eradicate Israel we would remain in their crosshairs and the jihad would continue.</div> <div> Yet pointy-headed Western intellectuals and “progressives” will believe that bin Laden's claim is reasonable even if bin Laden himself is not. Those intellectuals will say that we now have an opportunity to create dialogue with this enemy, all the while ignoring the fact that anyone who doesn't accept bin Laden's message of surrender and dhimmitude is subject to the sword. Finally, they will insist that President Bush is the great threat to civility, humanity, and peace.</div> <div> What does it say about leftists when the words of a rogue terrorist living in a cave and ordering wholesale death and destruction is accepted more readily than an American president?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="desertion_isn_t_heroic"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Desertion isn't heroic</div> <div> May 17, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Matthis Chiroux will not be going to Iraq when his unit deploys next month. Instead, Chiroux will face the possibility of courts martial for desertion, saying he cannot be a part of what he considers an illegal war and occupation. The problem is that Chiroux wasn't shanghaied; he enlisted. When he did so he became the property of the military. Everyone who has enlisted or accepted commission in the U.S. armed forces knows this fact.</div> <div> The Constitution doesn't address the rights or govern the lives of a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. He or she falls under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). There is no freedom of speech, and no freedom to determine one's duty or chose one's assignment, as exists in the civilian world. A soldier has surrendered his or her self to the lawful orders of their superiors. Whether or not they agree with their assignment is inconsequential. Deploying with your unit is a lawful order.</div> <div> Matthis Chiroux knows this and, thus, is without excuse for his planned desertion and probable trial.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="you_could_ve_bet_on_it"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>You could've bet on it</div> <div> May 17, 2008</div> <bR> <div> North Carolina Governor Mike Easley has submitted his last budget. Wouldn't you just know it would include a tax increase? North Carolinians will pay an extra 20 cents on a pack of cigarettes, an extra four cents on a can of beer and an extra three cents on a bottle of wine if Gov. Easley's plan becomes law. He says it will generate an additional $160 million each year that will, predictably, be spent on education.</div> <div> Just a few years ago Gov. Easley was instrumental in railroading North Carolina into the education lottery era. We were told that the lottery would make our schools strong while holding the line on tax increases. Now we have a proposed tax increase to keep the school system strong and the “education” lottery is exposed as the fraud its detractors predicted.</div> <div> I don't know what odds Vegas would've placed on the possibility of government promising one thing and then doing another, or of a politician promising one thing and delivering another. But I suspect it would've been, at worst, even money.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="take_a_bite_out_of_crime"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Take a bite out of crime</div> <div> May 11, 2008</div> <bR> <div> McRuff the crime dog used to say, “Help us take a bite out of crime.” If only we had the courage to do so. Instead, we seem content to let criminals roam free while we take a bite out of our freedom in the name of combating crime. I know it makes no sense. But when was the last time a government solution made sense?</div> <div> I'm all for police officers. They have a tough job and must make split second decisions that can alter not only the lives of the suspects they pursue but their own lives as well. It's a job most of us wouldn't have for twice the average cop on the beat's salary. Yet there are some troubling responses to crime that appear to be placing police departments at odds with the laws and, subsequently, the liberties they are to serve.</div> <div> Everyone saw the footage of the arrest in Philadelphia where several officers gave a few toughs a good beating. Then there was the acquittal of the New York officers who killed an unarmed suspect at a wedding party. But these are just symptoms, and perhaps justifiable when all the facts are presented. It is in Chicago where an ominous precedent is being established. A recent spike in shootings has left dozens dead, prompting the police department to step up patrols. Among their new tactics is equipping the city's 13,500 officers with combat rifles.</div> <div> Friends, the streets of large American cities are rife with gangs, thugs, drugs and goons. Frankly, if I were a police officer I wouldn't patrol the streets of Chicago with anything less than grenades, bazookas, and machine guns. I would prefer the M-1 Abrams, or at least a Bradley fighting vehicle, as a patrol cruiser. Even so, there is something unnerving about normal patrol officers toting combat rifles around town.</div> <div> Government officials will declare that a tough show of force is the only way to control a growing crime problem. All the while convicted felons are turned out onto the streets due to prison overcrowding, a lack of funding for prosecutors, or some bedwetting psychobabbler's gimmickry. If you don't believe it, take a look at the Eve Carson case in Chapel Hill, NC. Along the way lawful citizens will become accustomed to a military-style police presence, possibly setting the stage for a future police state.</div> <div> If only we had the moral courage to treat criminals like criminals we might take a real bite out of crime, instead of a bite out of our freedom.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="government_in_action_part_ii"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Government in action, Part II</div> <div> May 10, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Keep these words from the prophet Isaiah, chapter 32, verses six and seven, in mind as you consider the Burmese government's response to Cyclone Nargis:</div> <bR> <div> For the fool speaks folly, his mind is busy with evil: He practices ungodliness and spreads error concerning the LORD; the hungry he leaves empty and from the thirsty he withholds water. The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just.</div> <bR> <div> What little bit of food and aid the Burma dictatorship has allowed into the storm-ravaged nation was immediately confiscated by government officials. That aid was subsequently halted altogether, prompting shock and outrage around the world. But we shouldn't be surprised at all.</div> <div> All government exists to control their populations to a certain degree. It isn't government's natural tendency to ensure the protection of human rights or to ease human suffering. It is government's natural tendency to protect itself. No wonder Thomas Paine referred to government as, at best, “a necessary evil.” </div> <div> The Burmese government has faced unrest within its population and will take no chance that its power will be challenged. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us that all packages entering Burma, even packages of humanitarian assistance, would be subject to government confiscation and inspection. Burma's dictators will take no chance on weapons being smuggled into the country that could aid an armed rebellion by an oppressed and desperate population.</div> <div> The Burmese military junta would rather see millions of its own people starve to death than risk the slightest threat to its absolute control. Does that sound harsh and incomprehensible? You bet it does. But it is a natural progression of government. We've seen it happen in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, and any other nation where collectivist government is or was considered superior to individual liberty.</div> <div> Hopefully, Americans will learn this lesson before it's too late.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="that_s_imperialism"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>That's imperialism!</div> <div> May 10, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Leftists are fond of berating the United States in general and conservatives in particular for imperialist attitudes. Of course, a thinking person realizes that America is not trying to colonize the world. If we were, we'd have kept Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. under US control, not help them establish their own governments in the aftermath of war. Now we see that the imperialism may be on the other foot.</div> <div> Socialist, panderer, agent of change, purveyor of hope, quasi-messiah and absolute politician Barak Obama said his campaign has taken him to “57 states”, with “only one left to go.” And the now 58 United States of America doesn't included Alaska and Hawaii. Did he simply misspeak? Or, has he revealed a secret leftist agenda to colonize Pakistan (a nation he once promised to invade), Mexico, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and grant statehood to Puerto Rico, Guam and the District of Columbia?</div> <div> You can bet that this statement will be passed off with a wink and a nod in a leftist-dominated media that is enamored with Obama. It will be contributed to the stress and fatigue of a long campaign. However, if a Republican candidate made such a statement it would be taken as a Freudian slip, an unauthorized peek inside the mind of the conservative's world domination mentality. At the very least, the offending speaker would be ridiculed as a clueless stooge who's mentally incompetent to fill the nation's highest office. If you don't believe so, just ask Dan Quayle.</div> <bR> <div> Watch the video at <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtI"><U>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="a_sign_of_the_gop_s_illness"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>A sign of the GOP's illness</div> <div> May 8, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Ethanol's recent fall from grace was inevitable. It just makes no sense to turn a staple food product into an inefficient fuel source. However, even with worldwide food shortages, some ethanol proponents are rising to its defense. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) is at the front of the parade.</div> <div> Sen. Grassley is a long-time supporter of ethanol. Apparently, he has a problem with critics of this persistent cash cow. Grassley finds it unbelievable that ethanol is being lambasted for its affect on high food prices. In fact, he wonders what the cost of corn has to do with the price of wheat and rice. Sen. Grassley, I have an answer for you.</div> <div> As ethanol produced a greater demand on corn supplies, driving corn's cost up, more farmers committed more acreage to corn cultivation. Since there are just so many farms with so many much arable lands, less acreage is now devoted to wheat, rice, and other food staples. As less of these grains are produced, speculators will bid up the price on the futures markets. And, since corn is now sought not only by food producers but fuel producers, its price is driven up in like manner.</div> <div> Sen. Grassley is a recognizable name within the Republican Party. He has represented Iowa for 28 years, and he looks like a nice guy. However, the fact that he's placed devotion to federal subsidies above the facts about ethanol and the Republican dedication to free markets is indicative of why the GOP is in trouble. He is a prime example of a political party that has lost its way.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="oil_futures_and_the_pump_price"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Oil futures and the pump price</div> <div> May 4, 2008</div> <bR> <div> When oil prices surge consumers immediately feel the hit at the pump. The price spike prompts buyers to complain about price-gouging. The gasoline presently in the tanks was purchased while oil was at a lower price. Why should it go up just because next month's gasoline might cost more? Pump prices don't drop immediately when crude's price declines. That means the consumer is getting the shaft from both ends. No we aren't, and here's a quick explanation for why.</div> <div> Gas station owners must plan for their next shipment of gasoline. If they do not make sufficient profit from their existing gasoline supply to cover the cost of the next shipment their tanks will run dry and they're out of business. When the price of crude spikes, station owners must conclude that the next shipment of fuel will cost more money. Therefore, the current pump price rises accordingly.</div> <div> So, why doesn't the pump price fall immediately when the price of crude declines? There are two reasons. First, retailers can't sell existing fuel supplies at a loss and stay in business. If their wholesale cost demands a retail price of $3.50 per gallon, then they must sell at that cost to cover their investmentment. Second, the retailer must also consider that any slide in crude prices could be short-lived. If retailers drop the price of current, refined inventory based on a falling crude price and the future crude price escalates, that retailer has no funds to buy at the higher cost. The retailer's tanks run dry and the station is out of business, or takes on a needless debt based on a lack of vision.</div> <div> You may not like this explanation, and you may not consider it fair. But before you argue about it, apply the same analogy to whatever product or service you're selling or providing. Would you sell your goods at a loss?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="mccain_gets_one_right"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>McCain gets one right</div> <div> May 3, 2008</div> <bR> <div> I've been at odds with Sen. John McCain for years. I was at odds with him over illegal alien amnesty, which he condescendingly called immigration reform. I was at odds with him over tax cuts, court justice nominees, global warming and campaign finance reform. But when he gets it right I'm big enough to give him credit.</div> <div> McCain stood in Iowa (a farm state) and told an Iowa crowd (a farm audience) that he opposes farm subsidies and, if president, would veto farm bills that include subsidies. If that means he'd veto subsidies for corn and ethanol fuels, then McCain is absolutely right. </div> <div> Subsidizing corn and ethanol production is degenerative at best. At worst, it is downright criminal. As the Corn Belt turns more and more efficient foods, such as corn, into more and more inefficient fuels, such as ethanol, prices for corn and grain-based foods escalate. In some parts of the world food shortages are becoming common, and it isn't just in underdeveloped, third world countries. Right here in America retailers are rationing grain-based staples such as rice. And there are reports of Americans hoarding grains and cereals.</div> <div> Whether or not this is a hyperbolic run on the grocers, somewhat like the run on the banks in 1929, doesn't matter. The affects of such a run are real even if the fears behind them aren't. And we can place much of the responsibility at the feet of governmental leaders who've caved to environmentalist's demands for bio-fuel to combat the unknown and unpredictable effects of climate change. Congress may be using the taxpayer's money to subsidize food shortages, which is a far more imminent threat to mankind than theoretical global warming.</div> <div> McCain is correct in opposing farm subsidies.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="a_man_wiser_than_he_knows"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>A man wiser than he knows</div> <div> May 2, 2008</div> <bR> <div> I was listening to a radio program when a man named Dwayne called in. He is a self-described black man, and he has an interesting take on the Democratic primaries. According to Dwayne, it doesn't matter whether Hillary or Barak becomes the party's presidential nominee. If it's Clinton, blacks will be offended for a while. But come November they'll be right back on the plantation, voting Democratic, no matter how much they've been taken for granted. Dwayne made that statement because he's watched how black people have voted for the last 40-plus years, ever since the Democrats became their alleged saviors.</div> <div> Dwayne added that the only solution for seeing his race elevate is for each individual to stand on their two feet and take responsibility for their actions. Dwayne is more right than he realizes, for his advice is good not only for blacks but for whites and Hispanics, too. Far too many people have abdicated their responsibilities, and that attitude has become a monumental drain on our nation, our economy, and our freedom. </div> <div> I say it's time we made leaders out of men like Dwayne.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="social_programs_are_getting_results"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Social programs are getting results</FONT></div> <div> May 1, 2008</div> <bR> <div> One day's police blotter does not a crime wave make. However, it can provide us with a snapshot of where we stand as a culture. That snapshot isn't a very pretty picture.</div> <div> On April 29 the Gastonia (NC) Police Department responded to forty reported crimes. Thirty of those crimes involved larceny, burglary, counterfeiting, fraud, or forgery. In short, three-quarters of the reported crimes on that single day involved some form of stealing, an attempt to get something for nothing. Many people will find such a police blotter surprising, even appalling. But the only thing about it that surprises me is that it surprises anyone.</div> <div> For more than forty years our governments--at all levels and in direct opposition to government's legitimate duties--have sold Americans on the idea that there is a free lunch. Politicians have convinced people that they have the right to live at their neighbor's expense. As more and more people have adopted this concept they have simply cut out the middleman. Instead of waiting on government to take their neighbor's wealth and property and redistribute it to them, they have decided to steal it on their own.</div> <div> Thanks to the programs initiated by Lyndon Baines Johnson, an ever-increasing number of Americans have no respect for private property, no sense of responsibility and little concern for anything other than their own greed. Don't believe it? Just read your local police blotter.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="christianity_mocked"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Christianity mocked</div> <div> April 30, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Are you familiar with Larry Lessig? He is a friend, technology adviser and former colleague of Barak Obama. He has also used his technological prowess to build a YouTube video depicting an effeminate “Jesus Christ” carousing through the streets of an American city singing “I Will Survive”, a rather poor song that is forgotten but apparently not gone. This “Jesus” comes complete with a crown of thorns, and when he removes his robe he reveals a loin cloth similar to ones depicted in crucifixion paintings. In the end, “Jesus” is creamed by a speeding bus.</div> <div> What if Lessig had made this video about Mohammad, no peace be upon him? Imagine what you will, but I'll wager that Lessig would be publicly disgraced, charged with Islamophobia, and disavowed by Obama. Furthermore, Islamic fanatics would demand his head on a platter. There would be riots and calls for jihad, terror and death. But, since its intent is to belittle Christ, the world is at rest.</div> <div> There are two simple lessons to learn from Lessig's video. First, Christianity is the only faith or religion that can be insulted with impunity. Second, Christianity, not Islam, is the religion of peace.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="write_right_please"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Write right, please</div> <div> April 27, 2008</div> <bR> <div> The electronic lexicon is making its way into formal schoolwork. Emoticons are taking the place of Standard English in more and more middle and high school writing assignments, so says a Pew Internet and American Life Project study. The combination of ;) for a winking smiley face or LOL for laughing out loud is becoming all too common in schoolwork and it bodes poorly for the offending student's future.</div> <div> There is a time for clowning around. But there's a time for serious work, too. Pig Latin has its place; but it isn't appropriate speech when one addresses the Pope at the Vatican. The same holds true for techno-lingo. If such a casual style becomes acceptable writing for youths, their future business or project managers will be LOL right in their faces, followed closely by the emoticon “<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Wingdings 2" >=</FONT>”, which means, “Get out of my office. You're fired!”</div> <div> Pew researcher Amanda Lenhart says, “If you find that [emoticons] in a child's or student's writing, that's an opportunity to address the differences between formal and informal writing.” Fair enough, but let's make an indelible impression. Instead of trying so hard not to harm the student's “self-esteem” let's let them know that proper English is the only standard for formal writing. “How,” you ask? We resurrect an old schoolhouse emoticon.</div> <div> When a paper filled with shortcuts and smiley faces crosses a teacher's desk, that paper should be returned with a big, red “F” at the top of the page. For a generation raised on email and text messages, “F” is “emoticon” for you flunked! That should result in “message received”, don't you think?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="ah_to_be_old_one_day"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Ah, to be old one day!</div> <div> April 20, 2008</div> <bR> <div> A new study released by a University of Chicago sociologist has found that older Americans are happier than any other age group. The results are based on 32 years worth of individual interviews with nearly 28,000 people from the ages of 18 to 88. At every stage the older people were happier, more content and socially active than other age groups. What does this do to the carefully crafted, politicized portrait of senior citizens?</div> <div> We're told that we must have federally funded food for the elderly or they will have to eat dog food. Hence, old people are miserable. We're told that we must have a nationalized prescription drug plan or seniors will have to choose between their medications and their dog food. Hence, old people are miserable. We're told that we must have federal energy programs or seniors will bake during the summer and freeze during the winter. Hence, old people are miserable. We're told that we must have federal housing and social programs or seniors will be tossed out in the streets to fend for their selves. Hence, old people are miserable. Then along comes this study, which tells us that old people really aren't miserable at all.</div> <div> Liberalism has long sold Americans a bad bill of goods. The entire agenda is based on misinformation and outright lies. The study highlights another example of how this devious political philosophy has constructed the welfare state in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Either they've compelled the country to a false sense of duty, or they have played one set of Americans against another through greed and envy. In any case, liberalism is based on a totally false premise.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="a_tax_refund_is_in_order"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>A tax refund is in order</div> <div> April 19, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Government has certain legitimate functions to perform. To that end taxes are levied upon the citizens. Most people, even the most anti-government zealots you'd care to meet (like me), understand that taxation is a necessary evil in maintaining civilization. However, government isn't competing in the private sector and should never take in more revenue than it needs to fulfill its obligations. With that understood, the State of North Carolina's whining about slowing revenue is a bitter pill to swallow.</div> <div> The General Assembly was recently informed that the state is only $15 to $20 million dollars ahead of its revenue projections through March. In January, that surplus was $140 million, meaning that the surplus has dwindled approximately $120 million.</div> <div> There can be many reasons for the decline in the state's revenue surpluses, far too many to address in one short article. But one thing is beyond debate. The state has thus far collected more money from North Carolina's taxpayers than they expected to need. If that holds true through the end of the fiscal year, and holding to the premise previously stated, North Carolinians will be due a tax refund.</div> <div> I'm sure the check will be in the mail come early October, aren't you?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="arrogance_on_display"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Arrogance on display</div> <div> April 17, 2008</div> <bR> <div> There is no one as arrogant as the one who would determine the goals and desires of their neighbors. With that in mind let's look at a few quotes. “Folks don't mind working hard. They don't mind a high bar. Some just want to know that the bar will be still-that's all they want to know,” said a well-known person. “The truth is most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive a little bit.”</div> <div> So, most of us here in the great unwashed really don't want success. All we want is enough money to pay the rent, the utility bill, and keep the cable TV operational. Oh, and of course we need enough money to buy a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon and a carton of smokes down at the Tiny Giant convenience store every Friday night. That's all we want, and we want to know that it's accessible.</div> <div> Success and achievement are only for a select few. Success and achievement are only for those who have attended Harvard Law School or have written a book. Success and achievement are only for those who are running for president on a plank of undetermined hope and ambiguous change. Success and achievement are only for Michelle Obama and her husband Barak.</div> <div> The words are those of Michelle Obama, uttered at a campaign appearance in Winston-Salem, NC. They reveal much about the Obamas' attitude and how they perceive their supporters. The Obamas are two of the privileged few for whom success and achievement are permissible.</div> <div> For the rest of you, just be satisfied with what you have and don't try to reach any higher. Don't try to improve your lot in life so you and your family can live independently. That way, the people who are smarter than you, more industrious than you, and more deserving of success than you-people like Barak and Michelle Obama-can meet your needs and provide you with a false sense of security. After all, higher achievement is fine for them. What's fine for you is to live hand to mouth and grovel at their feet for the duration of this campaign.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="big_gov_plays_us_for_fools"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Big Gov plays us for fools</FONT></div> <div> April 11, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Congress has again used rising gasoline prices and Big Oil profits to grandstand for the voters. This time our alleged representatives assembled the CEOs of Exxon Mobil, BP and others for their self-serving witch hunt.</div> <div> “On April Fool's Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil,” said Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA). The obvious intent is to depict oil companies as evil, faceless, inhuman entities under the rule of greedy, corrupt robber-barons bent on sticking it to the American people. When the Big Oil representative pointed out that oil companies must maximize their profits during up cycles to remain viable during down cycles, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) suggested that the current up cycle has gone on too long.</div> <div> In reality, both men are correct. The American people are being played for fools and the up cycle has gone on too long. Only it's not Big Oil that is the culprit. It's Big Gov. Government has been on an up cycle since the New Deal. That up cycle accelerated with the Great Society. As of now, 2008, the era of big government has raged on for 76 years with no end or deceleration in sight. I maintain that Big Gov is playing “the biggest joke of all” on the American people.</div> <div> I know gasoline is a necessity for most people. But we do have some options. We can buy different brands from different stores, seeking the best price available. We can combine trips to maximize our fuel efficiency. We can drive less. We can carpool. We can trade our large vehicles for smaller ones. All of these options and others are available in the marketplace. The options available may not be preferable to low gasoline prices, but at least we have options of some sort.</div> <div> When dealing with government we have no options. When the price becomes too high we can't seek government services from another outlet. We can't combine government services, nor can we use less of them. Well, perhaps we can use fewer government services, but you can bet the farm we'll still pay the same price. We can't trade in our lumbering, inefficient government services for smaller, more economical ones. In short, we're stuck.</div> <div> To hear Rep. Markey and Rep. Cleaver moan about gasoline prices while they preside over an ever-expanding, unresponsive, and overpriced government machine that dwarf's Big Oil in terms of excess is the height of chutzpah. Isn't it time we quit worrying about Big Oil and demanded hearings on Big Gov's price-gouging practices?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="oh_no_no_agenda_here_1"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Oh no, no agenda here</FONT></div> <div> April 9, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Pineview Elementary School in Reedsburg, Wisconsin had Wacky Week recently. Such events aren't new in schools. But this wacky week had a twist that's a bit wackier than usual. Not only is its wackiness worth questioning but also the double standard it represents.</div> <div> On the last day of Wacky Week students had the option of dressing like a senior citizen or a member of the opposite sex. The obvious conclusion is that this is another attempt to legitimize the gay agenda and feed it to children at a young, impressionable age. Tom Benson, the school district administrator, said the dress-up day was merely an attempt to have some fun for the kids, not pay homage to cross-dressing or homosexuality.</div> <div> Alright; I don't know Tom so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But how would dress-up day go if a kid decided to attend school dressed as a U.S. Marine, complete with a toy M-16 and hand grenades? How would such a dress-up day go if a kid came to school as a Wayne LaPierre, Ronald Reagan, or one of the Founding Fathers? And, worst of all, what would happen if a kid came to dress-up day as Moses, King David, the Apostle Paul or-worst of all-Jesus Christ?</div> <div> Friends, you and I both know that the school district would have entered bovine labor. That means they would've had a cow. Furthermore, the ACLU would have descended like vultures on carrion-not a bad analogy if I do say so myself-to denounce the blatant disregard for the separation of church and state.</div> <div> Fortunately, concerned parents flooded the school with complaints. Good, for if we do nothing when such foolishness occurs we have no one to blame but ourselves for the decline of our culture. And you just know that had the parents not complained the cross-dressing day would've gone off without a hitch. Maybe the next such event would've gone just a little bit farther.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="i_smell_a_plant_1"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >I smell a plant!</FONT></div> <div> April 5, 2008</div> <bR> <div> I'm no supporter of either socialist candidate for president, be it Clinton or Obama. In fact, I trust neither of them, considering them both to be lying politicians of the worst order who carefully conceal their agenda with flowery phrases and populist sound bites. Considering this level of dishonesty, what would you make of a black woman being shackled and dragged from a Clinton campaign appearance?</div> <div> A black woman was indeed shackled and dragged from the Wilshire Theatre in Los Angeles after she went berserk. She claimed to be the only black Hillary supporter in attendance, which is disputed by eyewitness accounts, and that her treatment was wholly undeserved. In fact, she was insolent, violent and totally out of control. She should've been hauled away, preferably to the nuthouse. But friends, I smell a plant and it ain't no rose.</div> <div> Would anyone put it passed the Obama campaign to send this woman to a Clinton event for the sole purpose of creating a scene? Is it beyond belief that she was there to disrupt the event and then scream about a “black woman in shackles” on the eve of the 40<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> anniversary of Dr. King's murder, knowing that every word would be caught on audio or video? For all of this to happen during such a racially-charged campaign is a bit too coincidental to chalk up to coincidence. What better way to portray Hillary as the Satan of “white America” than to have a distraught black woman dragged from a public place in a manner reminiscent to 19<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> Century slavery?</div> <div> Conversely, Hillary Clinton is no jewel of integrity either. Who's to say this wasn't her campaign's idea? It is entirely believable for the Clintons to have staged the entire sequence, understanding that the first impression would be to blame Obama.</div> <div> Either way, this episode speaks volumes to the quality of the Democratic candidates for this nation's highest office. The shackled woman could simply be a nut; there are plenty of them to go around at any Democratic gathering. Yet the fact that neither the Clinton nor Obama campaigns are above suspicion allude to the total lack of integrity found in both candidates.</div> <bR> <div> Listen to the video: <A HREF="http://www.breitbart.tv/html/73363.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.breitbart.tv/html/73363.html"><U>Black woman shackled at Hillary campaign event</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="old_enough_for_war_old_enough_for_guns"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Old enough for war, old enough for guns</div> <div> April 4, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Gun control activists are an interesting bunch. Never has a group of people so contradicted by common sense considered their untenable position so authoritative. You would expect such folks to oppose South Carolina's move to lower the age for owning a handgun from 21 to 18. And you would expect basic logic to be deleted from their argument.</div> <div> An 18-year-old American can go to their local military recruiter's office and enlist in the Marines or the Army. That 18-year-old recruit will be trusted to properly and effectively handle weaponry ranging from fully automatic M-16s and grenade launchers to missile batteries and battle tanks. And they can use each of them in hostile situations for the defense of our Constitution and the rights it represents, including the right to bear arms. Yet liberal activists would have us believe that the 18-year-old recruit is too immature to buy a .22 pistol at the gun store downtown.</div> <div> South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford should sign this bill into law immediately. If liberals can release criminals based on the Eighth Amendment then surely a young man or woman who actually defended the Eighth Amendment can buy a handgun under the protection of the Second.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="o_government_our_lord"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>O Government, our lord!</div> <div> April 3, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Barak Obama can claim membership in Jeremiah Wright's church and Hillary Clinton can boast allegiance to whatever she boasts allegiance to. But their actions speak of their god, and it's a god that won't be found in any church of any denomination.</div> <div> What is Barak's answer to Wall Street's recent stumble and the sub-prime mortgage situation? More government oversight, what else? Furthermore, he chided John McCain for opposing a government based program to address the mortgage malaise. </div> <div>  How does Clinton plan to stimulate the economy? Well, a Government-funded and managed job retraining program appears to her a good place to start. The government needs to take responsibility for helping laid-off or dismissed workers.</div> <div> Our government should do this. Our government should do that. Our government should do this, that and the other. Government, government, government. Why don't Democrats set up an altar shaped like capital hill; a huge golden statue ala King Nebuchadnezzar? However, Democrats have routinely worshiped at government's golden calf for years. Therefore it should be no surprise when summon government to meet everyone's needs. But wouldn't it be nice if they would, just once, worship at a different altar for a change?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="government_in_action"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Government in Action</div> <div> April 2, 2008</div> <bR> <div> The southwestern piedmont area of North Carolina has endured drought for the last year or so. That includes Mecklenburg County. Since the drought put a drain on area water reserves the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department implemented mandatory water restrictions. Residents followed the restrictions and conserved water, which isn't a bad idea during a drought. But then a problem arose.</div> <div> Conservation means to use less of something, meaning that something will produce less revenue for its sellers. CMUD's answer to the dwindling revenue? Raise water rates as much as 16-percent. CMUD “customers” may soon have the honor of paying more money for less water. Only in government could such an idea make sense.</div> <div> If this happened in the private sector the government would hold hearings, declare injustice and lament the price-gouging practices of greedy corporations. However, when government increases rates in return for dwindling services no one offers a peep of protest. Why not run CMUD like a business? If customers are using less water then CMUD need move less water. Therefore, CMUD needs fewer workers to meet the decreased demand. That's what happens when the private sector faces a dwindling demand for its products. But, then, the private sector doesn't have the power to arrest us when we tell them to take a hike with their higher prices.</div> <div> Of course, CMUD could have adopted a market approach to water conservation. It could have raised prices as a wider water market chased a dwindling supply of water. In that scenario a higher price could be charged for a dwindling supply, thereby ensuring conservation without mandatory restrictions.</div> <div> We all know that government would never adopt such a market approach. The question now becomes what will happen when the drought ends, the reservoirs are replenished and water use returns to normal? Will the rates return to their previous level? Yeah, sure they will.</div> <div>     <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></FONT> </div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_price_of_the_spotlight"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The price of the spotlight</div> <div> April 1, 2008</div> <bR> <div> If former first daughter Chelsea Clinton didn't want to answer questions she should have stayed out of her mother's presidential campaign. It seems that everywhere she goes someone asks about the Lewinsky affair. If her responses prove nothing else they prove that apples don't fall far from the tree. She says the matter is no one's business, just as her parents did a decade ago. While the Lewinsky matter is indeed history, I beg to differ with Chelsea's assertion that it's none of our concern.</div> <div> What happened between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was every American's business. It occurred in the White House, especially the Oval Office, meaning Clinton was being serviced while on the taxpayer's dime. It certainly highlighted Clinton's lack of honesty and character and cast a pall over his judgment. And Hillary's conduct during the affair is fair game because she is, after all, running for the presidency. But there is a more fundamental reason that the Lewinsky matter was and remains everyone's business.</div> <div> The President, like any other public official, is beholding to the public. That means his or her life is open to scrutiny. If a candidate finds that prospect bothersome then another line of work should be considered. We have a right to know what our politicians and candidates are up to, for they are no longer private citizens. Very little of their life is off limits and they should have no expectation of privacy.</div> <div> Thomas Jefferson once said, “When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself as public property.” Chelsea Clinton should remember Mr. Jefferson's words and answer the questions whether she thinks they are applicable or not. If she's uncomfortable with that prospect she should stay out of her mom's campaign.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="armed_pilots_aren_t_a_tragedy_in_waiting"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Armed pilots aren't a tragedy in waiting</div> <div> March 31, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Much has been made of the US Airways pilot who accidentally shot a hole in his aircraft's fuselage. The pilot explained that the accident occurred while he was stowing the weapon. If so-and there was no imminent threat that warranted his drawing the weapon-he violated a few basic firearm safety rules.</div> <div> No experienced shooter places a finger on the trigger until they're ready to fire. It seems apparent that this pilot broke that rule. He drew a weapon without the intent to fire, or the possibility of needing to fire. In short, it could be said he was playing with the weapon inasmuch as he handled it carelessly. However, the entire episode may be a blessing in disguise.</div> <div> When the debate over arming pilots raged following 9/11 a main argument among critics was the catastrophic affects a bullet could have on an aircraft. Now, thanks to this pilot's gaff, we have proof-positive that a gunshot doesn't mean an airliner will disintegrate and fall from the sky. A pilot can shoot a terrorist or other hijacker without widespread doom becoming an absolute certainty.</div> <div> One clumsy pilot's sloppy use of a firearm doesn't prove that it's unsafe to arm airline pilots. In fact, it may prove just the opposite.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="is_he_or_isn_t_she_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Is he or isn't she?</div> <div> March 28, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Can a man get pregnant? Perhaps it's possible, under the right conditions. For instance, if the pregnant he was once an impregnable she, but then she received an operation that turned the former she into the present he. However, only a part of the she was turned into a he, leaving part of the new he an old she. Now the old she remaining inside the new he claims to be with child; a girl due this summer. But, the old she inside the new he might be a new old she. Confused? Well, you're not nearly as confused as Thomas Beatie, the new he that used to be an old she before the operation changed the old she into the new he who then became a new old she.</div> <div> Whew! At any rate, whatever this thing is claims to be pregnant via artificial insemination from an anonymous donor, which begs the question of why the doctors didn't install enough he in the new he so the new he could impregnate the old she on his own. Let's see, that would make the new he and the new old she both father and mother to his and her own first niece twice removed.</div> <div> Of course, the whole thing might be a hoax, just as Beatie's neighbors claim. You might recall the Raelians, the UFO cult that claimed to have cloned a human a few years back. Soon after making the claim and promising proof in the near future the group went underground and hasn't been heard from since. Beatie and his or her wife have done likewise. Don't be surprised if the old she, the new he, the new old she and his or her wife/grandmother join the Raelians on the Halle-Bopp comet as it orbits Alpha Centuri.</div> <div> However, on the off chance that he is really carrying a baby, it won't do a thing to legitimize homosexuality. This isn't a man who is pregnant. If the current Thomas Beatie had not retained her original female equipment no pregnancy would be possible. Homosexual activity didn't produce the conception. If this is an actual pregnancy it is the result of the male reproductive components-i.e. the sperm donor-mixing with the female reproductive components-i.e. the she part of the she that's now a he.</div> <div> In short, the Beaties have redefined abnormality and pushed dysfunctional to its absolute pinnacle. Or, perhaps they're simply frauds.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="why_buy_trouble_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Why buy trouble?</FONT></div> <div> March 21, 2008</div> <bR> <div> There are plenty of problems available without paying good money for them. Thus the phrase, “Why buy trouble?” Keep that in mind when assessing Barry Bonds, union head Donald Fehr, and why the all-time homerun king is unemployed this spring.</div> <div> Bonds has talked to a few teams, but has no takers for his homerun cut, ailing knees and surly disposition. Fehr says the union staff will investigate owner collusion against Bonds. But the reasons Barry isn't currently on a major league roster has less to do with collusion than it does with Bonds himself.</div> <div> He is a lightning rod of the first order. He is suspected of steroid abuse (it should be noted that nothing has been proven) and has been indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Furthermore, he has the reputation of being a selfish player, a poor teammate, and surly with both the fans and media. A better question for Fehr to consider is why a team would bring Bonds aboard.</div> <div> Any team that hires Barry Bonds will pay an exorbitant amount of money for an aging and injured player who's altogether unpopular outside of San Francisco. Why buy trouble, especially at a million bucks a month?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="barak_obama_buries__white_guilt_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Barak Obama buries “white guilt”</div> <div> March 21, 2008</div> <bR> <div> The past can come back to haunt you. That adage has been proven time and again in the way white Americans relate to black Americans. White people have had to live down a history that's far removed from the current scene. White people have had to apologize for the sins of our forebears even though we had nothing to do with slavery, Jim Crow and, in the case of the post-WWII generations, segregation. Now, thanks to Barak Obama, the black-white relationship has forever changed.</div> <div> Caucasians no longer need to apologize for past injustices. There's no need to mourn over slavery, the Tuskegee Experiment, or anything else done to black Americans that is contrary to our founding documents. We are no longer accountable for the sins of our ancestors. We are no longer guilty based on our DNA trail and can't be reasonably expected to pay the price for what happened before we were born.</div> <div> “How can you disavow white Americans of their past,” you ask? I'm glad you did, for Barak Obama and Jeremiah Wright have made it possible.</div> <div> You've heard Wright's inflammatory pulpit rhetoric and Obama's feeble attempt to distance himself from his pastor of 20 years. Obama said, “I can no more disown him that I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.”</div> <div> There you have it. If Obama cannot disown his ancestry or a preacher who spews racist statements from the pulpit, how can white Americans be held to that standard? Therefore, the current white population isn't responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, or Willie Lynch. We can't be held accountable for segregated schools, black suffrage, or other injustices-real or perceived-that aggrieve black Americans. We aren't accountable for our ancestors, including those who fought for the Confederate States of America, in any way shape or form. And we have Barak Obama to thank for it.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_problem_with_government_schools"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The problem with government schools</div> <div> March 15, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Michael Sheridan is an eight-grade student at a New Haven, Connecticut school. He has also been an exemplary student, until recently. But now he has been stripped of his office as class vice president, suspended and barred from attending a dinner for honor students.</div> <div> Michael must have committed an egregious violation to warrant such discipline. Did he bring a gun to school? No. Did he cheat on an exam or assault a teacher or fellow student? Wrong again. Did he threaten or verbally abuse someone? Nope. Then he must have arrived for class drunk, or maybe he sold or bought drugs on campus. Well, that's partially correct; Michael did score a bag on school grounds, but it was a bag of Skittles. Yep, those Skittles; the fruit flavored, vegan version of an M&M.</div> <div> Let's see if I have this straight. Students can bring guns on campus and we must consider their upbringing. Students can cuss, beat, and sexually assault teachers and other students and we can't deny them an education. Boys can come to school with their pants around their knees and girls can arrive in slinky outfits that would make a stripper blush and we can't inhibit their free expression. But buy a bag of candy and all Hades breaks loose.</div> <div> Thankfully, following a meeting between Sheridan's parents and Eleanor Turner, the principal, Michael's record is clear and his student council post restored. The Skittles pusher has been cleared, too. Said Turner, “I am sorry this has happened. My hope is that we can get back to the normal school routine, especially since we are in the middle of taking the Connecticut mastery test.”</div> <div> If Principal Turner's reasoning ability exemplifies the faculty in New Haven schools, good luck on mastering anything worthwhile.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="why_not_charge_the_judge__1"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Why not charge the judge?</FONT></div> <div> March 14, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Two suspects are in custody in the murder of UNC student Eve Carson. These men, Lawrence Lovette, Jr. and Demario Atwater, have all the markings of two-bit street thugs with gang affiliations. Both have criminal records. Atwater was on probation at the time of the Carson slaying and had recently appeared in court on another charge. That judge failed to jail Atwater for violating his probation. Lovette is charged not only with Carson's death but also the January murder of a Duke University student.</div> <div> Worse still, Carson apparently complied with her killer's demands. Her ATM card was used, which implies that she provided her PIN to her assailant. What did she get in return for her cooperation? She was shot in the temple, executed, for no reason other than the fun of seeing her die. Her promising future was taken from her while her murderer still breathes.</div> <div> Make no mistake; Atwater and Lovette are suspects only and are innocent until proven guilty. They should get a fair trail before an impartial jury of their peers. But they shouldn't go on trial alone; the judge responsible for continuing the Demario Atwater probation violation hearing should go on trial with them.</div> <div> Atwater was released because a court clerk delivered the criminal file to the wrong courtroom. Are we to believe that the court is too busy to send a bailiff to seek the missing file? Hogwash! Ensuring that vermin aren't walking our streets is the judicial system's prime purpose. It's a sign of slothful incompetence when the courts can't endure a minor inconvenience for the sake of performing that function. If you or I so blatantly and negligently contributed to someone's death we would be charged with aiding and abetting murder, or at least reckless endangerment. Tell me where there's a practical difference.</div> <div> If equal protection is more than a hollow concept, the judge and court officers whose inept performance allowed Demario Atwater to walk free should be held accountable for their part in Eve Carson's execution.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_untaught_lesson_of_gov__spitzer"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The untaught lesson of Gov. Spitzer</div> <div> March 13, 2008</div> <bR> <div> The obvious lessons from Gov. Eliot Spitzer's harlotry romance have been hashed and rehashed. But a greater lesson has been totally overlooked.</div> <div> The woman who serviced the governor is Ashley Alexandra Dupre, professionally known as “Kristen”. Pictures of this 22-year-old woman are readily available on the Internet. One pose is a sultry, seductive headshot while another shows a provocatively posed Ashley in a slinky white bikini. You know what? She's a beautiful, well-built woman. Such a woman would draw any man's attention, many to the point of temptation. However, she's worth nowhere near the $3000 to $5000 an hour Spitzer is said to have paid for her services. What's more, with all the sex clubs and swinger's parties that advertise online, doesn't it strike you odd that anyone would pay such an outrageous sum for a relatively brief encounter?</div> <div> “But he paid for the anonymity,” you may argue. Well, that how'd that work out for Gov. Spitzer? </div> <div> Spitzer's marital infidelity is rivaled only by his fiscal infidelity. Not only can his wife not trust him to refrain from playing fast and loose with a high-end hooker, but the people of New York now have an idea of how fast and loose he is with a checkbook. If Spitzer will spend so extravagantly on a floozy that his power and position could have garnered for free, it's a safe bet that he's not too thrifty with the New York taxpayer's money either.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="political_arrogance_and_race_baiting"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Political arrogance and race-baiting</div> <div> March 13, 2008</div> <bR> <div> If you don't live in eastern North Carolina you may not have heard of state Representative Thomas Wright, an eight-term Democrat from Wilmington. Let me introduce you to him. A North Carolina House committee has found evidence that Rep. Wright mishandled $340,000 in loans and campaign and charitable contributions. He could become the first North Carolina state legislator drummed out of office since 1880. He's on the cusp of losing everything, except his arrogance. Rep. Wright is a black man.</div> <div> Rep. Wright said of the committee's decision, “Make an example out of me? Let the show begin because this is just the beginning. They've set the precedent.”</div> <div> Wright might as well have said, “Who do you think you are? How dare you hold me accountable for my actions? I'm a legislator; I can do as I please. You think you can make me go away? I'll scream racism until the rafters ring and a civil rights lawsuit is just around the bend.”</div> <div> It's not often we're treated to such a flawless example of why government is dysfunctional. But here we have the perfect storm, a unique combination of an arrogant, self-serving, grandstanding blowhard of a politician who's willing to hide his shenanigans behind a façade of false racism. Whether Rep. Wright is guilty or not, his attitude alone is enough to toss him out of office.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="provocation_breeds_contempt"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Provocation breeds contempt</div> <div> March 7, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Criticize the homosexual agenda and you can bet the farm you'll be deemed a homophobe. But, we should fear no criticism when dealing with provocation, and provocation is what the homosexual agenda is all about. The prevailing gay attitude is that everyone else will accept what they demand or be labeled a bigot. Well, label me a bigot.</div> <div> Even if you toss aside the moral aspects of homosexuality, the attitude of the homosexual activist invites contempt at every turn. Take Nancy Leedy and Joanie Beasley for instance. They are lesbians and they entered into an agreement with the Golden Valley campground to use the facilities for a fundraising event geared toward buying their own campground. No problem so far, but the story changes quickly at this point.</div> <div> What was promised to be a family-oriented event quickly devolved into an over-21, homosexual-themed gathering aimed at creating a homosexual-themed campground within Golden Valley. Apparently, Leedy and Beasley lied to the landowners, which alone should destroy their credibility. But, would you believe the two lesbians intended to name their facility Camp Lickalotta? Yeah, you read that right.</div> <div> Friends, such a name is pure provocation in its most undiluted form. It's in-your-face activism that demands acceptance without question, designed to create controversy. Camp Lickalotta is nothing but an attempt to draw attention and you can bet that a lawsuit is in the offing.</div> <div> If radical homosexuals truly wanted a peaceful coexistence they would live their lives sans such ridiculous attempts to attract attention. But outrageous antics like Camp Lickalotta aren't about live and let live; they're about sticking a finger in the eye of timeless morality. They should expect contempt, for it is richly deserved.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_gift_that_soon_quits_giving"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The gift that soon quits giving</div> <div> March 6, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Guess what! If you received a gift card and the issuing company goes out of business or declares bankruptcy you're left with nothing more than a piece of plastic. And believe it or not, you shouldn't expect your neighbor to cover your loss. There appears to be a rash of such cases lately, leaving consumers with as much as $75 million worth of pretty plastic cards. Now for my question, what do you expect?</div> <div> Friends, businesses face the risk of economic collapse every day. Thus, only a fool would sit on a gift card for weeks or months on end. The risk is apparent and there is no reward for taking that risk. Gift cards draw no interest, so there's no reason to save them for later.</div> <div> If you're stuck with a worthless gift card you have no one to blame but yourself. You can't hold a defunct business liable for outstanding cards and no other company is duty bound to honor their value. What's more, this is nothing new. For as long as gift certificates have been issued, which is as long as most of us can remember, the same risk has applied. People who refuse to acknowledge this basic, common sense fact are receiving the just due for their inattention.</div> <div> One thing is certain; the people who held their gift cards and are now left holding the bag should be left to hold it alone. Our government has already obligated the taxpayer to bail out people who took on more mortgage debt than they could afford. We shouldn't be forced to bail out procrastinating gift card holders, too.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="mccain_and_the_media_wolves"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>McCain and the media wolves</div> <div> February 23, 2008</div> <bR> <div> John McCain was once a rather conservative senator. But, he has consistently drifted left over the last eight years. As such, he won the endorsement of the New York Times, and most “mainstream media”, for the Republican presidential nomination. Now the GOP is stuck with a damaged candidate, one the media hand-picked and can destroy. It didn't take them long to get moving.</div> <div> The story of McCain and Valerie Iseman, the lobbyists with whom he is accused of an inappropriate professional and/or personal relationship, is two months old (actually, eight years old). And yet it waits until McCain has the nomination all but sewed up to be published. Yes, I'm sure it's just a coincidence. But shouldn't this story backfire on the Times and their liberal allies?</div> <div> Bill Clinton had numerous affairs before and during his campaign and presidency. The media considered them resume` enhancers. If the New York Times is as unbiased, unaffiliated and consistent as they would have us believe, shouldn't they praise McCain for alleged infidelity, as they did Clinton? However, I'm not here to praise John McCain.</div> <div> In his defense McCain said, “At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust.” I beg to differ, Senator. You sponsored McCain-Feingold, which abridged free political. You sponsored McCain-Lieberman, which would sacrifice our freedom, sovereignty and economy on the altar of global warming. You opposed the Bush tax cuts, not once but twice. And, last but not least, you've pushed hard for an open border policy that grants amnesty to aliens who've entered our country illegally.</div> <div> Senator McCain may or may not have betrayed his wife. But there's no doubt he's betrayed the trust of the American people and his oath of office. The question is, can conservatives hold their noses and pull the lever for McCain, the least of the three evils?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="who_needs_jenny_craig_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Who needs Jenny Craig?</div> <div> February 22, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Kirstie Alley lost a ton of weight on the Jenny Craig plan. Well, not literally a ton, but surely more than an extra pound or two. Soon she was the company spokesperson with the big contract, making commercials and appearing on Oprah Winfrey. But now Kirstie is again too big for her britches, figuratively if not literally.</div> <div> She has dumped Jenny Craig to hawk her own line of weight loss products and plans. I admire her entrepreneurial spirit. But if her weight loss ideas are so grand why did she need Jenny Craig to help her loose weight?</div> <div> Kirstie, just a little loyalty might be in order. Had you not joined Jenny Craig you'd still be the “Fat Actress” that you once were.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="maybe__star_wars__can_work_after_all"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Maybe “Star Wars” can work after all</div> <div> February 22, 2008</div> <bR> <div> It isn't news that the Navy was planning to take a shot at a dying satellite. What is news is that the Navy says it not only fired the missile but hit the target. Perhaps it averted a catastrophe on earth, perhaps not.</div> <div> You just know that the conspiracy theorists will claim the Navy didn't hit the satellite. They might deny that the satellite existed, or claim that the Navy has no missile with such capability. Shoot, they might deny that the Navy exists. But you can bet that the Chinese Communists believe we hit that piece of space junk. Why else would they be so upset?</div> <div> The mere thought that our Navy can hit a satellite with a missile shows that a missile shield is possible. If we can hit an incoming satellite we can hit an incoming ICBM. That possibility is cause for concern in China, and Russia for that matter. Both nations have intercontinental nuclear capability, and it's foolish to think none of those missiles are aimed toward America right now.</div> <div> The prospects of nuclear war, whether unlikely or imminent, are as chilling as ever. But those prospects aren't going away, and I think demonstrating the capability to hit a satellite with a missile is comforting. Don't forget, the Chinese have already shown they're capable of knocking a satellite from orbit. </div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="michael_moore_sicko"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Michael Moore: Sicko!</div> <div> February 21, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Filmmaker Michael Moore-that great arbiter of unbiased truth and ever the jokester-says he'd like to have Fidel Castro attend the Academy Awards as his guest. Furthermore, he'd like for Castro to give a speech. Of course, Moore claims that he's only kidding. But, as the saying goes, many a truth is said in jest. Levity provides cover for the speaker, allowing the expression of loony or illogical views that can then be passed off as attempted humor. Well, I'm not laughing.</div> <div> You may recall how Moore's healthcare “documentary” championed Castro's communist government healthcare system, holding it up as an example for America to emulate. And here he is again cuddling Castro, the Cold War era's bearded, bloodied, tyrannical dinosaur.</div> <div> Perhaps the name of Moore's film can serve a dual purpose. Maybe <I>Sicko</I> can be used to title Michael Moore's autobiography, too.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="sharon_stone_useful_idiot"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Sharon Stone: Useful Idiot</div> <div> February 20, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Al Hayat is an Arab newspaper with a home address in Beirut, Lebanon. Whether or not the paper is in league with the Jihad movement I have no idea. But, I do know Al Hayat contains opinion articles referencing the Israeli occupation, which isn't a good sign. </div> <div> Quick, why is Sharon Stone a celebrity? Frankly, she's famous for getting naked in the movies, and the female form is supposed to offend Islam. So, what would an Arab paper in an Islamic land be doing interviewing Sharon Stone? Perhaps what she was saying is worth more on the “Arab Street” than is religious piety. Stone said it bothered her that we pay more attention to the deaths of our soldiers than to the deaths of Iraqis. Of course, nearly every report of Iraqi deaths center on an act of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, not the U.S. military. But that doesn't fit the template in the Middle East, and facts are easily lost on Hollywood celebrities such as Stone.</div> <div> Sharon Stone's statement is the perfect example of what Stalin called a useful idiot. Comments such as hers fuel the fires of the Islamic Jihad, and are used by Muslims who are more interested in anti-West propaganda than their self-proclaimed religious piety. It's a perfect combination: a Hollywood celebrity who feels it's enlightened to criticize her country in a foreign publication and a newspaper in search of quotes that serves a politically advantageous purpose.</div> <div> As for Stone herself, she attained fame and fortune in a country gullible enough to pay money to see her hooters, and now she's biting the hand that feeds her.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="a_good_judge_of_fresh_meat"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>A good judge of fresh meat</div> <div> February 19, 2008</div> <bR> <div> You've heard of the Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. recall. The California slaughterhouse has recalled 143 million pounds of meat due to allegations of improper handling. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said the meat didn't receive proper inspection and is unfit for human consumption. But Schafer's conclusion is just a bit too late to do much good. The call back will affect meats dating to February 1, 2006.</div> <div> Now, let me ask you a question; how much meat do you have in your freezer that dates to 2006? And if you do have meat that old, would you eat it? Most people won't retain meat more than a month or two. So, if we give the benefit of the doubt and assume two months in the freezer, the most meat that will be covered by this recall is 11.4 million pounds. That's a lot of bull, so to speak. But not nearly as much bull as the recall of 131.6 million pounds of beef that has long since been eaten, tossed out, or fed to the dog.</div> <div> It sure sets a mind at ease to know that such a logical, clear-thinking, and benevolent government is there to protect us, doesn't it?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="hillary_s_chances_improve"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Hillary's chances improve</div> <div> February 2, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Since the first hint of the presidential campaign I have maintained that Hillary Clinton could not win a general election. She is such a polarizing, disingenuous person. Her very nature allows no middle ground on Hillary Clinton. For that reason I have said that her candidacy would mobilize Republican, independent and Blue Dog Democrat voters like no election since Reagan. Now I'm not so sure.</div> <div> Many prominent Republicans are endorsing John McCain, and primary voters appear to be taking their lead. Left out in the cold is the party's conservative base, people like yours truly. What's more, the quasi-liberal McCain's big government credentials offer voters no alternative to Clinton and no reason for conservatives to vote. If Hillary faces McCain next fall she'll likely become the next president, and the Republican Party will get the embarrassing loss it deserves for abandoning its long-standing principles.</div> <div> And what happens if McCain defeats Hillary? Chances are good that the difference will be negligible.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="making_a_super_mountain_from_a_molehill"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Making a Super mountain from a molehill</div> <div> February 2, 2008</div> <bR> <div>  Leave it to the press to make something out of nothing. In this instance it's the sports media, and the target is Giants' wide receiver Plaxico Burress. Burress insulted the mighty Patriots, in the media's eyes at least, by saying he expects to win the Super Bowl. Well, of all the nerve.</div> <div> To refresh your memory, Burress predicted a 23-17 Giants victory, saying, “I am going to say it again, the goal is to win the football game. It is not to come here and just play. The goal is to come here and win. That's whey we are here.”</div> <div> Friend, if I were the Giants coach and Plaxico Burress didn't think we were going to win he'd find his rump on the pine come game time, and that goes for any other player on the team. He said nothing that slights the Patriots. Even if he had insulted them, New England plays the game on an even keel; a model of consistency with everything planned and accounted for. The last thing Belichick's team is looking for is bulletin board material, especially when the alleged slur is a figment of the media's imagination.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="it_s_not_the_stork_after_all"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>It's not the stork after all</div> <div> January 25, 2008</div> <bR> <div> After years of declining birth rates Americans are having babies again. The biggest increase is among Hispanics, but Caucasians are having kids, too. You may think you have an inside track on what's causing such an increase, and chances are that you'd be wrong. Fear not; the experts have the answers.</div> <div> There are four reasons for this miniature baby boom: poverty, poor education, declining use of contraceptives, and declining access to abortion services. Alright, let's see if I have this straight. People have babies because they're poor, stupid, irresponsible and lack sufficient opportunity to kill their fetus. That's according to the experts, so many of whom consider people to be the ultimate environmental contaminant.</div> <div> The next time I need advice or information I think I'll bypass the “experts” and go straight to the fool. Why deal with the middle man unnecessarily.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="blitzer_hears_a_who"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Blitzer hears a Who!</div> <div> January 23, 2008</div> <bR> <div> Have you ever watched the Dr. Seuss cartoon, <I>Horton Hears a Who</I>? Horton the elephant (no pun intended during this political season) hears a small voice, struggling for recognition, emanating from an insignificant dust speck. It's a voice no one else can hear. Wolf Blitzer must have felt a bit like Horton during the CNN Democratic debate in South Carolina, with John Edwards playing the part of old Doc Whoovey.</div> <div> Maybe John Edwards should've tried a yip. Maybe he should've tried a yop. Anything would be an improvement over his pathetic, “There's a third person in this debate,” or “. . . are there three people in this debate, not two?” comments. He looked like a third-grader waving his hand at the teacher and grunting, “Ooh! Ooh! Ooh!” to gain attention.</div> <div> John Edwards might as well have been a Who on a dust speck shouting, “I am here! I am here! I am here! I am here!”</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="what_s_the_forecast_for_tomorrow_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>What's the forecast for tomorrow?</div> <div> October 13, 2007</div> <bR> <div> If you're traveling to Titan anytime soon you might consider packing warm clothing and a methane-proof raincoat. According to stargazers the weather on Saturn's largest moon will be 300 degrees below zero with a steady methane drizzle. Sort of makes London and Seattle weather seem warm and inviting.</div> <div> I find it a bit ironic that scientists can know the weather in the vicinity of Saturn-750 million-plus miles from Earth-but can't predict the local weather more than a day or two ahead of time. And even that accuracy is generous. A hurricane can enter the confined Gulf of Mexico and the best forecasters can do is predict landfall somewhere between the Florida Keys and the Yucatan Peninsula.</div> <div> Science is great and I don't discount the analysis of Titan's weather. But if you packed your clothes and drove to Titan, averaging 70 miles per hour, you'd arrive sometime around the year 3230. Doesn't it seem that science should be more concerned with accurately predicting the weather patterns on earth than on a moon more than a 1200-year car ride away?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_coming_mormon_migration"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The coming Mormon Migration</div> <div> October 13, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Expect fringe Mormons to soon leave Utah in droves. Destination: Arkansas.</div> <div> Arkansas has passed a law establishing the legal age of marriage at 18 with an exception for pregnant teens. Those teens can marry if they have their parent's consent. However, a flaw in the law's language would allow parents to consent to their children's marriage at any age, even if they aren't pregnant. What a boon to the underground polygamist sects within the Latter Day Saints, where multi-marriages between all ages is accepted.</div> <div> Now these communal groups can find peace. They can flock to Arkansas, marry off their three-year-olds, and live happily ever-after. Isn't that great? I just love seeing government operating at its highest level. No wonder we trust government to manage our retirement, income, bank accounts and, soon, our healthcare.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="reparations_so_foolish_they_re"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Reparations so foolish they're acceptable</div> <div> October 13, 2007</div> <bR> <div> When the combination of bums, performance art, and slavery reparations come together you'd better run for the tall grass. There's bound to be an elite activist nearby. If you question the validity of their actions you'll be dismissed with a smirk and a shrug, you Neolithic barbarian.</div> <div> Just such a pious combination surfaced recently in (you guessed it) the Pacific Northwest. The National Day of Panhandling for Reparations brought out the best that pointy-headed liberalism can offer. Performance artists took to the streets to bum money from white passers-by, which they then gave to black passers-by as reparation for slavery. No word yet on how many former slave owners ponied up or how many former slaves received payments for their forced labors. I'll bet the numbers were few.</div> <div> Oddly, while I abhor the notion of slavery reparations on the grounds that no one alive today was either a slave or owner, I have no problem with these idiots acting out their idiocy. The contributions were voluntary instead of forced, which is the method Jesse Jackson prefers. And the proceeds go to normal people instead of civil rights organizations like the Rainbow-PUSH Coalition, which is what Jesse Jackson prefers.</div> <div> As the old saying goes, a fool and his money are soon parted. At least by this process government isn't forcing all of us to be fools.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="it_s_a_dog_s_life"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>It's a dog's life</div> <div> September 27, 2007</div> <bR> <div> A male dog sees the world in one of three ways. If it's not food or a female dog, pee on it. I'm sure you've heard the joke previously so you can colorize it yourself. But the point is that a male dog will pee on just about anything that doesn't pee on him first and his stereotypical toilet is the fire hydrant. Thus, Hillsboro, OR was asking for trouble at its new dog park.</div> <div> The dog park was created in tribute to a police dog that was killed in the line of duty. Among the honors for “Hondo” was a hydrant painted like an American flag. Precautions were taken to prevent the Old Glory hydrant from becoming a doggie urinal, but that didn't satisfy folks who thought it inappropriate.</div> <div> Have no fear. As usual I have a solution to satisfy both the hydrant-painting flag artists and the Stars and Stripes defenders.</div> <div> Why not paint the hydrants in Hondo's park to represent the flags of nations or ideologies hostile to the United States Constitution or American sovereignty? One hydrant can be painted like Iran's flag while another represents Syria's. We can go right down the line: Venezuela, North Korea, Sudan and (dare I say?) Mexico. We can even paint one hydrant like the Nazi flag and one like the old Soviet Union (Yes, I can hold a grudge when necessary.). Don't forget the United Nations. If there's a banner on earth that deserves this canine tribute it's that one.</div> <div> This is our chance to dispense with political correctness, promote national unity, and express disdain for our antagonists all at the same time. Let the dogs “go” freely.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="no_buff_bluff_climbing"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>No buff bluff-climbing</div> <div> September 29, 2007</div> <bR> <div> If you're planning a trip to Nepal don't expect a nude trip to the summit of Mt. Everest to be part of the itinerary. You might think that no one in their right mind would attempt such a thing. Well, don't freeze your chickens before they hatch.</div> <div> Average temperatures at Mt. Everest's peak range from -33 degrees in winter to -2 in the summer, with extremes reaching 75-below-zero. At no time does the temperature rise above freezing. Harsh, unpredictable winds and violent snowstorms are common. However, this inhospitable climate didn't stop a Dutch man from trying to scale the mountain in his shorts or a Nepali climber from disrobing at the summit in an attempt to establish a record for the world's highest display of nudity. This goes to prove the tenacity of the human spirit to behave stupidly in the pursuit of attention.</div> <div> The proposed ban is in response to local residents who consider Mt. Everest the home of gods. But I say let buff bluff-climbers climb the bluff buff. With the extreme temperatures, hurricane-force winds, and unpredictable blizzards that are normal on Everest it would seem that the gods have all the tools they need to freeze a naked climber or two. And there'll be a few less stupid people for the rest of us to trip over.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_not_quite_sincere_paris_hilton"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The not-quite-sincere Paris Hilton</div> <div> September 28, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Paris Hilton is off to Rwanda! “Why?” you ask. To put it in her words, “There's so much need in that area, and I feel like if I go, it will bring more attention to what people can do to help.” If I were a Rwandan I wouldn't hold my breath. If this trip were more about the Rwandan people than keeping Paris Hilton's name in the news it wouldn't have been so widely announced. It seems that Hilton's intentions are less than sincere, as hard as that is to believe.</div> <div> The fact is that had Paris not promised such “service to humanity” as part of her get-out-of-jail deal earlier this year she wouldn't be found within 5000 miles of Rwanda. That is, unless there's a Nordstrom, Bloomingdale's, or Saks Fifth Avenue opening in Kigali.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="here_s_your_sign"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Here's your sign!</div> <div> September 23, 2007</div> <bR> <div> There's a comedian-I can't recall his name-whose jokes depict people doing stupid things. At the conclusion he says, “Here's your sign.” Save a sign for Star Simpson (it's been a bad week for that surname).</div> <div> Star arrived at the Boston airport wearing a hooded sweatshirt with a flashing computer circuit board attached, complete with wiring and a battery. Oh, and for good measure she carried Play-Doh in her hands. She called the contraption art and said she wanted to “stand out.” Congratulations Star, you did! Had you stood out any more, you may have been shot by police.</div> <div> Let's see if we can help our comedian friend develop a new joke.</div> <div> A girl walks into an airport with a wired, battery-powered, flashing circuit board attached to her chest. She's carrying an unidentified clay-like substance in her hands. Police stop her at gunpoint and she explains, “Gee, I was just trying to stand out from the crowd.”</div> <div> Here Star, take two signs!</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="a_diatribe_against_hollywood"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>A diatribe against Hollywood</div> <div> August 8, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Fox will broadcast the 2007 Primetime Emmy Awards. You know the deal. Celebrities arrive to primp and pout for the camera. It's quite a night if you're into arrogance and pomposity. However, aren't these Hollywood celebrities supposed to be the leaders of the environmentally conscious? Maybe not!</div> <div> The Fox Network has gone “green” for their broadcast, right up to hybrid vehicles, recycled materials and a carbon neutral production plan. They didn't stop there, however. Fox wanted to roll out the “green carpet” for the event. No, not a red carpet, but a green carpet. That's right! Hollywood's finest would walk to the show on a green-colored carpet made from recycled or otherwise “earth-friendly” materials.</div> <div> “Not so fast,” says the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. They don't want to break with tradition. Thus, the red carpet will be rolled out once again on Emmy night. I guess they don't want to raise too much “awareness”.</div> <div> Interestingly, there's another entity objecting to Fox's green carpet treatment. It's Macy's, the famous corporate retailer. They insist on the red carpet because it matches the color of their sign. How about that? Is Hollywood caving to the evil “corporate special interest?” I guess their great concern for “fairness” and “social justice” only goes so far.</div> <div> If you get down to brass tacks, who cares about the color of the stupid carpet? Who cares about the production, or the set, or who shows up, or what they're wearing? In fact, who cares about the Emmy's, Hollywood, celebrities, or their cause du' jour at all?</div> <div> Friends, these people live in a world of make believe. Their livelihood depends on their pretending to be something they're not. There's nothing wrong with a little entertainment mind you. But too many celebrities seem to believe their status makes them experts on fairness, equality, and other indeterminable human qualities. When it comes to the bottom line, no American concerned with the country's future should care a whit about their awards, their “green” finger-pointing, or their carpet.</div> <div> What Hollywood truly deserves from the public is a collective sigh.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="a_tip_of_the_hat_is_in_order"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>A tip of the hat is in order</div> <div> August 4, 2007</div> <bR> <div> I recently penned an editorial comparing Western culture to that of Muslim societies. The point was that Western culture is, in fact, more humane, more prosperous, more open, more respectful, and more moral. Well to sum it up, Western culture is superior. Among the examples provided to establish the Islamic world's inferiority was the practice of killing pregnant woman to preserve the family honor.</div> <div> In an effort to be truly “fair and balanced” and to prevent MoveOn.org from aiming their propaganda driven diatribes toward me, I will tip my hat to a Muslim leader.</div> <div> A prominent Lebanese Shiite cleric has gone on record condemning “honor killings.” He calls the practice of murdering female relatives for acts of sexual misconduct “a repulsive act” and “prohibited by religion.” The fact is Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadallah has banned the practice via religious edict. Whether or not that command will be honored remains to be seen.</div> <div> Whatever the result and whatever other positions Fadallah may hold, his courage is worth recognition in this case. It is not easy, even for a religious leader, to challenge tradition. His commands may fall on deaf ears, or militants will call him an ally of Satan, a sell-out, or an apostate. Quite frankly I don't think the declaration of one man will make a big dent in the practice of “honor killings.” But in a culture with so little sunshine, so few rays of hope, we should certainly recognize light when it is appears.</div> <div> That doesn't mean I've changed my position on the cultural comparison. It just means I can respect Ayatollah Fadallah for having the courage to risk his standing and reputation by challenging a time-honored but morally bankrupt practice.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="health_care_professionals_play_the"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Health care professionals play the political game</div> <div> July 31, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Health care providers are opening their wallets to political candidates. This is nothing new; many Americans contribute money to political campaigns either directly or through professional organizations. What is different is that health professionals are giving more money to Democrats than to Republicans. Does this mean doctors, nurses, etc. have viewed <I>Sicko</I> and are now convinced that socialized medicine in the way to go? Or, is there another motivating force?</div> <div> It may be as simple as health care professionals recognizing who may butter their bread after the next general election. Political swings don't happen overnight. Thus, regardless of which party wins the White House in 2008 there's a good chance that Democrats will retain their House and Senate majorities. Health insiders understand this political fact.</div> <div> If they give wholeheartedly to GOP candidates and those candidates lose, what will be the attitude of the Democratic majority? Can anyone say revenge? However, if they give to Democrats they will hold some sway in just how socialized the medical profession becomes. So, what happens if the GOP pulls an upset? Health care professionals understand that Republicans are less likely to socialize medicine than are Democrats, and they win anyway.</div> <div> You're likely to hear this story spun as the desire for socialized medicine within the medical profession. Don't buy it. Most likely it indicates nothing more than <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >health care provider's willingness to protect their tur</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="who_is_really_unbalanced_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Who is really unbalanced?</FONT></div> <div> July 28, 2007</div> <bR> <div> “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” Ah the words of New York's Senator Charles Schumer, rhetorical as always. If nothing else, Sen. Schumer has chutzpah.</div> <div> Of course, he is free to resist a Bush Supreme Court nominee if one comes about. But wouldn't it be nice if, just once, Sen. Schumer would come clean instead of hiding behind political double talk? What he means when he claims the court is out of balance and another Roberts or Alito is unaffordable is that liberals could lose their stranglehold on the judiciary.</div> <div> Make no mistake; the court is not packed with strict constructionists. In reality, it is more “balanced” than it's been in years. But if one more justice in the mold of Roberts or Alito is seated the court's interpretations could tip toward individual liberty. Such an event would eradicate the socialist ideology that Schumer and his “liberal” pals depend on to keep their power.</div> <div> It's not that Roberts and Alito have unbalanced the court. It's just that the court's attitude isn't leaning as heavily as it once did toward Schumer's preference. </div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="mighty_jesse_has_struck_out"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Mighty Jesse has struck out</div> <div> July 20, 2007</div> <div>      </div> <div> If a ballplayer swung and missed at three pitches he'd be out. If that player refused to take his seat in the dugout, he'd be suspended. Jesse Jackson has swung and missed three times. He's out. Yet he still stands in the batter's box. Why doesn't Major League Baseball give him the thumb?</div> <div> Jackson has struck out trying to capitalize on Barry Bonds pursuit of the homerun record. In attempting to paint baseball as a racist organization Jesse made three accusations:</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Baseball is planning to erase a record based on allegations.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Bonds should be innocent until proven guilty, according to American justice.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">If steroid suspicions aren't proven Bonds should be embraced.</div> <div> When you consider each accusation like a pitch, you can see why the Reverend Jackson is on his way back to the bench.</div> <div> Has Jackson ever defended Roger Maris? His single season homerun record was dismissed with an asterisk, and there wasn't so much as an allegation to tarnish Maris's image. No cloud hung over his head.</div> <div> Strike one.</div> <div> Baseball is not a judicial entity. Therefore, baseball isn't bound by the innocent until proven guilty axiom. The commissioner's office is free to take any action deemed necessary to preserve the honor and integrity of the game as league officials see fit.</div> <div> Rev. Jackson himself declared the Duke Lacrosse rape suspects guilty the minute they were accused, before one shred of evidence was presented. Once the case's fraudulent nature became evident, and the charges were dropped, Jesse said nothing. He has not apologized, nor has he admitted his fault.</div> <div> Strike two.</div> <div> Mark McGwire used a performance enhancer, a fact he didn't deny. The drug he used was legal at the time he used them. That doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't make illegal. How many votes did McGwire get for the Hall of Fame? Can we not say that he was punished based on suspicion? What about Joe Jackson?</div> <div> “Shoeless” Joe Jackson was a member of the White Sox team alleged to have thrown the 1919 World Series. However, no criminal charges were filed against Jackson. Yet, to this day his Hall of Fame credentials aren't good enough for the Hall of Fame, based on suspicion. Rev. Jackson is outraged not at all.</div> <div> Strike three, Rev. Jackson, hit the bench.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="throwing_rocks_in_a_glass_house"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Throwing rocks in a glass house</div> <div> July 19, 2007</div> <bR> <div> In some ways I can see Pope Benedict's thinking when he declared all churches outside Catholicism false. Take a look at the church today. What do you see?</div> <div> There are denominations openly condoning homosexual unions, in direct violation of Biblical teachings found in Leviticus and Romans. Some have taken it to the level of ordaining homosexual pastors. Little more than lip service is paid to the widespread divorce, adultery, drunkenness, pornographic addictions, and other forms of worldliness found Christianity. It's hard to argue with the Pope when he indicts the Christian Church. But before he removes the splinter from the Protestant eye, he should deal with the board in Catholicism's.</div> <div> The sexual abuse charges lodged against Catholic priests is widespread and growing each day. What's more, Catholicism's leadership has been aware of the problem for far longer than it's been public knowledge. Instead of dismissing the offending priests, the Catholic Church merely assigned them to a parish where their conduct wasn't known.</div> <div> Pope Benedict is quite correct when he says other Christian churches have swept sinfulness under the rug. But he needs to begin his church cleaning with the Vatican's carpet.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="war_zone"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>War Zone</div> <div> July 18, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Being a soldier is a dangerous job even in peacetime. For American soldiers that danger is exacerbated seeing as we're engaged on multiple fronts. They deserve the combat pay that is due for service in a combat zone. I find it comforting to know that a certain group of these brave troops will continue to receive that money.</div> <div> These troops, approximately 1700 of them, have made several overseas deployments. They currently serve in a region describe by the Secretary of Defense as lawless and violent, with an unstable government. The odd part is that these soldiers aren't deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other front in the “War on Terror.” They are in Kosovo.</div> <div> A wall full of books can be written about the differences between Iraq and the Balkans. But one thing is beyond debate. American troops remain in Kosovo nearly ten years after the mission was declared complete, and they'll be there for some time to come. Where are the calls to bring them home?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="truth_strikes_a_nerve_in_japan"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Truth strikes a nerve in Japan</div> <div> July 14, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Finally, after years of anti-American rhetoric from both sides of the Pacific, the truth comes out of an official mouth. Japan's defense minister recently admitted that using the atomic bombs was inevitable and hastened the end of World War II. “I understand that the bombing ended the war, and I think that it couldn't be helped,” said Fumio Kyuma.</div> <div> Mr. Kyuma has now paid the price. Outraged protesters clamored for his head and he has resigned his post. What a shame!</div> <div> The fact is that Japan had to be conquered in order to win World War II. They wouldn't have surrendered until U.S. forces had pushed Japanese defenders from one shore of the island nation to the other. Remember their zealous defense of Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal? Those battles would've resembled war games compared to a ground assault on the mainland. Yes, more than 200,000 people died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But it's likely that millions would've died in a fight for Japan itself.</div> <div> Oddly, while A-bomb survivors and history revisionists decry America's barbarism they largely ignore Japanese atrocities. Japan has taken no responsibility for the scores of Chinese and Korean sex slaves who served their troops. Little is said of their military adventurism, which spread throughout the Pacific. Their forces marched thousands of Americans to death at Bataan. And let's nor forget that they started the war. That is, unless George Bush bombed Pearl Harbor the way he did the World Trade Center.</div> <div> I hold no grudge toward Japan. The war was fought, the war was won, and our nations have been friendly ever since. In my mind, apologies are neither necessary nor beneficial, for apologies could never compensate for what happened.</div> <div> On the other hand, one apology is in order. A-bomb survivors and their aligned protesters should apologize to Mr. Kyuma. No man should lose his job simply for stating the obvious.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="get_used_to_it_life_is_seldom_fair"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Get used to it, life is seldom fair</div> <div> July 13, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Sometimes people have problems that should be sorted out through proper authorities. However, most shouldn't be sorted out by judge and jury. That is the case too often in modern America.</div> <div> A Texas girl was cut from her JV cheerleading squad. Now her parents are suing the school district. Apparently, extenuating circumstances forced the varsity squad to allow an extra member. Since the mistake didn't apply to the JV squad, they kept only the allotted six cheerleaders. Wycoda Fischer was the seventh, and worst, applicant.</div> <div> The Fischer's lawyer claims court is the only alternative saying, "(neither) the school district nor the superintendent has offered a satisfactory explanation as to why Wycoda was singled out." Well, Miss Lawyer, your client wasn't singled out. It just happens that she was the seventh best cheer applicant for a six member team. It may be true that the school district could've handled the matter more effectively, but your clients do have an option other that litigation. They could allow their daughter to experience a healthy does of life's reality.</div> <div> Just because a mistake is made elsewhere doesn't mean Wycoda gets to benefit. Life seldom fits the modern concept of fairness. For her parents to pretend otherwise is a disservice to Wycoda. It is a sure recipe for producing a grown daughter who lacks responsibility, tenacity, and resilience.</div> <div> If the Fischer's truly cared about their daughter's development they would point out the injustice, if it actually exists, and prepare her to overcome it. Maybe they encourage her to improve her skills and try again next year.</div> <div> Suing does none of that. It does establish the mentality that Wycoda need take responsibility for nothing. At some future time, Wycoda will likely pay a hard price for her parent's coddling and inept example.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="appropriate_charges_should_be_filed_in"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Appropriate charges should be filed in Ohio</div> <div> July 3, 2007</div> <bR> <div> The disappearance of Jessie Davis turned Canton, Ohio upside down. While the discovery of her murdered body brought closure to the mystery, it did nothing to ease the suffering of her family or friends. An arrest can start the wheels of justice, but proper justice can't be expected to atone for Jessie's murder.</div> <div> Bobby Cutts, Jr. is in jail, facing trial for murdering Jessie and the baby she carried. I can understand the charge for killing Jessie. But in today's “enlightened” and “progressive” society, how can Cutts be charged with killing the unborn baby?</div> <div> Abortion activists have spent the last 34 years trying to convince everyone that an unborn child is not alive. It is a fetus, a nothing, a non-entity. It is certainly not a developing human. They've told the country that even partial birth abortion is constitutionally protected, for the “fetus” is nothing. Abortion, we're told, doesn't kill an unborn child; it is merely a procedure, like pulling a tooth. There are no consequences and no one gets hurt.</div> <div> It seems to me that Bobby Cutts can be charged with murdering Jessie Davis. But, in light of liberalism's portrayal of abortion he can't be charged with killing Chloe, the unborn child. At best, as it relates to Chloe, Cutts can be charged with performing surgery on an unwilling patient or practicing medicine without a license.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="seven_people_have_gone_to_the_dogs"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Seven people have gone to the dogs</div> <div> July 3, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Get this picture: seven people are tied to dog houses while the dogs bounce and play in the park. It's a protest, as if that will surprise anyone. Organizer Susan Hartland says she does it because the dogs can't speak for themselves and tying dogs is a form of cruelty.</div> <div> In certain situations I would agree. There are legitimate instances of animal abuse. No dog should be tied without shade, food or water. When it happens there are cruelty laws to deal with it. However, there are also circumstances in which tying a dog is justified and necessary.</div> <div> This marks the fifth year Hartland's group, Dogs Deserve Better, has staged the protest. They claim it raises awareness of the ill effects chaining has on dogs. Do these people not realize the only public awareness they are raising is to their own foolishness?</div> <div> This kind of inane display only serves to portray legitimate dog lovers as similar kooks. No one is impressed with the “compassion” expressed in such flamboyant and inconsequential stunts. Ultimately, idiots such as Hartland have a more negative than positive impact on dog welfare.</div> <div> No decent person wants to mistreat a dog, or any other animal for that matter. But whenever someone who has witnessed such lunacy meets someone with a practical desire to help abused animals they will recall the scene of these “advocates” tying themselves to dog houses. The reasonable animal lover will thus be automatically lumped into the category of animal rights nut, and the animal the animal rights nut claims to champion will suffer the consequences.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="is_there_a_free_market_in_oil_and"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Is there a free market in oil and gasoline?</div> <div> June 28, 2007</div> <bR> <div> We hear it all the time; there's no free market in gasoline. If that is so, then the free market must be subverted at some point. Perhaps we are now receiving a clear view of where that subversion occurs, as if we didn't know already.</div> <div> President Bush wants gasoline use to drop by 20-percent and the Senate is debating legislation that would demand increased ethanol production. Neither of these mandates responds to a free market, where consumers would demand what type of fuel should come out of the pump. In fact, current government subsidies for ethanol hide the fact that it actually costs more per gallon than gasoline while delivering less energy.</div> <div> If government has its way, and the ethanol market continues to progress through government mandate rather than market demand, we will someday pay more money for less efficient fuels than today. And what about today? What is the likely result of government's meddling and mandating?</div> <div> We are seeing two things happen, neither of which are good for consumers. First, as more ethanol is mandated, more corn will be turned into ethanol. Corn prices will escalate due to the increased demand for supply. Everything from corn-based foods to meat products will do likewise. Essentially, Congress and the White House are telling us to burn our food in our cars.</div> <div> We are seeing a second consequence of government's meddling, too. One of the oft-blamed reasons for current gas prices is the lack of domestic refining capacity. With congress debating mandated moves to more ethanol, oil companies see little reason to invest billions of dollars in refinery upgrades to produce a fuel we want but Washington doesn't want us to have.</div> <div> What is the predictable result of government's intrusion? We will likely see high gasoline prices for quite some time. Whether they go up or down will depend, in some part, on the price of crude. However, no matter what crude does, the price of gasoline will be higher than otherwise necessary. You can thank the White House and the Senate for that. </div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="let_us_celebrate_heroism"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Let us celebrate heroism</div> <div> June 22, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Carl Chestnut got more than he bargained for when he tried to rob and carjack a woman at an Arby's drive-through in Louisiana. When he leaned into the car, the woman's 17-year-old son grabbed the gun and shot old Carl. Local authorities responded in a typical politically correct manner.</div> <div> Sheriff Harry Lee said, “It would have been safer to hand over the keys and let the gunman drive off.” In a contrary opinion, an Arby's corporate spokeswoman said. “He saved his mother's life. He's a hero. He's an absolute hero,” said Sylena Rhodes. She is correct, and Sheriff Lee should find himself out of work after the next election.</div> <div> We must realize that we are our first line of defense against violent crime. This business of meekly surrendering to criminal behavior only serves to embolden them. If more people reacted like this young man, you'd see violent crime go down. Don't forget, criminals don't want to get hurt either.</div> <div> Maybe Chestnut would've been content with robbing his victim and leaving them unharmed. But who can know? Should we be willing to lay our lives and property at the mercy of thugs? </div> <div> Sheriff Lee's approach contributes to the weakening of our societal backbone. If everyone listened to such gibberish the criminals would rule with impunity. I, for one, salute this young man. He did the right thing. He protected himself, his mother, and their property against a criminal who got exactly what was coming to him.</div> <div> If everyone had such courage there would be less crime, and less criminals for that matter.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="family_values_left_coast_style"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Family values, Left Coast style</div> <div> June 21, 2007</div> <bR> <div> When “fly-over” country thinks of the “left coast” the first thought is California. It is an oversight, for you shouldn't forget Oregon and Washington.</div> <div> In Portland, OR, a city transit bus driver kicked two 14-year-old girls off the bus for kissing each other. It turns out the driver violated transit authority policy and will be punished. Alright, I can deal with that, for the incident and the aftermath isn't the point. Ronnda Zezula is the point.</div> <div> Ronnda is the mother of one of the teenage girls. She welcomed the transit authority's predictable apology and seems willing to let bygones be bygones. She may not even pursue the lawsuit that's been suggested. Her only problem is that the driver deliberately broke transit authority rules.</div> <div> “He knew it was wrong,” said Ronnda. There's the problem, and the point.</div> <div> Mrs. Zezula, there are greater wrongs at work here than the bus driver's insensitivity. Your most pressing problem is with your teenage daughter. Aren't you bothered by the fact that your 14-year-old girl was kissing another girl on a public bus? Most parents wouldn't want their daughter kissing a boyfriend in such a place, much less kissing a girlfriend.</div> <div> Lesbianism is wrong, Mrs. Zezula, whether you like it or not. Focusing on the bus driver's action, while ignoring your daughter's, sends a message that morality is inconsequential. You're establishing a risky course for your daughter.</div> <div> What happens if your daughter enters a full sexual relationship with the other young girl, and then decides she isn't a lesbian after all? Does it not make sense that, being sexually active, she would then seek fulfillment in a straight or bisexual relationship? Your daughter may begin to seek her pleasure from the most available and willing partner, regardless of their gender, for you neglected to guide her moral development.</div> <div> The overwhelming majority of parents would recognize that our responsibility is to address our daughter's actions, not the bus driver's. But, then, nothing is the same on the left coast, including family values.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="you_can_get_away_with_murder"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>You can get away with murder</div> <div> June 18, 2007</div> <bR> <div> The Bible says that in the face of two witnesses a matter shall be established. With that statement as my authority I now declare that you can get away with murder. O.J. Simpson is the first witness in support of my claim. Mary Winkler is the second.</div> <div> Mrs. Winkler is the Tennessean who shot her pastor husband in the back as he lay in bed. She then took the kids and went on vacation. When she was arrested and went to trial she claimed her husband has abused her. This leaves a question for someone, like me, who didn't sit on the jury.</div> <div> It seems to me that if the husband was paying so little attention as to allow Mrs. Winkler to shoot him in the back and flee to another state that she could have fled without killing her husband. The jury did convict Mrs. Winkler, but don't expect her to hang in the near future.</div> <div> Mrs. Winkler was sentence to three years in prison. She must serve at least seven months before she can be released. She will receive credit for the five months she spent in jail up until now, leaving only two months to serve after her conviction. And those two months could be spent in a mental health facility, after which she can be released. As far as I know, Mr. Winkler will still be dead at that time.</div> <div> At least O.J. was acquitted.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="journalists_defend_their_own_turf"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Journalists defend their own turf</div> <div> June 17, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Journalists covering events in the Middle East, most notably Palestinian events, have a dangerous job. It takes guts to live in those areas. This is especially true if the journalist is a Westerner in general or an American in particular. However, over the years journalists have covered their trail with apologetic articles about Palestinian terrorists. Most reports are apologetic renderings designed to elicit sympathy for the militant cause. They have effectively become a mouthpiece for the Palestinian movement. But every now and again something happens to change their views.</div> <div> Journalists roundly condemned Palestinian militants for disguising an attack vehicle with press credentials. Israelis will not fire on vehicles bearing media markings, and gunmen used that knowledge to their advantage. Militants used false press markings to infiltrate an Israeli installation.</div> <div> They failed to attain their objective, which was to kidnap an Israeli soldier. But they did succeed in convincing the Western press, temporarily at least, that the militant mind knows no magical rules of engagement. For them, it is victory at all cost regardless of the tactics involved. Militants really couldn't care less what the Western press did yesterday if they can be use to further the cause in another way today.</div> <div> Wouldn't it be great if the media actually joined the anti-terrorist side, or simply refused to be an apologetic mouthpiece to thuggish Islamic and anti-Israel organizations? “World opinion” toward these “freedom fighters” might change drastically if journalists began giving the whole story in every instance.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="deplorable_politics_in_the_house_of"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Deplorable politics in the House of Representatives</div> <div> June 12, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Congress may never reach new heights, unless that height is for reaching lows. Rep. Diane DeGette (D-CO) proves this point with the clarity of a mountain stream. When the house voted to ease restrictions on embryonic stem cell research Rep. DeGette said that research is the best chance for patients of debilitating diseases to find a cure. “Unfortunately, because of one man -President Bush- these people continue to suffer as they wait,” she added.</div> <div> Is this the case of the heartless president, the mindless representative, or the disingenuous advocate? I think the latter.</div> <div> If a Republican made such a comment they would be run out of town on a rail. Yet, Democrats make such outlandish, unsubstantiated, and erroneous claims with absolute impunity. Let's look at a few examples.</div> <div> If Republicans propose curtailing a social program's rate of growth they are accused of starving children and depriving the elderly of medicine. When Republicans want to end unfair taxation, such as the Estate Tax or Alternative Minimum Tax, they are taking from the poor to benefit the rich. If Republicans want to open new fields to energy exploration they are accused of destroying the environment. It's hogwash! Still, it's gobbled up by a compliant national media and regurgitated to an infantile segment of the population that swallows it willingly.</div> <div> Rep. DeGette knows full well that more people than President Bush oppose embryonic stem cell research. She knows that there are other options for stem cell research apart from embryonic cells. She also knows that her accusations are untrue and her tactics deplorable. However, she and her ilk bank on ignorance, betting the farm that you won't know the difference.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="another_step_toward_gomorrah"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Another step toward Gomorrah</div> <div> June 12, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Connecticut thought their problems were solved when they legalized civil unions for homosexuals. As is so often the case, open the barn door just wee bit and the horse will bolt for the pasture. Civil unions are no longer enough, just as opponents predicted.</div> <div> A lawsuit claims that homosexual's civil rights are violated because the state won't issue marriage licenses to gay couples. The plaintiff's lawyer, Bennett Klein, argues that gay couples are being denied the “right to be part of the fabric of society when they are just the same as other couples and other families.” Excuse me, Mr. Bennett, but they are not the same as other families. In fact, the contrast is stark.</div> <div> Homosexuals cannot reproduce within their sexual union. No matter how hard gays or lesbians try, not matter how many fertility pills they take or stamina enhancers they use, they cannot perpetuate mankind. That's not to say that all sexual relations should be reproductive, only that the relationship between the partners should have that capability.</div> <div> Furthermore, no one has a “right” to be part of the fabric of society. That is determined by public acceptance. Many heterosexual relationships aren't publicly accepted and, therefore, a part of society's fabric. For instance, straight couples who are into wife-swapping, swinging, various forms of bondage or masochism aren't likely to be accepted in the mainstream “fabric.” That doesn't mean they can't do it privately, only that the public doesn't have to accept it in equal standing to other relationships.</div> <div> Homosexuals are not like other couples and they aren't like other families. No amount of public relations or lawsuits will alter that fact. What's more, their desire is not to do their deeds without fear of imprisonment but without threat of public rejection. For them to gain that “right” means their opponents must forfeit their morality. Viewing “gay rights” from that aspect quickly reveals that it's a nonentity.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="even_quarantines_are_politically_correct"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Even quarantines are politically correct</div> <div> June 8, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Andrew Speaker earned an undesirable designation. He became the first person placed in federal quarantine since 1963.</div> <div> You may know Mr. Speaker as the tuberculosis patient who gave air passengers a scare in late May. The question is why he was quarantined. Well, tuberculosis is a highly contagious disease. He was quarantined to protect the health of everyone else. It's not fun, but it is necessary. And Mr. Speaker seems fine with the prospect of spending two months locked in a hospital.</div> <div> It's a funny thing. We're told that AIDS is health risk of epidemic proportions. There are far more cases of AIDS than tuberculosis and millions of people die from it. It has been spreading since the early 1980s. We can't cure it. So, why didn't we quarantine AIDS patients before the horse got out of the barn? There are a few reasons.</div> <div> For one thing, there are large amounts of research money driving AIDS activism. Another reason is the people most likely to contract the disease. AIDS is most prevalent in drug addicts, homosexuals and, on rare occasions, the promiscuous. All three classes are above reproach. Drug addicts are always victims. Heaven knows we can't further victimize a victim. Quarantine a homosexual and you're a homophobe. Quarantine the promiscuous and you're an inhibited prude, lost in the haze of the quintessential nuclear family.</div> <div> Of course, an AIDS quarantine today wouldn't be effective even if were possible. But, there's a better explanation for why AIDS patients weren't quarantined to begin with. The disease was never as communicable as activists claimed. AIDS has never, and won't, pose the public health risk a disease like tuberculosis does.</div> <div> You can avoid AIDS by staying clean, straight, and monogamous. In short, you can marry the opposite sex, remain faithful, and get your kicks without a needle. The surest roadblock to the spread of AIDS is the dreaded nuclear family. When AIDS activists howled at talk of quarantines years ago they were admitting the risks to people outside the homosexual and drug communities were statistically nil.</div> <div> Quarantining AIDS patients would have been not only of little value, but also as politically incorrect as the fact that the disease is predominantly the result of the infected person's behavior.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="from_the__déjà_vu_all_over_again_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>From the “déjà vu all over again” department</div> <div> June 8, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Hamas, that genteel ruling party in the never before and non-existent state of Palestine, has hinted at the possibility that they might contemplate agreeing to a one-year ceasefire with Israel. Such an agreement could end the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel and the Israeli army's incursions into Palestinian neighborhoods in search of militants. The $64 question is not whether a peace agreement can be made, but of what value it will be.</div> <div> News reports say the previous truce fell apart when Hamas intensified rocket attacks into Israel. The key word is “intensified.” Something that isn't happening cannot be intensified. Thus, something must be happening. If Hamas' “intensified” rocket attacks broke the truce they must have been carrying out attacks all along, even during the ceasefire. Of what value is a ceasefire in which there is no truce?</div> <div> Middle East peace deals have been as numerous as the grains of sand in the desserts on which they fight, and even harder to identify. In the rare instance that ceasefire actually means that fire ceases, Hamas has proven they will war with their own people. Look at the fighting that's taken place between Hamas and Fatah.</div> <div> Middle East peace agreements are of no value until one side or the other loses their will to fight. That means that either Israel or Palestine must win. If a new agreement is no better than the previous ones, there's little use to have a peace agreement at all. </div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="immigration_reform_finds_a_poster_child"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Immigration reform finds a poster child</div> <div> June 5, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Mariana is 23-years-old. She is about to graduate from UCLA. She has been accepted to the master's program at Harvard. She is also illegally in the United States and fears deportation. Now, she serves as a reason for passing the immigration reform bill.</div> <div> Mariana said, “I'm even afraid of eating an apple in the library because I'm afraid of getting caught.” She worries about paying for tuition and what kind of job waits when she graduates.</div> <div> Mariana, the more I hear from you the more I think you don't exist. You sound like a fictional character sensationalized to promote a wider agenda. But, just in case you're real, I have a few questions for you.</div> <div> If you can't eat so much as an apple for fear of deportation, what have you eaten while at UCLA? Have you not eaten since entering school? Furthermore, you're hardly alone in worrying about tuition at Harvard, which can run close to $40,000 before financial aid. How did you pay for UCLA? I'm sure it wasn't free… or was it? If you worked your way through UCLA find a similar job at Cambridge. And if you attended class at Californian's expense you have quite a nerve whining to begin with.</div> <div> As for your future, Harvard graduates seldom find themselves picking tomatoes or cutting grass.</div> <div> Mariana, if you exist, you are the exception not the rule. Southern border jumpers aren't graduate students sneaking into America so they can attend Harvard, Dartmouth, or Brown. They are high school drop-outs.</div> <div> America spends billions of dollars to promote education, literacy, and to prevent kids from quitting school. And now we're told that the future of America depends on millions of high school drop-outs who can, at best, barely speak English.</div> <div> Immigration reform will never fly on those terms, so supporters must produce the pitifully oppressed. And there stands Mariana.</div> <div> I'm beginning to smell a Jason Blair story.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="has_the_west_accomplished_the_radical_s"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Has the West accomplished the radical's dream?</div> <div> June 4, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Terrorism has changed the world as we know it. We must be more vigilant, more watchful, and more alert than ever before. Does that mean freedom should be offered as a bloody sacrifice on the altar of government?</div> <div> Britain employs over 4 million closed circuit cameras in various public places. What's more, polls indicate Brits aren't concerned with the invasive technology. This isn't unique to the United Kingdom, it happens in America as well. Chicago Mayor Charles Daley is a proponent of public surveillance cameras.</div> <div> Little resistance is offered to such government snooping. It seems to fly under the radar while the “freedom-loving liberals” bemoan legitimate government spying aimed at enemies. Somehow, Abomba Fo Allah has a right to maintain a private line to Osama Bin Laden. But Westerners must be tracked when they walk down the street and Aunt Matilda must be searched when she boards a plane.</div> <div> We can see by their actions that Islamic radicals hate freedom. They hate freedom in their own lands and they hate freedom in Western lands. They hate people who don't hate freedom. They hate Western culture and civilization. They hate Jews and Christians and Hindus, and anything or anyone outside their 10<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> Century world. Their actions are bent on forcing us to renounce our ways and adopt theirs.</div> <div> If we are subject to constant government surveillance, and willingly accept it as the price for security, have we given the radicals what they want?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="congress_lacks_much_but_not_nerve"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Congress lacks much, but not nerve</div> <div> May 31, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) recently blasted the FCC for overstepping its authority. Their sin was approving a measure to foster more competition in the cable television industry. Rep. Dingell said that “the FCC is not a legislative body, that role resides here in this room with the people's elected representatives. That's true enough. Were it only true that congressmen like Dingell actually believed in their role as the people's representatives.</div> <div> When was the last time you heard Dingell complain when the IRS independently implemented a new rule? How about when OSHA did so, or the EEOC, or any other department? And how is congress doing anyway? You don't hear much about it, but polling data in early May indicated that congress was no better off than President Bush in terms of public approval.</div> <div> The only time you'll hear Rep. John Dingell bemoan government is when it is getting out of the way of free enterprise. Friends, you and I can regulate the price of cable television far better than can John Dingell, Congress, or the FCC. Cable TV is not a necessity. Open it up to competition, and if the price rises too high you'll see people dropping their subscriptions.</div> <div> If Rep. Dingell wants to criticize bureaucracy, that's fine. However, it should be noted that Congress' actions led directly to the federal bureaucracies he now laments. </div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="yet_another_sign_of_u_n__incompetence"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Yet another sign of U.N. incompetence</div> <div> May 30, 2007</div> <bR> <div> There is one nation that should be thankful for Sudan and Somalia. That nation is Zimbabwe. If it weren't for the problems those nations face, Zimbabwe would likely head the list of absolute disasters.</div> <div> Zimbabwe lives under Robert Mugabe's iron-fisted rule, a thug if there's ever been one. Zimbabwe was once a thriving agricultural economy. Then Mugabe's government confiscated the privately managed farmland, redistributing it to others that they deemed more worthy. The recipients knew not how to farm. Zimbabwe now teeters on the brink of economic ruin and starvation.</div> <div> Inflation is rampant and unemployment is high. Their alleged dollar is virtually non-existent. The gross domestic product is shrinking. Despite the nation's natural resources and flows of foreign aid the only people succeeding in Zimbabwe are Mugabe and his cronies. There is no free speech or press. All media outlets are state-run. The only outside voices are broadcast into Zimbabwe from neighboring nations.</div> <div> What should the United Nations do about Zimbabwe? That is difficult to answer, but that nation should not be given a leadership position on the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development. Yet, that is exactly what a 53-member U.N. commission did.</div> <div> Need any more proof that the United Nations is a useless, irresponsible, poorly led, and absolutely useless organization?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="breaking_bread_with_an_enemy"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Breaking bread with an enemy</div> <div> May 29, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Anyone who has spent time on these pages knows my opinion of Cindy Sheehan and the vast majority of the self-proclaimed “peace” movement. Now, as Mrs. Sheehan resigns as the poster child for the socialist left, I have found some common ground with my adversary.</div> <div> I still don't agree with her view of the Iraq War or that her son Casey died in vain. I don't agree with her overall assessment of America based on her “farewell address.” However, I do agree with one of her statements concerning America's priorities. Cindy said, “Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.”</div> <div> As much as I would like to disagree with Cindy, she is exactly right in denouncing our cultural obsession with entertainment. We are a nation far too consumed with things of no value. People sit glued to a glorified version of the high school talent show, in which there is little show and less talent, all the while giving little attention to virtues or values. I wonder how many people spent Memorial Day without thinking of the Americans who died in service to this country, or the millions more that survived war but have since passed away? It is a sad commentary on our personal priorities.</div> <div> Don't misunderstand; there's nothing wrong with escaping reality through some form of entertainment. But I, like Cindy, fear that a large number of Americans have their priorities out of order. For that reason we pass the responsibility for nearly everything to government. Our freedom wanes in the process.</div> <div> As far as I'm concerned Cindy Sheehan has been right about nothing until now. She is dead on target concerning our cultural worship of the celebrity.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="there_s_a_man_somewhere"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>There's a man somewhere</div> <div> May 24, 2007</div> <bR> <div> The debate rages on concerning the morality, normalcy, and acceptance of homosexuality. Should homosexuals marry? Should they have children? Should they be treated like a heterosexual couple? If you've read these pages you know my position.</div> <div> As if the issue needed more publicity, here comes the birth of Samuel David Cheney to Mary Cheney, lesbian daughter of the Vice-President. Mary has been in a lesbian relationship with someone named Heather Poe for about 15 years. For the record, Heather retains no legal rights in the birth of Samuel and the source of Mary's impregnation remains undisclosed. But one thing is sure, no act performed solely between Mary Cheney and Heather Poe produced this child.</div> <div> There are many ways for a woman to conceive, many of which require no direct sexual contact with a man. But, even if sexual relations are bypassed, it isn't possible that Mary Cheney conceived without sperm. Somewhere out there, hidden in the anonymity of a sperm bank, is the partial source of Samuel David Cheney. That source will likely remain unrevealed to human knowledge forevermore.</div> <div> Despite the debate that can spring from Mary Cheney's son, one thing is absolutely certain… Heather Poe contributed no sperm to Mary's conception. But somewhere there is a man who did.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="congressional_chutzpah"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Congressional Chutzpah</div> <div> May 23, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) is fast becoming the poster child for congressional critics. Even the most liberal of liberals are running from the New Orleans legislator, and for good reason. Jefferson is accused of taking bribes, a charge substantiated by a raid that found $90,000 worth of bribe money stashed in his freezer. You could say that Jefferson was cold busted with the cold cash.</div> <div> However, this convincing evidence isn't beyond a congressman's ability to exhibit gall.</div> <div> Jefferson charges the Justice Department with overstepping its authority when they raided his office during the investigation. His attorney claims that any files or documents seized violate the constitutional principle that prohibits the executive branch from using its investigative authority to infringe upon legislative independence. Jefferson may not a have a legal leg to stand on, but he does have gall… plenty of it. What privilege is Mr. Jefferson claiming?</div> <div> Apparently he claims that legislative privilege covers soliciting bribes and influencing African trade and business deals. Apparently he insists that the legislative branch of government is beyond investigation because the Justice Department is part of the executive branch. Apparently he is saying that Congress is above the law. But, then, this attitude isn't what you'd call breaking news, is it?</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="colorado_s_memorial_day_weather_global"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Colorado's Memorial Day weather: Global warming?</div> <div> May 23, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Every time you think it's safe to worship Al Gore, God has other things in mind.</div> <div> Any Coloradoan planning Memorial Day celebrations from the Castle Rock area south of Denver to the southwestern mountains may want to pack a parka with the hotdogs. The National Weather Service is predicting up to eight inches of snow for those areas of Colorado this weekend. Snow is also forecasted for the area along the Montana-Wyoming border, extending slightly into eastern Idaho.</div> <div> Yes, I know recorded average temperatures are higher than they were in times past. However, there is still enough cold weather to go around. May I suggest that the doomsayers head out to the Rockies if they prefer a cooler weekend? But don't drive an SUV.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="police_are_bound_by_the_law_too"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Police are bound by the law, too</div> <div> May 22, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Cpl. Edward Sanchez is one up on the people he has busted. He not only got the pot but used it and got off scot-free, aside from the loss of his job. Sanchez was an officer in Dearborn, MI until he called 911 and told the operator that he and his wife were overdosing on marijuana.</div> <div> Minor drug offenders pass in an out of the system all the time, so why shouldn't Sanchez? If it were only the drugs it wouldn't be that big of a deal. But the pot Sanchez and his wife baked into brownies was weed he took from criminal suspects. He, of course, denies that he knew the brownies were laced, a denial he wife substantiates. However, that doesn't excuse his having evidence confiscated from criminal suspects.</div> <div> I'm not so naïve as to think this sort of stuff doesn't happen. Even so, if government at any level is to be credible in the “war on drugs” every offender must receive the same treatment. Mr. Sanchez should be charged with possession of a controlled substance and given the traditional first offender slap on the wrist. But if Sanchez and his wife can avoid criminal charges for gobbling down a pan of confiscated marijuana, then what business does the Dearborn Police Department have arresting anyone for a bag of dope.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="all__elf__needs_is_a_sheet"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>All “ELF” needs is a sheet</div> <div> May 21, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Several members of the loose-knit, and loose-minded, Earth Liberation Front are on trial in Oregon for 20 acts of arson, They are accused of torching animal research facilities, logging interests, and other businesses. The prosecution is seeking longer prison sentencing by declaring the defendants terrorists, likening them to Klansmen. Apparently the analogy didn't sit well with defense attorney Amanda Lee.</div> <div> Lee pointed out that the Klan not only torched churches but lynched blacks and committed murders. Mrs. Lee defense actually makes the prosecution's assertion crystal clear.</div> <div> The Ku Klux Klan didn't conduct their violent acts solely to get rid of a black person or two. No, they did what they did to send a message. Their church burning, lynching, marching, etc., was to change the behavior of other people. The idea was, and may still be, to force people to alter the way they live through the use of coercive threats and violence. They meant to intimidate blacks in order to control their right to free movement and self-determination; all because they had decided that they were chosen to preserve their vision of justice. How are these radical environmentalists different?</div> <div> They don't want timber companies to cut timber. So, they drive spikes into trees that can destroy saws and cause injury to tree-cutters. They don't like to see other Americans exercise their free to drive the vehicle of their choice, so they burn SUVs. They don't like “sprawl” so they burn mansions. They don't like the destruction of forests so they burn the forests themselves.</div> <div> Aside from the fact that their actions destroy the very things they claim to protect, what do you notice about their tactics? They are bent toward intimidation, just like the tactic employed by the Klan. Earth Liberation Front “activists” attempt to alter the free choice of their neighbors through acts of violence and destruction. In fact, they are little different from the Ku Klux Klan, if different at all.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="john_edwards_mess_cook"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>John Edwards, mess cook</div> <div> April 24, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Anyone familiar with the Army's mess hall or the Navy's galley knows what SOS stands for. Well, John Edwards must be a veteran and he must have been a cook. It is becoming apparent that he is well-skilled in dishing out that traditional military delicacy.</div> <div> Darfur, Sudan is a violent and deadly problem. It is nothing to laugh about. But the last thing it needs is a political solution that has failed time and again, crafted simply so politicians can take credit for “doing something.” Edwards fits that bill with his plan to halt the violence in that war-torn region. Among his ideas are multilateral sanctions against the Sudanese government, a no-fly zone over Darfur, and U.N. peacekeepers.</div> <div> Why do these proposals seem so familiar? If memory serves it is exactly what occurred in Iraq after the Gulf War. There were sanctions. There was a no-fly zone. There was a U.N. presence. The sanctions produced backroom deals that enriched Hussein and corrupt U.N. officials. Iraq fired on planes enforcing the no-fly zone. The U.N. weapons inspections were mocked repeatedly. The entire process was a disastrous forerunner to the current war.</div> <div> Very little is being done at present to squelch the bloodshed. Should we then accept Edwards' proposal as better than doing nothing? Hardly, for sometimes the remedy is worse than the disease. Thomas Jefferson said it best, "It is better to have no ideas than false ones."</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="virginia_tech_and_the_dangers_of"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Virginia Tech and the dangers of liberalism</div> <div> April 21, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Since Monday there has been endless analysis of the Virginia Tech massacre. Opinions run the gamut from more gun control to a failed legal system to the need for more armed, law-abiding civilians. We must assign responsibility to someone and, unfortunately, we seldom blame the responsible party. The assessments of fault are as wide and varied as snowflakes in a blizzard. But there is one culpable attitude that hasn't been mentioned, not even once. Where is the blame for the merchants of class envy?</div> <div> According to the murderer's note, his rampage was driven in part by animosity toward “rich kids”. Who furthers the notion that “the rich” have somehow stolen what “the poor” would otherwise possess? Isn't such class envy the cornerstone of Liberal Civics 101? This attitude is spewed throughout the political arena, the national media and college campuses from sea to sea. Professors, politicians, editors and news anchors lament the “unequal distribution” of wealth. Failure isn't the fault of a person; it is the fault of an unseen force, the “greedy rich”, that grabs more than their “fair share.” And here, written in the blood of Virginia Tech students, is the result -at least in part- of such illogical, irresponsible, and thoroughly despicable rhetoric.</div> <div> If we must assign guilt to everyone but the killer, then reserve a portion for the incessant, brainwashing, “soak the rich” propaganda that liberals preach.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="iran_land_of_gall"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Iran: Land of gall</div> <div> April 10, 2007</div> <bR> <div> It was bad enough when Iran left their territorial waters, abducted British sailors, and paraded them on television like a prize dog at the Westminster Show. But the latest release from Iranian officials just, as Briscoe Darling would say on the Andy Griffith Show, “takes the rag off of the bush.”</div> <div> Iran's ambassador to London, Rasoul Movahedian, urged Britain to help his country mend their strained international relations. He said that Iran had “showed good will” by freeing the Brits they had kidnapped adding, “Now it is up to the British government to proceed in a positive way. We will welcome in general any steps that could defuse tensions in the region.”</div> <div> Have you ever heard such impudence, such unmitigated gall? Iran would not have needed to free those sailors had they not shanghaied them to begin with. Let's put this in perspective.</div> <div> Your kids are playing in your neighbor's yard. The neighbor down the street takes your kids and holds them for two weeks, continually displaying them for the media. They are compelled to make statements deriding your family. Finally, your kids are returned. Then a spokesman for the kidnappers appears in the newspaper calling on you to help the family repair their damaged presence in the community. How would you react?</div> <div> Iran wants a gesture from the United Kingdom? I think I have the appropriate one. It involves an extended finger with the remaining fingers folder neatly toward the palm. It's the least Iran deserves.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="ignoring_the_higher_authority"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Ignoring the Higher Authority</div> <div> April 5, 2007</div> <bR> <div> It certainly pays to get as much information as possible before making a declarative statement that can alter a religious movement. The Jewish Theological Seminary, representative of Conservative Judaism, did just that while debating whether to allow gay and lesbian religious teachers.</div> <div> The issue was presented to legal committees, administration committees, and the Board of Trustees. Professionals and laymen in Jewish law and custom were consulted. Extensive polling was conducted of Rabbis, school faculty, students, and anyone else connected with the JTS. The result? The JTS will soon accept applications from gays and lesbians.</div> <div> Do you notice anyone missing in the debate? Is there an opinion the leadership should have sought, but didn't? Where about God's input?</div> <div> Don't despair entirely; God and Leviticus 18:22 were mentioned. In fact, the name of God was included twice in a 4500 word letter from the schools chancellor announcing the decision. They just decided it could be overruled due to modern attitudes and knowledge of homosexuality.</div> <div> Every time there is war, violence, destruction, or wantonness, we declare it a sign of the end of time. However, we can expect no less from a world that shuns and ignores God. But when an otherwise conservative school of Jewish doctrine decides God's Word has no place in such a decision, it may indeed be a sign of the times.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="what_is_science_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>What is science?</div> <div> April 2, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Science was never my greatest interest. Even so, I do understand that some scientific conclusions are demonstrable. We can see how certain elements and matter interact with each other. However, other scientific assertions are based on theory, and theories can naturally be overturned.</div> <div> Scientific consensus has long held that the demise of the dinosaurs ushered an explosion of mammals. Well, maybe that wasn't the case after all. A recent study says it didn't happen that way. If that's accurate, what other scientific facts might be erroneous? What would make one prehistoric theory better than another? After all, none of us were actually there at the time.</div> <div> What if the carbon dating is totally wrong? Maybe the timelines science holds as absolute aren't so absolute. Could, then, a declarative statement on the dawn of man be made? And how can science declare that the earth has never been warmer. Ah, there's that scientific consensus again, which is often refuted at a later date.</div> <div> I don't plan to argue science with people trained in its technical jargon. However, it seems quite easy to make statements that can't be physically proven one way or the other.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="dem_stands_for_demagogue"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Dem stands for Demagogue</div> <div> March 31, 2007</div> <bR> <div> Remember the Democrats pledge to bring a new tone to Washington, if only America would give them the chance? A thinking voter immediately recognized their motive. Yet, enough Americans bought their snake oil to hand liberals the reigns of government, and along with them the purse strings. Now let's see what changes they are proposing.</div> <div> The Democrat's budget claims to produce surpluses within five years. How? Predictably, they will end the tax cuts enacted during Bush's first term. Of course, the fact that raising taxes discourages savings and investment, thus slowing the economy, and produces less income for government to tax will not enter their discussion.</div> <div> Spending will increase, as per usual, for it is the method by which politicians purchase the votes of their constituents. And once again the impending insolvency in Social Security and Medicare is ignored, which may be a blessing in disguise as neither program produces as advertised or passes constitutional muster as a legitimate power of the federal government.</div> <div> Still, somehow, Democrats have the chutzpa to pass off such foolishness as a victory for the “working man” over the “greedy rich” and the “evil corporations.” The whole idea is an orchestrated scheme to capitalize on jealousy and class envy. </div> <div> Democrats yet again show their true colors. They sound their populist notes and then watch as the rats get in line for their bite of the cheese.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="tom_vilsack_has_his_price"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Tom Vilsack has his price</div> <div> March 30, 2007</div> <bR> <div> It would be easy for most Americans to criticize former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack for selling his voice to Hillary Clinton. During his make-believe run for the Democratic nomination Vilsack amassed $400,000 in debt. Observers would expect commentators to pounce on Vilsack's lack of integrity. Essentially, he sold his vote. And there's no shortage of condemnation toward the Clinton campaign for engaging in such shady dealings. But, isn't this typical of political operations?</div> <div> It is not unusual to find politicians buying votes or endorsements. It may come in the form of money (as above), ambassadorships, appointments or contracts. Before you cast that stone you'd better do some self examination.</div> <div> Too many Americans sell their vote each and every Election Day. You may sell your vote for a welfare check, food stamps, or student aid. Perhaps a business or farm subsidy, Social Security, Medicare, or prescription drugs catch your eye. You may even sell your vote for the ability to kill your unborn child, marry your dog, or employ illegal aliens. Whatever the service, most Americans sell their vote just as surely as Tom Vilsack sold his endorsement.</div> <div> No doubt Vilsack's sellout to the one who would be queen is deplorable. However, of far more consequence to our republic is each and every American's willingness to sell their vote to the politician who promises the most federal goodies.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="hillary_stalin_lenin_marx"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Hillary Stalin Lenin Marx</div> <div> March 29, 2007</div> <bR> <div> To meet the face of American socialism just type Hillary Clinton in your search engine.</div> <div> You're no doubt familiar with her speech at the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee in February. She demonized “Big Oil” for their large profits. She said that Democrats knew what needed to be done. Apparently that means government confiscation of private property. Sen. Clinton said, “The oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them in an alternative energy fund.”</div> <div> Not much has changed since then. Speaking at a recent Democratic presidential forum on health care, Mrs. Clinton was again at her worst. She reaffirmed her commitment to socialized medicine saying, “We're going to change the way we finance the system by taking away money from people who are doing well now.” When asked of whom she spoke, she mentioned insurance companies.</div> <div> There it is, chilling words straight from the horse's…uh, mouth. Hillary Clinton would take private property (i.e. profits) from oil and insurance companies so she can oversee their “proper” use.</div> <div> Not only does America have the “opportunity” to elect the first woman president, but the first one to openly run on the Karl Marx plank. </div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="a_family_worthy_of_death"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>A family worthy of death</div> <div> March 28, 2007</div> <bR> <div> A child molester is bad enough on his or her own. What happens when you toss in the molester's mother and father? You have a prescription for one of the most heinous child rapes imaginable, and a case for the death penalty that no reasonable person can refute. You can read the details at http://news.bostonherald.com/national/south/view.bg?articleid=190105&srvc=art" <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><U>http://news.bostonherald.com/national/south/view.bg?articleid=190105&srvc=art</U></FONT>. </div> <div> Despite the unimaginable nature of this crime, a death sentence will produce protests. There'll be candlelight vigils and “enlightened” individuals decrying the inhumanity of executing these vermin. But that's not open-minded; that's stupid.</div> <div> Yes, I'm aware that a confession must go to trial. I know the case must be proven, and that their confessions may prevent a death sentence. And there's the matter of a jury trial, etc. Yet, once this is over and they are convicted their execution should be immediate.</div> <div> Isn't it time we began to view capital punishment not as vengeance or deterrence, but as justice? Go on; look up the ghastly details of this case. Read it and think about your son or daughter. Why worry about George's, David's, or Peggy's anguish? If they suffer a pain or two, so be it. I'll go as far as to recommend general population while they await their trial and sentence. Why not let them have a taste of what they gave Christopher Michael Barrios?</div> <div> Ample time is available for the Edenfields to make their peace with the Lord. I hope they do, for I wish eternal damnation on no one. But it should not be long before that time runs out.</div> <div> <A HREF="id191_m.htm" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>