An Oldie but a Goodie!

This is actually a true story and the account of the investigation makes it even better...
The Dam

This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality, State of Pennsylvania. This guy's response is hilarious, but read the State's letter before you get to the response letter.

SUBJECT: DEQ File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County

Dear Mr. DeVries:

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2006. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
David L. Price
District Representative and Water Management Division.

Here is the actual response sent back by Mr. DeVries:

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County

Dear Mr. Price,

Your certified letter dated 12/17/02 has been handed to me to respond to. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget Lane, Trout Run, Pennsylvania. A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of
natures building materials "debris." I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is: (1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or (2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated. I have several concerns. My first concern is, aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names. If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers -- but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English. In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams). So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until /31/2006? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality, health, problem in the area. It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! The bears are not careful where they dump! Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

THANK YOU. RYAN DEVRIES & THE DAM BEAVERS

New Hampshire Enacts Meaningful Eminent Domain Reform

SB 287 Prohibits Kelo Takings and Tightens Definition of Blight

Arlington, Va.—On Friday, June 23, 2006, exactly one year after the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed into law Senate Bill 287, legislation that provides citizens with meaningful protection against eminent domain for private profit.

SB 287, which sailed through both legislative houses, explicitly states, “Public use shall not include the public benefits resulting from private economic development and private commercial enterprise, including increased tax revenues and increased employment opportunities.” While the bill continues to allow the use of eminent domain for the elimination of so-called “blight,” SB 287 requires that an individual property, as opposed to an area, be a menace to health and safety.” Thanks to the efforts of State Sen. Bob Odell and State Rep. Maureen Mooney, who chaired Senate and House study committees on eminent domain, the bill passed with overwhelming support.

“We commend New Hampshire lawmakers for providing citizens with meaningful and comprehensive protection against eminent domain abuse,” said Institute for Justice Senior attorney Dana Berliner, who authored Opening the Floodgates, documenting more than 5,700 filed or threatened condemnations in just the one year since Kelo. “This common sense reform is exactly what the Live Free or Die state needed. Blight no longer means whatever a bureaucrat or planner wants it to mean.”

IJ Senior Attorney Scott Bullock, who argued Kelo before the U.S. Supreme Court, agreed and added, “This is one of the strongest reform bills passed in response to Kelo. New Hampshire legislators understand what defenders of eminent domain abuse still do not—that Kelo created a big problem for the states to fix, that economic development will undoubtedly continue without eminent domain, and that every home, business, farm and place of worship needed protection against condemnation for private gain.”

Since Kelo, legislators in 47 states have introduced, considered or passed legislation aimed at curbing eminent domain abuse. Twenty-five states have passed reforms.

In addition to SB 287, the House and Senate put a proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2006 ballot. If passed by the voters, the amendment would prohibit the use of eminent domain “if the taking is for the purpose of private development or other private use of the property.”

Berliner concluded, “This statutory reform, combined with the constitutional amendment, will no doubt stop the abuse of eminent domain in New Hampshire.”

the full text of the bill can be found here

I was very disappointed when the town of Weare decided against seizing SCJ Souter's home for private development, a couple of months ago. I guess most people give an apathetic shrug of their shoulders and consider that "it wouldn't happen to me, so why be concerned?". Thanks to Rep. Mooney for patching a leak in the dam that holds back the tide of tyranny.

Why the Senate is Wrong...

A thoughtful mind, when it sees a Nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the Nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the Government, the principles, the truths, the history which
belongs to the Nation that sets it forth.

~ Henry Ward Beecher

He is a poor patriot whose patriotism does not enable him to understand how all men everywhere feel about their altars and their hearthstones, their flag and their fatherland.

~Harry Emerson Fosdick

"The things that the flag stands for were created by the experiences of a great people. Everything that it stands for was written by their lives. The flag is the embodiment, not of sentiment, but of history."

-- Woodrow Wilson

These thirty-four senators have poured the lighter fluid, and lit the match for every terrorist, and enemy of the U.S. to desecrate her flag:

Arkansas: Pryor (D); California: Boxer (D); Connecticut: Dodd (D), Lieberman (D); Delaware: Biden (D), Carper (D); Hawaii: Akaka (D), Inouye (D); Illinois: Durbin (D), Obama (D); Iowa: Harkin (D); Kentucky: McConnell (R); Maryland: Mikulski (D), Sarbanes (D); Massachusetts: Kennedy (D), Kerry (D); Michigan: Levin (D); New Jersey: Lautenberg (D); New Mexico: Bingaman (D); New York: Clinton (D), Schumer (D); North Dakota: Conrad (D), Dorgan (D); Oregon: Wyden (D); Rhode Island: Chafee (R), Reed (D).
Utah: Bennett (R); Vermont: Jeffords (I), Leahy (D); Washington: Cantwell (D), Murray (D); West Virginia: Byrd (D); Wisconsin: Feingold (D), Kohl (D).

THANKS...
To the guy who flashed his headlights to me, the other morning. Sure, it was a 35 mph zone, and I was... pause while I plead the 5th... but you saved me. Not 100 yards down the road, there was the bear, drinking his coffee, reading the paper, and clocking the cars. This particular occurance made me start thinking about two things: 1) the appalling lack of common courtesy while driving (except for this one instance) ; or 2) the blatant ignorance with regards to "rules of the road."

I recently saw a headline (somewhere) that stated "road rage on the rise!" I have often (not to say unjustly) been accused of road rage. I'll admit to being a little tightly wound (at times), but as one of my sisters said, "the rise in road rage may be inversely related to the decline in drinking and driving." - for those of you who know me, this is all in good fun. For those of you who don't, I do not endorse drinking and driving. However, I digress. I can honestly say, my "rage" is always as a result of some numbskull doing something that is either disrespectful or downright dangerous. I'll admit the first is a much lesser offense than the second. But, who is addressing the "rise of driving discourteously and/or dangerously."

For the record, I always make an effort to drive courteously. For those of you out there who aren't certain about what this entails, see the following list:

1. Yield the right of way, when you're not entitled to it. This means, if you're pulling onto the highway, and there's a car in the entrance lane, do not try to beat them or to push them over into the middle lane. Your visibility is not as good as the driver already on the highway, and you don't know what you may be pushing them into.
2. If you are at a multi-way stop sign, the person who was there first is entitled to pull through first. If you arrive at the stop sign at the same time that another car arrives at his stop sign, the car to the right has the right of way.
3. If you are making a left-hand turn, oncoming traffic has the right of way. Wait for all cars to pass, before making the turn.
4. Indicate to cars behind you that you intend to turn by using your turn signals BEFORE slamming on your brakes. What's the use of using your turn-signal AFTER you've slammed on your brakes, to let me know why?
5. Take the right of way, when you're entitled to it. It's frustrating to be at a stop sign and after a lot of pantomining gestures between drivers, take a chance that they really ARE yeilding. Thanks, but we would both be through the stop by the time we worked it all out.
6. If you are going inordinately slow (below the speed limit), pull over and allow other cars to pass you. In Washington state, it is the law that any car with a five car line behind them, must pull over and allow those cars to pass (I just loved that, while I was there). In Arizona, the drivers just did it out of courtesy (Thanks, Arizona drivers!).
7. If the driver in front of you is going (at least) the speed limit, do not tailgate them, just because you're a little more daring. Wait for a legal chance to pass, and well... always obey the laws of the road ;)

Now, say some jerk decides that he DOES own the road, and to heck with everybody else on it? Are the rest of us just supposed to "take it?" Perhaps a better man (woman) would. But, I'm afraid I am not a better woman. With regards to discourtesy, what is the appropriate reaction to the guy in the left lane who just won't pass, and won't get over? Usually, I'll flash my headlights a couple of times, just to let them know I'm there. BTW, for all of you ignorant drivers out there, this IS considered a courteous way of letting you know I'm there, and would like to use the passing lane for the purpose for which it is intended! If that doesn't work, I'll pass on the right, pull up in front of them, and go even slower. Invariably, it makes THEM get into the right hand lane, after which time I, and the many cars lined up behind him can continue on our way.

If a driver cuts me off, I'll honk the horn (length of time is directly related to how far I skidded after slamming on my brakes to keep from plowing into the guy). Or, I will confess (blushingly) to tail-gating for a while. My rationalization being that they MUST want me to be that close because why else would they have pulled out RIGHT in front of me? What really gets me mad, though, is when a driver does something that is really stupid, putting me and/or my passengers in danger. Here's my question, what is an appropriate response? Does anything do any good? Do those of us who are courteous and safe drivers just diminish into oblivion because more and more people are ignorant of basic driving courtesy? I invite comments.

Totally Random: He or She? For those of you who have a yahoo e-mail address, you may have seen this image on their mail login screen. It's been bothering me for months... but, is this a man or a woman? The manicure, the hair, the sunglasses, the way she/he holds the drink and the tank top tell me it's a woman; but, the eyebrows, and the five o'clock shadow tell me it's a man. Is this a cruel joke to drive me insane?!!

Gun owners accuse UN of July 4 conspiracy
By Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Americans mistakenly worried the United Nations is plotting to take away their guns on July 4 -- U.S. Independence Day -- are flooding the world body with angry letters and postcards, the chairman of a U.N. conference on the illegal small arms trade said on Wednesday.

Firstly, are Americans "mistakenly" worried about the date? Becuase it's always been pretty darn clear about the intentions of the UN. They've been more concerned with disarming the free American public than with disarming Al Qaeda for decades.

"I myself have received over 100,000 letters from the U.S. public, criticizing me personally, saying, 'You are having this conference on the 4th of July, you are not going to get our guns on that day,"' said Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka's U.N. ambassador.

So What? Is Mr. Kariyawasam objecting to free speech, now?

"That is a total misconception as far as we are concerned," Kariyawasam told reporters ahead of the two-week meeting opening on Monday. For one, July 4 is a holiday at U.N. headquarters and the world body's staff will be watching a fireworks display from the U.N. lawn rather than attending any meetings, he said. For another, the U.N. conference will look only at illegal arms and "does not in any way address legal possession," a matter left to national governments to regulate rather than the United Nations, he added.

Lies, lies, lies...

The campaign is largely the work of the U.S. National Rifle Association, whose executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, warns on an NRA Web site (http://www.stopungunban.org/) of a July 4 plot "to finalize a U.N. treaty that would strip all citizens of all nations of their right to self-protection."

Kariyawasam said, "The U.N. conference will not negotiate any treaty to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons."

Well, according to the UN Firearms Protocol document posted here, "By ratifying the Protocol, Member States of the United Nations commit them selves to adopting a series of crime-control measures and to introducing into their legislation provisions to criminalize the manufacture and trade of firearms,..."

U.N. CONSPIRACY -- OR STRONGER CONTROLS?

LaPierre, who also uses the site to pitch his new book, "The Global War on Your Guns," asks NRA members to send letters to Kariyawasam and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warning that "the American people will never let you take away the rights that our 4th of July holiday represents."

The group also asks members to write to John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, urging him to "ensure the defeat of this treaty." Bolton's office confirmed he had received tens of thousands of cards from concerned Americans.

"We understand their concerns and will work during the conference to communicate their concerns," Bolton spokesman Richard Grenell said.

At the same time, 1 million people around the world -- symbolizing the number of people killed by guns since the last U.N. small arms conference in 2001 (I would like to see the number of people who have been saved by guns since the last U.N. small arms conference in 2001, represented. Thus far, I think we can count the majority of the people in Iraq. Is that over 1 million?)-- have signed a petition backing stronger controls on arms deals in a campaign organized by Oxfam International, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms.

Hmmm... This would seem to contradict Mr. Kariyawasam's assertion that the UN has no interest in controlling legal arms trade.

The June 26-July 7 U.N. conference was called to review a 2001 U.N. action plan aimed at stemming the illegal global trade in small arms, which, as defined by the United Nations, range from pistols and grenades to mortars and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles.
The action program set out broad guidelines for national and global measures to track arms sales, promote better management of government arms stockpiles and encourage the destruction of illicit arms.

Wow, prevent the proliferation of illegal weapons, by governing legal weapons... That would be like stemming the tide of illegal immigration by putting tracking collars on every U.S. Citizen. Now why didn't we think of that?

06/21/06 17:35 © Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd. (yeah, whatever)

Disarming the civilian population has always been the first step towards fascism and tyranny. Tracking arms has always been the first step towards disarming the civilian population. Have we learned nothing from history, or are we doomed to repeat the same mistakes every five generations? Every citizen has not only the right, but the duty, to protect themselves from aggression. They must be given the tools to excercise that right.

Connie Chung and Madeline Albright Should Take it on the Road...
For those of us who fondly remember Connie Chung for her betrayal of Newt Gingrich's Mom by playing an "off the record" snippet from an interview where Mrs. Gingrich called Hillary Clinton a b*tch, here is a farewell performance that you simply can't miss. Click here for the video. It reminded me of Madeline Albrights re-vamped version of "Don't Cry for Me Argentina." If these two teamed up, they could be the next Andrews Sisters.

Just another attack on the second ammendment, and the rights of the individual...
MOONEY URGES SENATE TO OVERRIDE LYNCH VETO ON SB 318


MERRIMACK - Rep. Maureen C. Mooney (R-Merrimack) a co-sponsor SB 318 (relative to the use of deadly force to protect oneself) publicly urged the State Senate to override Gov. Lynch's veto. SB 318 passed in the Senate and the House earlier this year but Governor John Lynch vetoed the measure on May 12, 2006.

Rep. Mooney stated, "Under current law, citizens have a 'duty to retreat' from an aggressor anywhere but in their own homes. This means that if we are confronted by a robber, mugger or rapist in a store, on the street or in any other public place, we have to run away from them if we can do so safely, before we may use certain lethal and potentially lethal measures to defend ourselves." Mooney continued, "For many women and elderly citizens who may not be capable of defending themselves with non-deadly force, lethal and potentially lethal force are often our only means of defense against violent attacks--and the criminals know this."

Mooney noted that because violent criminals know about the duty to retreat, more often than not they choose to attack their victims in public places. SB 318 would have broadened the areas where victims could defend themselves by excluding the "retreat rule" from "any place where the actor has the right to be."

Mooney continued, "The Governor's veto of this bill is very disappointing. I co-sponsored SB 318 to allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families from violent criminals wherever they may be. The Governor, through his veto, is actually empowering the most loathsome of criminals who would prey on society's most vulnerable members. In reality, criminals would think twice before committing crimes if they knew that the victims could defend themselves with every lawful means available. I am disappointed that Governor Lynch would veto this important protective change in New Hampshire law."

Representative Pete Hinkle (R-Merrimack) is also a co-sponsor of SB 318, along with Senators Peter Bragdon (R-Milford) and Robert Letourneau (R-Derry), and Representatives Stephen Stepanek (R-Amherst) and Tony Soltani (R-Epsom). The State Senate will likely take up the Governor's veto when they reconvene at the Call of the Chair in June. The full text of SB 318 can be found online at:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2006/SB0318.html

I am completely swamped at work, right now; and, I live right next to a lake with a whole lot of fish just aching to be caught (or to eat the worms off of my hook!), so blogging will be sporadic until the end of June. However, I thought this one was funny....

ETHICS QUESTION

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line. Answer honestly!!!

You are in Florida, Miami to be specific. There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions. You are photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.

Suddenly you see a woman in the water.

She is fighting for her life, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer. Somehow the woman looks familiar. You suddenly realize who it is.

It's Hillary Clinton!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take her under forever. You have two options-

1) You can save the life of Hillary Clinton, or 2) You can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the death of one of the world's most powerful women.

So here's the question, and please give an honest answer.......


Would you select high contrast color film,
or
would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?


I'm hoping I've got a DVR with audio at the time, and I'd throw her an anvil, but I'm kind of mean, that way.

Fort Lewis Soldier Says He'll Refuse To Go To Iraq
June 6, 2006 By Keith Eldridge

An Army lieutenant based at Ft. Lewis has such serious objections [Maddie: See below for Lt Ehren watada's "serious" objections] to the war in Iraq, and is refusing to deploy, the soldier's lawyer said. Soldier Says He'll Refuse To Go To Iraq

SEATTLE - As thousands of Fort Lewis Army troops prepare to head back to Iraq, one of their officers is making a stand. A lieutenant says he is going to refuse to go, saying it's an unjust war [Maddie: "Just War" principles include: 1) defense against wrongful attack, 2) retaking something wrongly taken, or 3) punishment of evil. Even if you don't agree that Iraq was at least complicit in 9/11, Anyone at all familiar with circumstances surrounding Sadam Hussein's reign of terror, must acknowledge that the current War on Terror satisfies the third prinicpal]. Anti-war groups are rallying to his defense. [Duh!]

Lt. Ehren Watada of the Stryker Brigade writes, "I refuse to be silent any longer. I refuse to watch families torn apart, while the President tells us to ‘stay the course.’ I refuse to be party to an illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression." [Maddie: Emphasis mine. Apparently, Lt. Ehren Watada does not consider the insurgency rebellion that has claimed hundreds of the lives of his "fellow troops" as deserving of aggression. Or, Lt. Watada intends to imply that the War on Terror applies to non-combatant Iraqi civilians. Lt. Watada has been ill-informed as to who exactly his "fellow troops" are fighting against.]

I wanted to be there for my fellow troops. But the best way was not to help drop artillery and cause more death and destruction. It is to help oppose this war and end it so that all soldiers can come home." - signed LT. [Maddie: Unfortunately, what Lt. Watada fails to understand is that bringing his "fellow troops" home will cause precisly what he says he wants to avoid, "More Death and Destruction." Take a lesson from the suppression of the Kurds in the 1990s.]

His name had been kept a secret until now, but Lt. Watada's father confirms that his son is taking this bold step and told the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper that he's proud of his son.

Fort Lewis says since the lieutenant hasn't done anything official yet, there's no violation. But should he decide to go ahead with this, he could be charged with 'desertion' or more likely with 'missing the movement' of his unit. [Maddie: Is execution still an option for punishing deserters in time of War? Just asking.]

It's happened before with a sergeant who refused to go. Sgt. Kevin Benderman was sentenced to 15 months for refusing to go to Iraq. [Maddie: Wow, light sentence. See question above.]

Lt. Watada asked for reassignment and tried resigning his commission, but the Army refused. His attorney tells us from Hawaii that Watada is not against all wars, just this one. [Maddie: Well, well, well. Is Lt. Watada only against wars in which he would have to fight?]

"I've been doing this for nearly 40 years and I'm somewhat astounded that in the context of a war that is becoming increasing unpopular that they are relatively unsophisticated in addressing these issues," said attorney Eric Seitz from Hawaii.

This doesn't sit well with fellow soldiers.

"We're here to serve our country and fight and that's his job," said Private Nathan Hanson. "It's his duty."

Anti-war protestors, many of which demonstrated at the Port of Olympia recently, are rushing to his aid. They have put up a Web site believing he's the first commissioned officer to refuse to go. [Maddie: Ironically, the anti-war protestors are "rushing to the aid" of someone who is refusing to "rush to the aid" of his fellow troops, and the Iraqi people.]

The lieutenant says he'll make his intentions official Wednesday at noon and that's when his defense team will kick into gear.

For More Information:
www.thankyouLT.org

For an excellent essay on the "justice" of the current war on terror. Please visit: http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$595.

You See the Strangest Things...
What really bothers me is, what was he doing at Home Depot? Thanks to Jess for the photograph.

X-Men, The Last Straw…

I made a mistake, this weekend; not a big mistake, just a mistake. I went to see X-Men, the Last Stand. The first two X-Men movies, while not dramatic works of art, were just fun, action-adventure movies, with the usual romantic angst between a Level 5 mutant, and the two male mutants who love her (talk about art reflecting life!). However, after seeing it, I’ve decided that a more appropriate sub-title for this movie is “The Last Straw.”

Sure, I’d heard the rumors that the whole superhero thing had been co-opped by the gays as a metaphor for their own lives (talk about self-aggrandizing!), but I thought they were just reaching. I mean, they’ve co-opped the color purple and rainbows, for Pete’s sake; where I don’t think either of those things is inherently “gay” I won’t be painting rainbows on my SUV. But, Hollywood, in their infinite wisdom, and in case those of us who are not gay hadn’t been clued in, introduced the following sub-plot:

The anti-hero had developed a formula that would “cure” mutants so that they became fully human. The first person to be “cured” would be the anti-hero’s gay (oops! I mean “mutant”) son. The son wants to be “cured” for his father’s sake. When the son hesitates before taking the injection, his father encourages him by telling him, “It’s a better life, etc.” At the last moment, the son bursts through the closet door (oops! I mean the straps on the chair), and, for the first time, stretches his snow-white wings from tip to tip. Then, to dramatic music, and the setting of the sun, he rushes through the window of the high-rise to soar above the clouds. In case you’re wondering, the wings weren’t gossamer and translucent, like you’d expect “fairy” wings to be, but that would be a little too obvious, don’t you think?

Okay, okay, those of us who didn’t realize before, get it now. In addition to that rather obvious bit of propaganda, the female element of the mutant love triangle kills off her boyfriend, and then she gets killed by the third element of the triangle (see? Straight relationships are bad, bad, bad). To make it worse, the still shot for the dramatic “I have to kill you to save the world scene” is the hero (sans shirt), holding the heroine’s dead body (dressed in some sort of gothic, maroon, shiny medieval dress), against a backdrop of an exploding building. I’m afraid that at this point, in the stillness and silence of the theater, I burst out laughing, and couldn’t stop.

I truly think that this might be the last movie I ever see in a theater. I’m sick and tired of Hollywood twisting every decent concept to justify their own pathetic “life choices.” I believe that it is a common literary theme for every hero to have a tragic or fatal flaw. The basic idea is for the hero to overcome the flaw, or to triumph despite the flaw, not to embrace the flaw, and so lower the standards for heroes everywhere. Guess what Hollywood. If it comes to a choice between rejecting heroes and rejecting Hollywood, Hollywood, out the door you go.

Yeah, seeing the movie was a mistake, but at least it was a matinee.

Ahhh... Weekends !
To catch you all up on what us girls are doing...

Last weekend we bit the bullet and bought a kayak to accompany the canoe. It's red, white and blue for the USA NOT France. My last trip down the river with three dogs and a sister taught me a lesson I'll never forget: Kathleen can't keep her balance.

Anyway, it's just a one-seater, but Bonnie loved it. Here she is with Deb (my vantage point from the canoe).

Then, Deb and I decided to dock, while Jess took Bonnie for a spin around the island in the background. Deb cast (barely missing my face with the hook and worm - it's not the hook that bother's me, as you all know) and said, "There's no fish h.... Oh look I've got one!" Then, Deb reeled in a whopping (to hear her tell it) Sunfish. She threw it back, at the same time that I was casting, and I swear I caught the same fish! The sunfish eventually learned to just eat the worms, and leave the hook, and must have taught all of his friends the same trick, 'cause we lost a lot of worms.

We met Jess on our way back to shore. Here Jess is with Bonnie:

I trolled on the way back to shore, and found out that I had hooked... you guessed it... the SAME sunfish. Oh well. Nothing but pizza for dinner that night. This weekend it's raining, so I guess it's another "Band of Brothers" Marathon, or maybe "Pride and Prejudice." Have a good one!

Army Dog Handler Gets 90 Days Hard Labor

By DAVID DISHNEAUAssociated Press Writer FORT MEADE, Md.

A military jury sentenced an Army dog handler to 90 days hard labor and a reduction in rank Friday for allowing his Belgian shepherd to bark within inches of an Iraqi detainee's face at Abu Ghraib prison. Army Sgt. Santos A. Cardona was the 11th soldier convicted of crimes stemming from the abuse of inmates at the prison in late 2003 and early 2004.

He was found guilty of dereliction of duty and aggravated assault for allowing his dog to bark in the face of a kneeling detainee at the request of another soldier who wasn't an interrogator. The military jury acquitted him of other charges, including unlawfully having his dog bite a detainee and conspiring with another dog handler to frighten prisoners as a game. It wasn't clear where Cardona, who was based at Fort Bragg, N.C., will serve the sentence or what sort of hard labor he will be require to do. He won't be confined during the sentence. Cardona's rank was reduced to specialist and the court ordered him to forfeit $600 a month in pay for 12 months.

You can read the rest of the article at Breitbart.com

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm disgusted. The Army is fighting a war; a war against people who want to kill you, your brothers and sisters, husbands, wives, and children. It's not a Sunday School picnic, it's a bloody war! and we're punishing our soldiers for "allowing a dog to bark within inches of a detainee's face"? When a case like this is prosecuted to a conviction, the terrorists are laughing up their sleeves at us. It's sad to see that "shock and awe" has evolved into "tail between our legs."

What other Impact are Illegal Immigrants having on our Culture?

A Study by the Violent Crimes Institute yeilded some very disturbing facts with regards to the number of violent sex crimes committed by our "undocumented immigrants" and/or potential "guest workers" every year:

"There were 1500 cases analyzed in depth. They included: serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides, and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants. Police reports, public records, interviews with police, and media accounts were all included. Offenders were located in 36 states, but it is clear, that the most of the offenders were located in states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants. California was number one, followed by Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and Florida. "

I guess in addition to contributing to our economy, we can count on them to contribute in other ways:

"it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States."

"This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study."

Do the math. We can't afford to leave our borders open.
Thanks to AgainstAllHeresies for the lead. Go to here for the full article.