Now's not the time!

I find it amazing that, at a time when there's been a serious natural disaster and people are dead while others are going through immense suffering, some people are only too eager to point the finger at our President. Believe it or not, many Liberals are now blaming President Bush for Hurricane Katrina! How exactly, is President Bush responsible for this disaster? Simple. Global warming. This is despite the fact that many American scientists have gone on the record as stating that there is no connection between global warming and this particular storm. Some hurricane's are really bad. While it's not pleasant, these things happen. And, you can never accurately predict how bad a hurricane or storm will be, you can only do your best to warn people. What should be focused on now is getting help to those who need it. President Bush is taking charge of the situation and making every attempt to bring help to those who need it. But, lets face it, it's a tough situation that no one can accurately identify with because every storm is different.

Lets not place lame on anyone for this storm. Storms, hurricanes, tornados-in effect, natural disasters- happen. It's a fact of life. Liberals need to stop politicizing this event and get in there and help out! Republicans are not politically posturing here and saying "oh, look at how the government is really getting in there to help out!" In short, put up or shut up! Rather than criticize who's at fault or how things could be done better, shut your mouth and do your part to help! I encourage everyone to contact their local Red Cross to see how they can help. Perhaps you could donate some blood. Maybe you can donate a nice food package or some cases of bottled water for those victims who desperately need it. Better yet, if you can spare any amount of money, maybe you can donate that. If you've got a job, why not see if you can set up a jar in your break room to collect donations, then donate that to the American Red Cross. Maybe collect things for a care package to be sent where it's needed most. Maybe you're a student at a school, or have a child who's a student at a school and maybe you can talk with the principle or superintendent about getting the whole school involved in helping out those in need. Maybe the children could bring their spare change, or have a recycle drive going where paper, plastic, pop cans or glass is collected, recycled, and that money donated to the Disaster Relief Fund. If you're not sure where your local Red Cross is, use the link below to find it, or to donate directly to the American Red Cross. Now is not the time for arguing, finger pointing, blaming or political posturing. It is a time for us all to help out. Anything you think you can do may just help. I don't make much money, but, I donated $50 to the relief fund. A little goes a long way, every bit helps, it all adds up. It is a time to come together, to teach those that caring and compassion can go a long way in helping a person out. Come on America! Let's do all we can!


www.redcross.org

Sheehan-the REAL agenda........

We have all seen the sympathy that Cindy Sheehan has received on the media. In fact, many in the media have argued that she's not getting enough press! Really? Wow, well, I just don't remember any press coverage on the Pro-Bush Supporters down there in Crawford, Texas which were camped out, more or less, right across the street from Camp Casey. You wouldn't know it by the media coverage though would you? In fact, I don't recall any television news coverage on the opposite view point. Yet, the media isn't biased. Anyone who believes there is no media bias needs a brain scan, seriously. If coverage were to focus completely on the pro-Bush Supporters and nothing on Sheehan, wouldn't Liberals be crying about that being biased? So, why doesn't it work the other way?

Well, in any case, the question needs to be asked: Did Cindy Sheehan have an agenda with this war protest? She recently made an appearance on the Bill Maher show "Real Time with Bill Maher". Actually, she made the appearance via satellite because she can hardly leave Camp Casey, now can she? Bill asks her how she's doing. Her response? She's doing great. Hmmm, great huh? That's an odd answer isn't it? I mean, she's been whinning about how her son died in vain, he was killed in a war that the U.S. shouldn't be involved in and she's been going on and on about how President Bush won't meet with her (which, incidentally, he did. Right after Casey Sheehan was killed, President Bush DID meet with Cindy, as well as others who lost children soldiers in Iraq). Further, it's very well known that Cindy had to leave because her mom had a stroke. Yet, Cindy's doing great! Well rock on baby, you go girl! It's so nice that you're doing so great after all the tragedy!

Cindy goes on to say that she is "...glad he didn't meet with me, because I'm glad all of this happened. It's amazing. It's wonderful. And we've jump-started the peace movement." She goes on to say that they're going to end the war sooner too. Well, let's look at this statement. She's glad that President Bush didn't meet with her. So, it could be argued then that she never really expected President Bush to meet with her, she is really glad that she single handedly began the peace movement again. Well, that sounds like an agenda, doesn't it? It seems that she really simply wanted to begin the peace movement again, perhaps it was convenient that her son was killed so she could begin it again. I mean, that's really sarcastic, I mean no disrespect to her son. I think I actually have more respect for what Casey died for than Cindy does actually. So, Cindy's glad she didn't meet with the president. Ok then, why stay in Crawford where he's at? If you are glad he didn't meet with you, and she's not a moron-she couldn't have honestly expected him to meet with her, then why not just hold your protest somewhere else? The media certainly would have come to you.

Cindy then goes on to call President Bush a liar. She was going to call him "...on his lies." Yet, she never states what she feels he lied about. She claims that President Bush doesn't believe that the war in Iraq really has anything to do with the War on Terror. She states she doesn't believe it, and President Bush doesn't either. How would she know what President Bush believes? According to her, he won't talk to her, so, how would she know? She can only assume she knows, but no! She states he knows Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. It's a fact! At least, according to her.

Cindy then goes on to say that we're not there in Iraq for Freedom and Democracy. Nope, that's not why we're there. Never mind we've helped Iraq to assemble a new Democratic Government that were voted on by the Iraqi people (remember all those purple stained fingers that the media couldn't ignore because it was such a big story?), they've drafted a new Constitution, albeit, it will probably be rejected because the Sunni's will not get all the power for the first time in their lives. They don't like sharing power, and so if they can't have it all, they'll simply throw a wrench into the entire thing! Cindy goes on to say that "...We would all want to protect America and protect our community if we had to. But not die for...You know, that would never be worth it." So, America is not dying for is it? Hmmm. I wonder, if like other Liberals, she supports the troops? Doesn't sound like she's supporting the troops does it? If America isn't worth dying for, then you can't possibly support the troops, because anyone joining the military knows there's at least a chance they'll have to go somewhere where they MIGHT die. Obviously, the troops believe America is worth dying for. So, it appears that she doesn't believe America is worth dying for. Sheehan...hmmm. Doesn't sound French. To read the interview on Maher's show, use this link: http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_082605.html

She acknowledges that people don't like her, that's because they take a different view on the war in Iraq, but, apparently, that's not a valid opinion to her. Hers is the only correct opinion. That's it. She does not speak for everyone in the military, and, many military families have a different opinion. She needs to allow them to disagree with her. Just as she is allowed to speak her opinion, she needs to allow them to have theirs as well. Then again, the media should allow for that too, but hey, at least they're not biased! Notice the picture at the top. Wow! Cindy with President Bush! Guess she did meet with him already! Now who's the liar?

With our tails between our legs......

There are those out there, primarily the hippie peace lovers and supporters of Ms. Sheehan, that are taking dangerous advantage of the war in Iraq to have a "Kumbyah" moment with the world, and apparently the terrorists. Is this what we really want to do to fight terrorism? Is this the way that will defeat terrorists? What about this plan will defeat terrorists? Are we, as peace lovers, hippies and anti-war crowds thinking that the terrorists will suddenly have a huge change of heart and see "aw geez, look at 'em. They really don't mean any harm. C'mon Osama, let's call it a draw." No, I kind of doubt it. Remember terrorists offered peace to any country that withdrew from Iraq. Right away Spain stood up first. Within a week, they found a bomb on their train system's tracks. Holy crap! Terrorists lie! No way!

How can we honestly appear as a strong nation if we give in to the terrorist's demands? How can we look like anything other than weaklings if we pull out of Iraq. No one likes war, no one is pro-war. Just as Abortion Rights Activists hate being called "pro-abortion", Americans are not "pro-war". But if we didn't help Iraq, who would have? All those hippies, all those war protesters, answer me! Who would have helped Iraq? We went in there looking for WMD, we didn't find them. But to say that they were never there is ridiculous! It was not the position of the United States to find the weapons. It was Iraq's responsibility to prove the weapons were not there. Did they do that? No. Even by the U.N. Weapon's Inspectors own accounts, there was much weapons material that was NOT accounted for. Iraq didn't have an explanation, the U.N., appearing as nothing but an appeaser, continuously gave false threats to Iraq in the form of "you'd better do this or we're gonna....gonna....well, when we do something, it'll be bad you bet'cha!" The United States is the only country in the U.N. that stood up and said NO! You've had your time, you've stalled, you've mis-directed, enough! Either comply, or we will come in. Iraq chose by their own free will not to comply. So, the U.S. did the job of the U.N. for the U.N. Let's look at not finding the weapons. For approximately one month, the U.N. continuously warned Saddam action would be taken. Gradually, the U.S. was getting irritated. Saddam knew it was a matter of time before the U.S. would have enough and come in. Regardless of what brave face he put on it, he was deeply afraid of the U.S. We out numbered him, we out-armed him, we had better weapons. Saddam had plenty of time to get rid of the weapons he had to other locations. Where? How about Syria? They hate the U.S. and would gladly hide stuff for Saddam. If you were to go to a drug dealer's house and tell him, "we know you have drugs here, if you don't get honest about it and get rid of them on your own, we're coming in, in a month!" We see he's not complying. We go back in a month. Do we honestly expect the drugs to be there? Now come on! The drug dealer isn't going to keep them there if he knows he'll be raided, why would Saddam keep what he had when he knew the U.S. was coming after him in a month?!

You know, I hate to say it, but, war is war. If it were nice, it would be called something else. Terrorists don't negotiate. They don't, period. You can't negotiate with them. They've said repeatedly that they want to kill Americans, period. Tell me peace lovers, hippies, anti-war protesters and Ms. Sheehan, how do you negotiate with that? I'm deeply interested in knowing, please tell me. Feel free to leave your comments here and tell me how you would effectively negotiate with a terrorist whose attitude is "kill as many Americans as possible." I look forward to your comments.

If we were to pull out now, is there any doubt that the terrorist insurgents would flood the country and take over? Iraq does not yet have a Constitution, how can they protect their country from insurgent terrorists? How? Running now would effectively make the U.S. appear as though we are weak and we won't own up to our commitments. We made a commitment to be there for the Iraqi people, we need to keep that. The word of the U.S. should still mean something. Liberals like to say we should get out of Iraq, that we shouldn't stay there for any length of time. Well, we're still in South Korea, and all over Europe. Yet, when President Bush wanted to pull out of Europe, the Liberals were in an uproar! Why so upset? There's terrorist activity in Europe today same as Iraq and you want us out there too. Britain for example. Maybe we should just pull out of all the world, bring all troops back home and tell the rest of the world to "screw off" and just take care of our own. But, we don't because we believe in freedom. That's a good reason to be in Iraq. Freedom isn't free. Those hippies, peace lovers and Ms. Sheehan protesters, you have the right, no-the freedom, to protest because of the U.S. Military. Don't the Iraqis at least have that right? Shouldn't they have the right to protest if they wish? Or, do you want to shut them up? Because, without a Constitution, they won't have that right. By vacating Iraq now, that will leave the country open to evil and repression. That's not something we should do. Those that die in Iraq, whether U.S. Military or Iraqi, are dying for freedom, and henceforth, with honor. They are dying for something that is honorable, to bring freedom to those who have it not, and who thirst for it. Why would Liberals and hippies wish to deny Iraqis that gift of freedom?

We play too nice with the terrorists in Iraq. We need to get tougher. I am not necessarily advocating using nuclear weapons against terrorists, because that is a line I do not think we should cross carelessly. However, we should have a "zero tolerance" policy against terrorists. We need to send a clear message to the terrorists, "we will deal with you harshly." And, I am not referring to the purported "harmful" treatment that are given to those terrorists at Gitmo Bay, or, Club Gitmo as Rush Limbaugh puts it. Those terrorists are treated quite well. They are allowed to pray, they are given excellent health care, they are fed and housed. Do terrorists treat people this way? Nope, they blow them up with a goal of "kill as many as you can". That's their message. They receive, I'd argue, better care, housing and food than most people in a homeless shelter here in America. Yet, they're terrorists. Perhaps we should send them back to their country of origin where they'd be fed less, housed in less desirable locations, not well cared for, probably not allowed to pray and probably tortured and executed.

My point here is that, by leaving, we will be handing the terrorists a victory. They will have driven us out and will "make an example of us". Terrorists around the world might just unite because they will see that America bows down to terrorism. Is that a message you Liberals want to send?

If Liberals think that terrorists are treated so bad by the U.S., why not start an "adopt a terrorist" program, and these Liberals can give the terrorists the kind of care they feel they truly deserve, at their expense. Further, let's make it tax deductible for them so they won't complain about "why should I flip the bill?" Let them negotiate with the terrorists and reason with their "kill all Americans" attitude. Let's see how far they get.

Running from terrorism will not leave us free to fight another day. It will send us running forever. We must draw a line in the sand and say "no further". We must now fight the terrorists without white gloves on so as not to get our hands dirty. They fight us with everything they have. We must do the same. We must not bow down to terrorism. We must stand up to them. When will we realize that fighting fair against terrorists does not work? They don't fight fair because it's a war. They are focused on killing us, Americans. We are focused on "political correctness" in war. It is time to say "enough. We will not surrender, we will fight on." President Bush had it right when he said "Bring it on".

Are you doing YOUR part?!

We frequently hear the term "whacko environmentalists" when listening to such shows as the Rush Limbaugh Show. Now, this term can apply to a great many kinds of environmentalists. It could apply to people and their cars, how people waste the earth's resources and how we recycle. Let's look at all these issues, shall we?

Let's start with cars. Basic physics tell us that a vehicle that is bigger and heavier is likely to absorb more impact energy in a crash than a small vehicle would. For example, someone driving a Ford Crown Victoria getting in a wreck with a Toyota Corolla is likely going to suffer less damage because the Ford is heavier. It can absorb more impact energy. Well, the Ford is obviously going to use more gas because it is bigger and heavier. Now, the Toyota, and other small cars in general, can be made to be safer despite their size. And, that's a good thing. However, there is still that pesky problem of physics. The heavier car is still going to come out in better condition in a wreck with a smaller car. So, one can say that, in some respects, a bigger car/truck/SUV can actually be safer. I drive a good sized vehicle, a 2004 CHevy Impala SS (pictured above) and a 1991 Subaru Legacy (about the size of a Honda Accord) and I feel pretty safe in both vehicles. They get decent gas mileage, I am generally pleased with the mileage.

The environmentalist perspective is that bigger cars use more gas, and that's bad for the environment. Well sure, they may get worse gas mileage, and, that is not good for the environment. However, look at what the vehicle is used for. For example, if you have a large family driving a GMC Yukon XL (basically a Suburban, pictured above), that's appropriate for them. They have a large family, why should they drive a smaller car that gets better mileage and can hold/haul less people? Does it make sense for a large family to use two cars to haul their family around (assuming they are smaller, more fuel efficient cars) when they can all just go in one car and conserve fuel that way, even though the one vehicle uses a lot of gas? What I'm saying is, look at what the vehicle is used for. If a single person is driving around in a suburban, sure, that's kind of wasteful, but, that person has the right to drive what they wish. I suppose environmentalists would love the government to force us to drive only economy cars?

Now, just because you drive a big rig, whether an SUV, Truck, or Large car, doesn't mean you can't get good mileage, for that car. There are many things you can do to help improve your gas mileage and conserve fuel for that car. For starters, try to do all your errands at once. Do them all at the same time, don't rush home, then remember you forgot an errand and run back to town and go back and forth several times. Make a list, get everything at one time. That will save unnecessary trips and save gas and put out less pollution than if you ran around all day. Next, check the air pressure in your tires first thing in the morning before you actually drive your car for the first time that day. Making sure you have the proper air pressure in your tires can help save gas and improve mileage. Sure, maybe not by much, but, every little bit helps! It all adds up baby! Another trick you can do is, try using those fuel additives. They make those for a reason you know. You have some that are just Gas Treatment that help to keep your engine clean, there are some that are specifically for the Fuel Injectors, some for the Fuel System and others that are Octane Boost. All of these can help you get better mileage by keeping various parts of your vehicle's engine clean. If they're cleaner, your car runs better, and, spews out less pollution. If it runs better, you get better mileage per gallon. Sure, maybe not that much, but, it all adds up! Use them regularly too! This will save gas, and, help keep your car from putting out that much more pollution, henceforth, cleaner air for all of us!

Next, get a tune up on a regular basis! I was initially told every 15,000 miles by my Subaru dealer. I understand now that you can go longer, but, I still go by the every 15,000 miles rule! If your car is properly tuned up regularly, it will run more efficiently, it will save gas, cut down on pollution, and be more reliable. It might cost you a bit, but, it's good maintanence and it does your car, and the environment good too! On top of this, make sure and do your regular maintanence stuff too; such as the 30,000; 60,000; 90,000 and 120,000 and beyond scheduled maintanence visits. It keeps your car running good, you'll get good mileage and cut down on pollution in the air! Get your wheels aligned once a year too. That will keep your tires in good shape, you'll get the most life out of your tires, and, it should help in the mileage department if only a little. Remember, it all adds up!

Now, regarding waste. Don't be wasteful with the earth's resources. Try to turn off lights when you're not using them. Using those spiral light bulbs really do help save electricity! Sure, they're tough to get used to at first, give them a couple of minutes to "warm up" and then you will have some bright light! The bulbs may cost more than conventional bulbs, but look at the difference: regular bulbs last, usually, about 750 hours. Spiral bulbs last about 6,000 hours. Hmmm, tough call! Next, try saving water sometime. Watering your yard and plants in the early morning or evening when it's cooler out. If you do it when it's hot out, how much of that water is evaporating befor it gets a chance to do any good? I mean really, how can it truly do any good if it's in the high 90's out? Try walking to do your errands more if you are in a position to do so. If you live in town, why not just walk to work if you're able to? You'll save gas, save pollution, relieve congestion on the roads and get some exericise. Good deal all the way around! Car pooling is a good way to save gas too. If you ride in a car with three other people, then obviously there's three more cars that are not on the road spewing pollution, wasting gas and causing a traffic jam.

Now, as for recycling. A lot of landfills are filling up. Eventually, where are we gonna put all the garbage? Shoot it out into space? Ok, how much will THAT cost you? Do you think the garbage companies will just take the hit for that? Don't be a fool! They'll pass the cost onto you! So, recycle where you can. Recycle any paper item that's reasonable. I even recycle my junk mail! How sick is that?! I, of course, shred stuff that may have personal info on it like credit card statements and that kind of thing where someone could steal my identity. As should everyone. But, otherwise, I recycle just about everything else. If someone wants me to renew a subscription for a magazine and I choose not to, I recycle the whole renewal. If someone wants to find me that bad, let 'em. In any case, recycle all you can. Newspapers, junk mail, card board, plastic, tin, glass, aluminum cans. Any of that stuff. It's less stuff going into our landfills, and, more stuff that we can reuse. All those cans of soup and veggies that you go through? Wash them out, and recycle them. Those milk jugs too! Less garbage in our landfills is a good thing.

I often wonder how much of all these things "environmentalists" do to try to save the earth. Usually, they'll cry at people for the car they drive, then drive something not so efficient themselves. They usually don't practice what they preach. If everyone did their part, we could all make a difference, but, you need to make a personal decision today! What are you going to do to help the environment? How much of an impact do you have currently on the environment? Well, find out at this link http://www.ecofoot.org/ and take the quiz and learn how you impact the environment. It may make you think! Rather than just listening to an environmentalist telling you what you should be doing, why not ask them, "are you doing YOUR part?"


http://www.ecofoot.org/

Now THAT guy truly knows what he's talking about.....

Well, most of us know who Harry Belafonte is. The guy who sings the song about "daylight come and me wanna go home". A few years ago, Mr. Belafonte referred to Colin Powell as a slave in the Bush White House. Essentially saying that he was a "slave" to his Master and that Colin Powell would never dare say anything against his Master. I think the media has since proved that Mr. Powell has disagreed with President Bush on many occasions. And yet, Harry Belafonte got away scott free with such a comment. Had it been a Republican, would they have gotten away with such a comment? I rather doubt it.

As if this wasn't bad enough, Mr. Belafonte is at it again. He's comparing the Bush Administration to Hitler and the Nazis. Well, let's see, Hitler was involved in a Holocaust, Bush hasn't been. Sure, there's the war in Iraq, but, that's a war, not a Holocaust. There is a difference. A war you fight an enemy. In a Holocaust, you systematically wipe out a specific race. Simply because they are a specific race, period. As in the actual Holocaust, Jews were wiped out because they were Jewish.

After comparing President Bush to Hitler, a White reporter asked Mr. Belafonte about the diversity that President Bush has on his administration (more diversity than our "first black president; former President Clinton, I might add). Mr. Belafonte replied that "Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich. Color does not necessarily denote quality, content or value,". He then referred to blacks in the administration as "Black Tyrants". The White reporter then asked for an example of who specifically was a "black tyrant" and the obviously confused Mr. Belafonte replied that the reporter was a black tyrant. But, the reporter was black. Mr. Belafonte promptly ended the interview upon the reporter pointing this out. Once again, folks of a more Liberal nature can get away with comments like this, but, Conservatives would never been allowed such. And does Mr. Belafonte honestly believe that Hitler had Jews in his hierarchy? I mean, really? Boy, guess the history books really screwed up there, I thought Hitler was systematically killing Jews, not promoting them. Granted, in the Nazi Death Camps, many Jews did have jobs that gave them charge over other Jews at the camp, and these Jews were largely seen as traitors. But, being in charge of some Jews in a death camp can hardly be called "Jews in the heirarchy". Sure, Hitler was half Jewish, but, I'm not aware of any moment when he bragged about it. So, why aren't Jewish groups outraged? I would think that Hillary Clinton, in order to get that much more of the Jewish vote, isn't outraged about this.

The reason Mr. Belafonte happened to make these comments? He was marching in a 40th anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, keep in mind, Democrats would have you believe that they whole heartedly supported this act. However, in truth, Republicans were the dominant force that brought about the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. People like Robert Bryd (Robert KKK bryd in the U.S. Senate) tried to stop it, and, Al Gore Sr. (Yep, the Al Gore we know, his father!) tried to kill it in committee. Then, when that didn't work, he tried to fillibuster it on the floor and that failed. Feel free to check this out in Congressional Record. I did, it's true. Look it up if you don't believe me. So, the next time a Democrat tells you that Democrats support minority rights, ask them why Democrats didn't support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and throw the information about how they primarily didn't support it at the time, in their face. It's like a deer in the headlights look.

Did you come from monkeys? Depends on what your parents look like I guess.......

As you may know, there is some controversy about teaching creationism within schools. That, of course, would be endorsing Christianity, henceforth violating the 1st Amendment in terms of the Establishment Clause. That part, of course, being, that the government can't establish or endorse a religion. Well, the founding fathers actually meant that they didn't want a church of the United States, as England later established a Church of England. Basically, the Anglican Church. So, despite what Liberals may argue, it's not the same thing. By teaching Creationism, you're not endorsing Christianity. You're not going out and saying, this is the only religion. By all means, lets teach various world religions too. Certainly learning about Islam in this day and age would be a good idea. I think it's important for a child to be educated about Hinduism and Buddism as well. It can help them to have that much more general knowledge about the world and perhaps, understand some of the world conflicts a little bit better and how they may be based within religious differences or differing beliefs. Then again, Liberals believe in Evolution so much, one could effectively argue that's THEIR religion and therefore may come into conflict with the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. But, I digress.....

Liberals would only have us teach Evolution and Evolutionary Theory in school. How convenient. It would seem that Evolution is the most neautral view of the world and how we came to be. So, apparently, we're just all an accident. Well, for some Liberals, I would agree with that. They were accidents, perhaps freaks of nature would not be going to far.....

In any case, let's look at the actual title of what they wish to teach: Evolutionary Theory. Notice that last word there, "theory"? There are several definitions for this word, however, let us summarize it with an analysis of a set of facts presently before us, thinking about them in a fashion that would "hold water" until we discover otherwise. So basically, a theory is only as good until we find something better. In other words, perhaps we can look at it as nothing necessary proven, just something we're going with right now because that's all we have. Ok. So, it could then be said that Evolution is not complete fact. Just what we're going with now. Because, it's the best way of explaining what we've got now. Doesn't mean it's the ONLY way of explaining what we've got now, does it? So, while Christians would prefer that the way they believe were the only way, and should be accepted by all, it seems that Liberals believe the same; only in Evolution. To consider anything else is wrong. Because, you can't prove anything else. Whereas, some evidence has been discovered that things clearly do evolve. And, what is the process of evolving? Not that tough to understand because everything changes, right? A dumb kid could stick his finger in a light socket and get shocked several times (unless he dies in which case he may only get shocked a couple of times...) and his thinking may evolve past doing that act any longer. In order for a young lady to make it onto the volleyball team, maybe she'll "beef" herself up by working out, getting toned a lot, becoming more muscular and agile to become a better and more competitive player. She's essentially evolving and changing to become a better player. In order to survive the competition of the other players one could say. Sound good? Yep.

Well, it seems we've established that everything changes, everything has to. To not change is to remain stagnant and therefore eventually come to some horrible fate. It could be dying, or, if you happen to be sitting in front of the CBS Evening News when Dan Rather was reporting, you remain stagnant instead of changing the channel. That's a pretty horrible fate, no one should have to endure Dan Rather any more than necessary. Unless you want a good chuckle whenever he tried to appear as not being biased. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry, I've now composed myself. Ok, maybe not. Anyway....

So, with all the change that's gone on, and with how complex the human body is, who's to say that there was not some "intelligent" design behind it all? I'll even take a scientific approach to it. Imagine some Creator in the sky, the Earth as his petry dish, us as the outcome. Good enough for the Scientific folks? However, if you still insist on believing you're an accident, that's fine, I certainly think you are.

However, it seems to me that education should be about discussing many points of view, not a single one. Henceforth, why limit students to just the view of Evolution? Shouldn't we expose students to other points of view? Certainly, the more points of view we know about, the more we can expand our minds, our horizons, the volume of our voices when we call Liberals idiots for believing they came from monkeys. Well, only if their parents resembled them I think. Seriously though.....

President Bush thinks it's a good idea to teach the concept of "intelligent design". I think it's good. Certainly, more competition of ideas is a good thing. After all, as consumers, do we not "shop around" for the price we agree with the most? As voters, do we not examine different platforms of the political parties, both the two major ones and the smaller "third" or independent parties? Certainly! Why then, should we be forced to simply accept one idea of how we all came to be? Sure, we can believe outside of school whatever we want. But, we're only exposed to one concept in school. That could have some impact couldn't it? I think so. Although, it is generally agreed that most "socialization" comes from the family unit. But, if most parents do not challenge beliefs they do not agree with, then what incentive is there for a youngster to believe differently? Sure, there are exceptions. Familes with a strong religious back ground may challenge the status quo. It's important for everyone to have their own belief and know why they believe it. I'm not saying don't teach Evolution in school. I'm saying, let's have the opportunity to have a diverse base of ideas. Let's not call just one truth the final word. Let's explore, let's discuss, let's learn...dare I say it? Let's get educated! I encourage you to write your Representative or Senator about this issue. You can find them at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov . Now, do I think we came from monkeys? I dare say it depens on what your parent's look like.