The Land of Opportunity

I feel that America is less becoming the land of opportunity and more the land of entitlement. Especially if you belong to a minority. Now I know that some of you reading this are going to cry racist, but before you do just read the rest of the article then form your opinion of me.

Whatever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." These words were spoken by John F.Kennedy, of course, who arguably was the greatest president that inspired change in this country. It seems to me that people think that there government owes them a living. That they are entitled to a good living in America. Well, everyone is guaranteed the opportunity to make a good living and find the American dream but no one is entitled to it. Through all of my experiences I have noticed that the only way to get what you want in this country is to work for it. Doors are open only to those willing to open them. I wont argue that some in power try to lock those doors or sometimes remove them completely but it is our responsibility as citizens to monitor and remove such offenders from power.

The government in this country is nothing more than a body that administers laws. Laws that ensure everyone is playing on an even playing field. Once the field is leveled then it becomes the individuals responsibility to pick up the ball and fight through all opposition to achieve their desired goal. The government is nothing more than the referee making sure the rules are being followed. What I have a problem with is when the government starts granting help to certain individuals based on their status in society. When government grants are given to minorities just because they are a minority is the very definition of racism. People just ignore it because it is the type of racism that helps an individual instead of hurt them. I, just as most free thinking people, do not believe in racism but I don't believe it should exist in any form. Even if it is helpful to the individual. Everyone should be given an equal opportunity to succeed in this country.

Equal opportunity does not mean equal entitlements. The only thing as Americans that we are entitled to is the opportunity to succeed.

Dennis Miller on Global Warming

Bonds unlucky in Florida or maybe not...

Saturday night Barry Bonds was 0 for 3 and remains stuck at 754 homeruns, just one shy of Hank Aaron's historic mark of 755. This may seem frustrating to many of his fans and it should be. It seems that Mr. Bonds has more than just the opposing team to overcome when trying to reach history. Reportedly the Bush administration may be behind Bonds' delay in reaching Aaron's record of 755 career homeruns. Sources indicate that Bush and Co. are trying to delay the record setting moment until September when a report indicating success (or lack thereof) in Iraq is slated to be released.

Preliminary reports indicate that our troops are not advancing as planned and failure is inevitable. This kind of news is obviously detrimental to Cheney's foreign policy so the plan is to release it simultaneous to Bonds' crowning achievement.

It is all to convenient that last night Bonds was stifled in Florida where just six and a half years ago we saw Bush and his brother's influence over the election. Now we see that they have influence over our national pastime as well. The pitcher of last night’s game, Dontrelle Willis(R), had coincidentally snapped his seven game slump and looked like a seasoned pro against Bonds. Florida won 4-3 over the Giants which have many of the Democratic candidates crying foul.

Obama was reported as saying that he has been supporting Bonds from the start and wants everyone to remember who first leaked the information that Bonds allegedly takes steroids. Of course he is referring to allegations that someone close to the Vice President leaked the steroid story in order to once again take focus off of the war and the eventual occupation of Iraq. Shortly after Senator Obama's remarks, Senator Clinton stated that even though she voted to support Bush's steroid investigation that it soon became evident that there was no substantiation and her campaign now supports Bonds.

I am curious to know that if Bonds were to play for Bush's former Texas Rangers would he face as much adversity. I guess we will never know since he represents San Francisco where Bush has absolutely no influence whatsoever. Hopefully there is a pitcher out there that sees what is at stake if he continues to pitch around the slugger and compound the great deception that is the Bush administration.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo July 17, 2007

"Presidential homeland security adviser Frances Townsend answered questions Tuesday about a report that says Al Qaeda is getting stronger. The threat from Al Qaeda is a strong Republican issue, and President Bush knows it. So if Americans are dialed into that threat, they are more likely to cut the president some slack in Iraq and the terror war in general. It's interesting to note that Stratfor, a private intelligence outfit, disputes that analysis and writes that 'al Qaeda likely lacks the ability to strike in any strategically meaningful way.' On the other side, the left understands that if Al Qaeda does strike America, liberal stands against anti-terror measures will come back to haunt the left. If terrorists hit us again, the left will say Bush failed to neutralize Al Qaeda and wasted American resources in Iraq. Talking Points believes both the right and the left are playing games to some extent. Certainly Al Qaeda remains dangerous, but the only way to hit them is to invade Pakistan. Do the Democrats want to do that? Americans should be united in fighting these savages, but we're not. Ideology has poisoned a reasoned approach to defeating the jihadists. America's great strength, diversity of thought, can also be a weakness, and Al Qaeda knows it. As the old saying goes, united we stand, divided we fall. Well, we're divided."

--Bill O'Reilly

Ok I Get It

Screw Iraq! If they don't care enough to take care of themselves then let's get the hell out and focus on ourselves again. What difference does it make; the whole world hates us anyway. It's not as if we owe them anything. Everything was wonderful when we agreed with everyone and let the polls make decisions for us. It's not like terrorists ever attacked us before 9/11. Life was good, gas was cheap, and the economy was soaring.

So what if a bomb exploded in the underground parking structure of the World Trade Center in 1993, killing 6 and injuring 1000.

Or in June of 1996 a car bomb detonates at Khobar Towers, a building used to house foreign military personnel including Americans, killing 20 and injuring 372. Who cares that the attack was targeting the U.S. military.

I guess it was no big deal when in August 1998 simultaneous car bomb explosions at the United States embassies in the East African capital cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya killed a total of 225 and injured 4085 people. The attacks may have been intended to kill employees of the United States government; almost all of the victims were African civilians. African Civilians!

So what that in October 2000, a raft pulled up alongside the USS Cole only to detonate, leaving a huge hole in the side of the ship killing 17 and injuring 39 of our fine soldiers.

Who cares that all of these attacks were leading up to the unforgettable events of 9/11. A day in which 2,973 people died; another 24 are missing and presumed dead. The victims were predominantly civilians.


Since 9/11 attacks have of course continued. Who cares that the amount of American lives dropped significantly.

There was the Ghriba synagogue bombing in April 2002 that killed 14 German tourists, six Tunisians, and one Frenchman. More than 30 others were wounded.

May 2003 the Riyadh compound bombings took place killing 35 people, and wounding over 160, most of which were American.

November 2003 the Istanbul bombings were two truck bomb attacks carried out on two days killing twenty-seven people, most of them Turkish Muslims, also injuring more than 300 others. Six Jews were among the dead.

In May 2004 we saw the Al-Khobar massacres in Saudi Arabia, four Islamist terrorists attacked two oil industry installations and a foreign workers' housing complex, the Oasis Compound, in the Gulf city of Khobar, Saudi Arabia, taking more than 50 hostages and killing 22 of them. It was reported that the kidnappers asked the hostages if they were Christian or Muslim, letting the Muslims go. The nationalities of those killed included eight people from India, three from the Philippines, two from Sri Lanka, one each from Sweden, Italy, England, the United States, South Africa and Egypt.

The 2005 Amman bombings were a series of coordinated bomb attacks on three hotels in Amman, Jordan in November 2005 killing 60 people and injuring 115 others.

And in April of 2007 two suicide car bombs exploded in the Algerian capital Algiers. The first attack which was on the prime ministers office killed 12 people and injured 118, the second attack on the police station in the Bab Ezzouar district of Algiers killed 11 and injured 44.

I guess it’s no coincidence that since the war in Iraq started, attacks against Americans have decreased and attacks against other countries and nationalities have increased. No coincidence whatsoever that the countries and nationalities are for the most part anti-American and anti-war.

In the years leading up to 9/11 these terrorists have been begging the United States for a fight. We took our lumps, turned the other cheek, and tried every possible way to avoid a conflict. WHO CARES!!! Well, dammit, I care. It was about time we made a stand. I am sick to death of our country being the world’s punching bag and for fellow Americans to lace up the gloves and punch along side the world is nothing less than insulting. Have we made mistakes? Have our leaders made poor decisions? Yes, but to dishonor all of the people who died in these attacks by saying that we have no business fighting back is asinine. It’s obvious that the war in Iraq caused a decline in terrorist attacks on the U.S. It is just as obvious that the terrorists are influencing world opinion by focusing their attacks on countries that oppose the U.S. foreign policy. Maybe they should stand up for themselves and let these terrorists know that they too cannot be bullied and intimidated. Instead of criticizing America they should join in the fight and prove that terror cannot work against a united front.

It’s okay for us to question our leaders. Nobody likes war and I agree that this one is especially tiresome. But the results speak for themselves. Less Americans are dying as a result. Screw Iraq, if they cower to the terrorists. Unfortunately, this is why this war seems to be an unending failure.

Croc-o-duck

I’m going to go out on a limb for a moment and say that there are two things that will never be scientifically proven, ever. Science will never prove the existence of God and science will never disprove the existence of God. Pretty bold statement many will say, but before you let your emotions go wild and judge me, take a moment to read on and hear what I am saying.

Inspiration for this entry came after watching the O’Reilly Factor when Bill O’Reilly interviewed actor Kirk Cameron who was appearing later that night on nightline to debate the existence of God with two atheists. After watching the factor I made a point to watch Nightline in order to see highlights of the debate.

According to Mr. Cameron and his friend, Ray Comfort, proving the existence of God is easy if you approach it with honesty and sincerity. So easy even a child can understand it. Ray and Kirk represent a group called The Way of The Master and during the debate they made the argument that the fact that creation itself was 100% proof that there was a creator. The example used was that when you look at a painting you have to assume that someone had painted it. Every creation must have a creator so, voila, scientifically, God exists. After that, Cameron went on to try to disprove the “number one alternative to God” which, in his opinion, is evolution. In order to do this he said that, according to Darwin, to prove evolution you have to be able to prove transitional forms (i.e. one animal transitioning into another). Cameron claims that all through the fossil record and life you will never find a “Croc-o-duck”. He had a real cool picture of a duck body with a crocodile head to further illustrate his point.

On the other side of the debate were two members of the Rational Response Squad, Brian “Sapient” and Kelly. Both of them withheld their last names for safety reasons. Kelly and Brian are atheists who encourage people to renounce God and commit blasphemy. They argued that if God exists then who was his creator? Someone must have created God and his “universe factory”. They had argued that God was an illogical concept and it didn’t make sense that how people with logical and rational minds could have a “God box” in their head that convinced them of a being you cannot see or hear. They then asked who the creator of cancer was, and if there is a God why is there so much suffering. Kelly also claimed that there was no historical evidence to prove that Christ was a man much less the son of God. Their view was that God and religion had been created to control the masses through fear and manipulation. Kelly then said that she “would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and worship a megalomaniacal tyrant”. This was followed by a healthy round of applause from the audience.

Well, as you may have guessed, neither side was the clear victor in this debate. Audience members made claims to victory based on their personal beliefs and bias, but what I saw was a ridiculous display of closed irrational mindlessness. Both side could be convinced, and neither side could look past their own versions of science to see that neither one had made any scientific conclusions at all. Every point made was based on their belief or faith.

This is why I say that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. God exists in faith. There is no way for science to prove something that exists in faith. Science needs physical evidence to prove something exists and nothing physical can be tied to God. The argument that the earth is here proves nothing more than the existence of the earth. It had to come from somewhere, I agree, but the fact it exists does not prove God exists.

Scientists have shown that our expanding universe is the result of a big bang in which a tremendous amount of energy released and created worlds, solar systems, and life on earth. That life started in its simplest forms and yes it did evolve to what we see have today. The thing that science has yet to explain is what caused the big bang and this tremendous release of energy. Logically the fact that this happened could be the cause of a higher power. Therefore science cannot disprove God’s existence either.

It seems logical to me that if scientific concepts were incorporated into religion then a full picture begins to show itself. I like the idea that the fact that we were created shows that something was the creator. O’Reilly put it best when he said that it would take a leap of faith far beyond your chosen deity to think that everything is here by accident. Science can prove that the universe has a design and that energy itself is never ending. This energy is what I would classify as God. This is the closest science can ever come to proving God exists but it still requires faith that we all are in tune with the same energy that created our own existence.

More on Moyers

PBS and Moyers seem to have no problem airing complete left-wing propaganda, which is what his last documentary was. In order to prove his point there were several occasions where Moyers deliberately took statements by O'Reilly out of context. If he did it with O'Reilly's statements then it is safe to assume that he did it with other points as well.

I know that I have not won the awards that Moyers has, but my college major was in journalism and I do have some professional experience in that field. Based on that it is hard for me to see Moyers as an actual journalist. True journalists remove all bias and present the facts as they are, then let the public decide. They do not show items out of context and never pick and choose items to make their own point. This is editorializing presented as news and fact and the deception is dangerous. Is the right guilty of this as well. Of course.

I am willing to wager most liberal opinion in regard to O'Reilly is based on hearsay and emotion and they rarely take the time to watch with an open reasonable mind. For a while I did not watch the factor because my opinion was that he was a right wing propagandist out to trash any opposition. After taking the time to actually watch his program and objectively listen to what he was saying, I now look at it differently. I plan on watching "An Inconvenient Truth" today in the same spirit as when I watched the factor for the first time. Without emotion and with an open mind.

Objectivity has just about gone the way of the dodo in this society and it has been replaced by emotion. Dissent is a great thing as long as it is done with reason and objectivity. It's obviously why our country is so wonderful. Believe it or not O'Reilly does not approve of where the war has gone and fully admits that he, like most of the country, was falsely led into it. That hardly sound like propaganda for the right. Realistically the war is not something that can just be turned off and I find that most liberals want just that. To walk away would be irresponsible.

Lastly, to the point of my previous day's blog. From everything I have read and seen regarding the "Islam vs. Islamists" documentary, the subject was about how followers of Islam are tired of being categorized as fundamentalists. It gives them a chance to differentiate the believers from the fanatics. That is my understanding but I cannot watch it to make my own opinion because the powers that be at PBS feel I don't have that right. The decision to watch should be up to the public. After all it is the Public Broadcasting System. Shouldn't that bother both the left and the right?

PBS refuses to air Islam documentary

The following was taken from BillOReilly.com after airing on the factor April 26, 2007. His guest was documentary producer Frank Gaffney. This documentary was paid for by taxpayer funds through PBS. PBS will not air this documentary. I wonder why...

Public television, which runs scores of programs by Bill Moyers and other left-leaning producers, is now refusing to air a documentary called "Islam vs. Islamists." Frank Gaffney, a prominent conservative and a producer of the film, gave his side of the controversy. "Our film spotlights people who are standing up for democratic values and principles. I don't know what PBS's motivations were, but I do know that the voices of moderate Muslims are being suppressed by people who control the public airwaves. And the practical effect of it is that it is helping the Islamists in America and elsewhere in the West."
News Link: PBS refuses to air documentary

Now I already can hear the argument for suppressing this documentary but I think that if PBS is going to represent one side of the issue through Bill Moyers' bias documentary then it is only right that we expect them to show the other side as well. After all we paid for it.

Want Good Customer Service? Be A Good Customer!

The customer is always right, right? As someone who has personally been a customer I cry, "Hell Yes! I am always right and who wants to tell me otherwise?" Now as I stand in line and watch other customers I can easily say, "What the hell is wrong with that idiot. Doesn't he know that he is holding everyone in line hostage with his stupid rant about how unfair Company Inc. has treated him. I need to get these pencil erasers and get out of here because I left my iPod unattended." Finally, as a customer service provider over the past eighteen years I can say, without any doubt in my mind, "Hell No! The customer thinks that they are always right but in few occasions couldn't be more wrong."

Whenever you walk into a business you wield incredible power in determining the future of that business. I don't need to tell you that the only reason why a business cares about serving you is that you are going to thank them for that service by giving up your hard earned cash. Therefore, your money is the most effective way to tell a business that you appreciate their treatment of you. Luckily we live in a society where when we don't approve of the service you received then we can take our money to a competitor. For that reason I offer these tips on how to be a good customer and insure good customer service anywhere you go.

1. Be Calm and Courteous
-No matter what the problem may be you will always get the best results when you are nice to the person helping you. The golden rule always applies, treat them as you would like to be treated.

2. Remove the emotion
-Wait until you have had the opportunity to calm down and think about the situation. Getting mad does nothing but create tension and puts people on the defensive. You are more likely to get what you want if you are respectful of the person you are talking to.

3. Prepare your complaint and know exactly what will make everything right.
-Know that every company has policies in place to protect their bottom line. Not everyone is honest and this is the reason why these policies exist. Ninety percent of all business policy can be overlooked in the interest of customer service, but don't get mad when policy is quoted to you. They do this to help avoid having the same problem occur in the future.

4. Know who to complain to.
-Many times we complain to someone that lacks the authority or power to resolve your complaint. If you were charged the wrong amount for something then any courtesy clerk or manager should be able to help you, but if you are unhappy with how much something costs then you probably should direct your complaint to the corporate office.

5. Don't threaten any action other than no longer being a patron.
-Again, this is the best vote for how successful a company is.

6. Speak to your own experience.
-Don't speak for others. As a provider I rarely care if you have a friend that is unhappy with service they have received. I am not dealing with them and therefore have no way of making their experience right. Since you have taken your time to address a concern then I will do what I can to make sure you are happy. By doing this I hope that you are able to tell your friend that your experience was a positive one.

7. If you get what you want let it go.
-Many people like to continue to complain about the problem even if they get what they were looking for. This is the equivalent of being a bad winner. Nobody likes the guy who bad mouths the other team after sending them off the field in defeat. Be classy and give credit where credit is due.

8. If you don't get what you want move up the ladder.
-If your request is reasonable then someone eventually will give you what you are looking for. Just be persistent.

9. You are not above the person you are talking to.
-You are not better than the clerk just because they work for less money than you or they wear a name tag. Age and sex is not the best indicator of maturity. Everyone deserves the respect that you yourself demand everyday.

10. BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
-Companies are not in business to pay for your mistakes. If you failed to see the correct price or didn't see the clearly posted sign explaining a current promotion, it's okay. Everyone makes mistakes. Don't yell at the clerk because of your mistake.

I hope you found these to be helpful. Whether in person or on the phone your should keep these in mind. Above anything else remember to be the bigger person. Treat everyone as you want to be treated and if they treat you poorly don't drop to their level. Remember you can always move your complaint to the next level or you can just take your business elsewhere.

Response

Just a quick response to Aaron's comment to my hypocrite post. The question of global warming was not what I was debating. I honestly have not done enough research on the matter. Thank you for your points. I plan on taking a closer look at that report you mentioned. I do disagree on your point that focus on Al's hypocrisy is not important. Anytime someone steps into the spotlight and begins to impress that people change their habits, that person should begin with himself. When dealing with an issue as serious as global warming I find it hard to believe Al when his home burns more energy per month than the most families burn in a year. It tends to diminish his point.

How Do You Define Hypocrite?

HOUSE # 1:
Consider a 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Waste water from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE #1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and film maker) Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Now, If you think that this is something I made up feel free to check it's validity on snopes.com (updated March 28, 2007). This was also mentioned on the syndicated radio show "Bob and Tom" in which they cite reading about it in the "Drudge Report". My point being that it is a well documented and researched e-mail that was circulated shortly after the "documentary", "An Inconvenient Truth" was released.

Now I am not looking to get into the ongoing debate of how serious global warming may or may not be. We can save that for a future entry. My main concern here is that we have one of our leaders taking the reigns in an issue that he preaches to be true. All the while he is not practicing what he is preaching. Which makes me question Al Gore's motivation for becoming the poster child of global warming.

Many argue that Mr. Gore's intentions are genuine and he truly believes in his cause. If this is true then I argue that actions speak louder than words. Why hasn't he made the effort to convert his home to become more energy efficient. Someone who believes in their cause lives in a manner that supports that cause. Instead, it seems that he is more interested in telling us that we should live in the manner that supports his cause. I am not saying that we should not make the effort to live in a more energy efficient way, but that people are reluctant to change if their leaders are preaching "do as I say, not as I do". Leaders that do not live according to their teachings can hardly be taken as genuine. This is how I view Mr. Gore and many of his supporters. Sorry Al, I just see your environmental concern to be a shameless way of self promotion and until you begin to live the lesson it will never be more than that.

Welcome

Well, what can I possibly say in my first ever blog but welcome to my soapbox. As many of my friends and family know, I am never one to shy away from the opportunity to share my thoughts and feelings. Some are fun and some are serious, but I do welcome other viewpoints and often incorporate those points into my own philosophy. That is if it makes sense and is supported by facts. Emotional editorializing is okay for many but without facts to support those emotions I feel it is nothing more than verbal regurgitation. I am not interested in hearing arguments that consist of nothing more than bullet points that someone had heard on the evening news or from a fellow friend that claims to be an authority on the matter in question. Chances are that friend is iterating something they too heard on last nights broadcast.

I am looking for a way to release my rants and possibly learn a little about myself and the world around me. Through mature discussion and open mindedness I hope to achieve this goal. I fully expect to have some of my own language to be used against me and I am prepared to defend myself when it does. I will also concede when I am wrong and incorporate all viewpoints and ideas as long as they are reciprocated in the same spirit. I look forward to hearing from all of you and hope you find my blogs entertaining, thought provoking, and above all fun.