Big Dogs Weblog

Time To Pull The Plug On The UN?

by Big Dog on Mar 26, 2005 at 22:08 Posted in Political 5 Comments

I have posted many times about how I regard the UN. I have talked about the oil-for-food scandal and the sexcapades they have been involved in. Each time I mention something about the UN Adam says I am obsessed with the sexual aspect and he stated, I believe, that my mentioning it all the time was sickening.

The thing that bothers me about people with Adam’s point of view is that they are almost dismissive of the illegal acts of the UN because of all the good they do. I have been waiting for something to come out in writing so these allegations would have a bit more weight and my point of view not seem so “sickening.”

My very astute colleague and purveyor of truth Surfside sent me a link to an article with details about the sexcapades. It seems that the blue helmets have been using their purple helmets to rape and abuse women and little girls. If the US Military or some relief group from the US went into another country and did this, Adam and those who think like him would be demanding investigations and jail time. The UN though, seems to get a free pass.

I have talked about the UN a number of times and I am not going to rehash my feelings here. You can read the articles and then decide if this is an organization that you feel we should be spending our tax dollars on. FWIW, I think it is time to pull the feeding tube of US money from this organization that has been brain dead for a long time. The only thinking they seem to do is with the head that has no brains in it.

From the NYT

Tags: Political

Lib Hawks Fox News Filter

by Surfside on Mar 26, 2005 at 14:56 Posted in Uncategorized 9 Comments

What will those crazy ultra-left liberals think of next? Well, I’ll tell you. Sam Kimery of Tulsa, Oklahoma invented — and is now selling — a “Fox Blocker.” This little device can be screwed on to the back of your television for the sole purpose of blocking the Fox News Channel (FNC). All this can be yours for the low, low price of just $8.95.!

Before you link right over to Kimery’s Web site and purchase one for every TV in your house, let’s think about the concept. Wouldn’t it just be cheaper and easier to not switch the channel to FNC? Has the channel surfing concept sunk to such lows that one cannot avoid a channel one dislikes?

In answer to these questions, Kimery likens the devices to burning a draft card. (I think this statement alone can testify to his proclivities.) He feels it’s a tangible way for the like-minded to show their disapproval for the network. Of course, he’s also making money off the project.

“The point is not to block the channel or block free speech but to raise awareness,” said Kimery. — AP

The Associated Press (AP) reported up the story and such bastions of impartiality like AOL and the Boston Globe ran with it today. It’s also been mentioned the liberal-friendly show Boston Legal. According to the article, Kimery has already sold this gadget to 100 morons. With this media blitz, I’m betting his sales will increase exponentially. After all, we have a plethora of morons in this country. Of course, anyone reading this blog has already excused themselves from that category.

Let me just add that when purchasing the device on line you not only receive the device for your $8.95 (not including shipping and handling) — you can also send a letter to Fox advertisers voicing your displeasure. Wow!

Now, here’s the real kicker: Kimery doesn’t use the device himself! The inventor leaves the device off his television sets. He claims he’s pre-programmed the remote to only surf a half-dozen channels, which don’t include FNC. (I’m sure we can all imagine which channels it does include.) He added that he occasionally watches FNC when he wants to see something “especially heinous.”

I had second thoughts about posting on this dubious invention. After all, it’s just giving this idiot more press time than he deserves. Then, I thought about our readership. Conservative or liberal, if you hang with the Big Dog and his sidekick, you must be above such trivialities. Be assured, if it were some overzealous conservative making a blocker for CNN, I would have no less disdain for the concept.

You can read the full article here.

Tags: General

Teacher Caught Breaking Law Suspends Student

by Big Dog on Mar 25, 2005 at 20:23 Posted in Political Leave a comment

Imagine that a man runs in a bank where you are completing a transaction and he robs the place. You snap a picture of him with your phone camera and it helps the police capture him. However, instead of putting him in jail they arrest you and lock you up.

This is very similar to what happened to a student in Rhode Island. Eliazar Velasquez, a Central High School student, caught his principal smoking outside a back door of the school. This is a violation of state law and school policy. He snapped a few pictures of the administrator feeding her nicotine habit and he posted them on his web site. In addition he gave out flyers indicating that people who wanted to see the principal breaking the law should visit his site.

Elizar was suspended by the principal for ” for harassing and slandering the principal and the dean of students.” He evidently made fun of something the dean published. Seems the educator made a few grammatical errors. I have read several accounts and they all indicate that Velasquez was harrassed by the principal who also ordered him to take the pictures off the web:

Last Friday, Velasquez was called to the principal’s office. He says Almagno began grilling him: “Tell me, who helped you design the Web site?”

Velasquez said Almagno called in the school police officer, then searched his book bag.

There, she found the fliers, which said, “Wanna see Mrs. Almagno take part in some illegal activities? Wanna see her breaking the law on school property? Go to centralscoop.tripod.com.”

Almagno, he says, told him to take down the Web site immediately. He deleted the pictures but said he didn’t know how to remove the site.

The photographs went back online the same day.

“It’s completely unfair,” he says. “They threatened to file slander charges.”

This principal should lose her job. Not for smoking on school property, she could get reprimanded or fined for that. She should get fired because she intimidated a child who caught her doing something wrong. Imagine if this student were the one caught smoking and the principal was going to suspend him but his father shows up and threatens to hurt the principal if she does not stop. The police would have this father in jail real fast. Well, this principal is doing the same thing. She tried to intimidate and harrass a student who caught her breaking the rules.

There has been some question about this with regard to an invasion of the principal’s privacy because her picture was taken. I don’t think the school minds using cameras, metal detectors and other methods (see above box where the student’s bag was searched) to catch students in the wrong. What is wrong with the student doing the same thing. If he had no pictures and reported her smoking she would have lied, the school board would have believed her, and he would have caught hell.

Eliazar Velasquez got an email that he posted on his site. This is the text of that email:

From: Daniel Durrett
Subject:Your Fascist Pictures

Dear Fascist,

While I can understand your teenage-angst ridden rant about your principal smoking on school property, I can’t understand your lack of decency and integrity. It seems that our nation has come to a stage where all civil liberties are being taken away. From your principal being criticized for enjoying a smoke after a hard day at school, to poor Terry Schiavo in Florida being forced to suffer pain and anguish, our “laws to protect” are causing more more erosion of freedom than ever before. This type of thinking, prying in on personal choices, is what lead Germany to the awful state it became in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s. I know you didn’t make the law about smoking on school property yourself, but you support it. It seems to me that in true American Spirit you would have applauded your principal, perhaps even stood up and smoked with her. Your principal demonstrates the type of character that founded this country and allowed us to be free from the world of oppression. Your accusatory, gestoppo, picture taken tactics demonstrate the type of character that will help usher in the fall of our great land. Thank you for being brainwashed.

Regards,

Daniel Durrett
Kalamazoo, MI

Daniel Durrett is an idiot. Read carefully what this numb nuts has written. He admonishes the kid, who broke no laws, while praising the principal who did. In the process he rationalizes her illegal activities. In my opening paragraph I talked about a fictional bank robbery. If Durrett had his way, the cameras in the bank would have to go because they are violating the rights of a criminal who is taking some extra money home after a hard day at his minimum wage job. Mr. Durrett needs therapy, and lots of it.

You can visit Eliazar’s web site and see the pictures here.

The principal’s name is Principal Elaine Almagno, and no ma’am, I will not take this down. You are supposed to set the example for the kids. You broke the law and violated their trust. How will any of them react if you try to suspend one for cheating on a test, cheating at sports, or smoking on school grounds? You lady, should lose your job.

Tags: Political

Shiavo, Starving Children and Justice

by Surfside on Mar 25, 2005 at 08:17 Posted in Political 2 Comments

After spending a sleepless night wrestling with a comment posted by Adam concerning the Shiavo case, I felt the need to unburden myself. I may catch quite a bit of flack from my conservative buddies. One, however, should not base an opinion solely upon the reaction it will receive.

Adam’s comment connected starving children and Bush policies. While I believe he is patently wrong about the Bush policies, the starving children part gave me pause — made me consider the possibilities. My conclusion: we have lost the “big picture” in the drama of the Shiavo case.

We, as conservatives, are shouting from the roof tops to “err on the side of life.” In theory, I feel the policy should be followed. The problem arises when you try to apply it to the realities of the Shiavo case. I’ve already posted about the extreme cost borne by governments and judiciary at both the state and federal level. To exacerbate matters, Florida’s Department of Children and Families has a serious history of loosing track of youth in its charge. Some of you may be familiar with the Rilya Wilson case that FNC has been following. Last seen in early 2001, the then-four-year-old girl’s disappearance had gone unnoticed by the Florida Department of Children & Families for months. The scandal led to a major shakeup at the agency in the 2002-2003. The police believe Rilya is dead and have indicted her guardian with murder and other charges – although the child’s body has never been found. Rilya’s case is not the only black cloud hanging over that department.

Now, there is no direct correlation between the Wilson and the Shiavo situations – other than the same department was overseeing and investigating both cases during the same time. And, they’ve been requesting to investigate possible abuse in the Shiavo case for a third time. The first two investigations revealed no abuse. While we can’t assess the reasons behind those, the third was obviously used as a delaying tactic. My point is that Rilya fell through the cracks, while Terri received two abuse reviews – and a third was in process. Does that seem fair to you?

It’s time to wake up and realize that Terri isn’t the only one suffering as a result of this case. How many relatively healthy children with futures ahead of them could benefit from the money being spent on this case? How many children are suffering because the Florida Department of Children & Families focuses considerable attention and resources on the Shiavo case?

A comment on my earlier post stated that some people might be more concerned with starving dogs. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about starving children? We hate to admit it, but children starve to death right here in the USA. Often, starvation results from abuse/neglect of a caregiver . . . and often while under the “protection” of government agencies. While I question many entitlement programs, I feel we must save and protect the children.

Listening to The O’Reilly Factor last night, a hospice doctor said perspective needs to be placed on the Shiavo story. According to him, five or six families a day face this exact situation at his hospice. Let me emphasize: the number is from his hospice alone. Even if this hospice was the only one in the country, approximately 2,000 families each year must decide the fate of their loved one. Needless to say, these decisions are always difficult and often contentious.

As a nation, we have become media whores. Give us a good story and sound bites; and, we immediately take sides and draw knives. Very few people are all good or all bad; people’s stories are usually never all right or all wrong. Very few absolutes exist in this world. But, we demand the heroes and the villains — and, the media satisfies our desires. We have become co-dependent in a very unhealthy relationship. Justice, truth and decency suffer.

One person’s life cannot be deemed more important than another’s. In the pursuit of a commendable goal, we created an inequity that must not be ignored. We have again given more weight to those with the better media story and the spotlight lawyers. How can we argue that no expense can be spared to save one life – and then ignore those that need our help by under-funding children services? Can we still assert we provide equal justice for all?

Tags: Political

Oh Canada, Please Send The Deserter Home

by Big Dog on Mar 24, 2005 at 21:06 Posted in Political Leave a comment

There is an American soldier named Jeremy Hinzman who joined the military of his own free will. He served in times of peace and probably enjoyed the paycheck he got the first and fifteenth of each month. Then a pesky thing like war broke out and he decided he did not want to be a soldier any more.

Calling the war illegal and criminal, Hinzman decided to take off for Canada to seek refugee status. One little snag seems to have occured when Canadian officials rejected his request stating that he failed to show that he faced persecution or cruel and unusual punishment if he returned to the United States.

Hinzman does not face any of these things though he faces punishment and jail time for desertion. I am wondering what this hero thought the Army was all about when he joined it. Was he one of these idiots who join for the educational benefits and training but never stop to think that if we go to war they will have to fight? Regardless of what the reason this man is a criminal. He was not drafted. He joined of his own free will and then when he actually had to earn his paycheck he turned tail and ran like a coward. I have news for Hinzman, it is not up to the individual soldier to decide if a war is just, or legal, or fair. It is up to soldiers to follow orders and do as they are trained to do. The only reason this war is all these things to you is because you lack the backbone to do what you signed up and swore to do “so help you God.”

I say that when this man is returned to the US we should honor his wishes and not send him to war. This man should be tried as a deserter. Even though desertion in a time of war carries the death penalty, this man’s life should be spared so that he can serve a life sentence in Fort Leavenworth Federal prison. This guy can spend the rest of his life breaking great big rocks into little bitty rocks and little bitty rocks into sand. This will be a fair and just punishment for a person who cheated the government out of money by accepting a paycheck and refusing to earn it. It will also be a fair sentence for someone who neglected his sworn duty and deserted his country. It should be great for his children to grow up with the knowledge that their father was a coward who turned his back on the country he swore to defend.

Reag the story at CJAD 800.

Update: This from some guy named Patrick O’Neill

Before enlisting, Hinzman said he was searching for some meaning in his life, and the military–which had a “higher purpose”–was better than working just for the sake of making a buck. “I guess I just kind of sold my soul for the college money,” he said. “That’s probably a little too blunt. I had this notion that, “Hey, I’m going to go and get paid to exercise, shoot weapons and jump out of planes,’ and that sounded real fun. It didn’t matter to me at that point. I was just young, and I didn’t feel I was really going anywhere.”

For the sake of making a buck and sold his soul for the college money. The Big Dog is always right.
The article also states that Hinzman had three choices:

During Christmas leave, Hinzman, who is a member of the Fayetteville Friends Meeting, discussed his options with his wife, Nga Nguyen. He could go to Iraq–an option both he and Nguyen rejected. He could refuse the deployment order and face court martial and a likely prison term. Or he could follow a plan of action that thousands of young men like himself had taken during the Vietnam War–he could flee to Canada

Looks like he is going to get the second option anyway. Hope you like Kansas, not that you will see much of it.

Similar posts:
Chief Wiggles
Conservative Life

Tags: Political