April 05, 2006
It was exactly ten years ago that I first cradled you in the crook of my arm. It was 5:30am on a gray April morning. Out of the hospital window I could see a light snowfall and the chill of winter seemed to be desperately holding off the changing of the seasons. But for me, it was the real first day of spring. After a sleepless night of waiting for you to come into the world, you finally arrived.
I held your motherÂ’s hand for most of those early morning hours; reassuring her that everything would be all right. And I knew it would be, except for the thirty seconds or so when I saw the umbilical cord wrapped around your neck and I forgot how to exhale. But the doctor deftly slipped it back over your head and it wasnÂ’t long before you were as pink and perfect as a newborn baby should be Â– 7lbs, 1oz. Your Â“officialÂ” time of birth was 5:18. The irony that 5-18 is my own birthday was not lost on me.
I rocked slowly back and forth in a rocking chair that the nurses brought to us as mom slept beside me in her hospital bed. I was exhausted and relieved at the same time. It wasnÂ’t long before I noticed a few tears of joy running down my cheeks as I looked into your little face. At that moment there was just the three of us and no one else existed. It was so quiet I could almost hear my own heart beating. That birthing room, so peaceful with the lights dimmed, was like a transport taking me to a world larger than the one that existed before I walked into that hospital - the world of a parent.
From that moment, everything changed. In ten years, IÂ’ve tried to experience my life through your eyes. And many times, despite all the moments of frustration, anxiety and even anger, IÂ’ve come to be reminded just how special a world this is. I laughed when you laughed, I hurt when you hurt and, so often when everything seemed to me to be so complicated, you helped give me perspective. You have before you a gift; a life to live with hopefully a long time to enjoy it. But I have been given a wonderful gift as well Â– the opportunity to be your father.
Happy birthday, son.
April 04, 2006
So it looks like the Democrats can scratch TX-22 off their list of target races this year. As Tom Bevan at RCP Blog points out:
"President Bush won the 22nd district in Texas with 64% of the vote in 2004, and with DeLay gone the Democratic nominee, former Congressman Nick Lampson, is unlikely to overcome that structural GOP advantage."This isn't spin. This is just reality. On top that, Democrats will no longer be able to leverage DeLay's continued presence as part of their "culture of corruption" strategery.
Thanks, Tom. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Dear NASA: Get you asses in gear, please!
h/t: The Corner
Back in the '90's, when I was a registered Democrat, I encountered my share of "Clinton Haters" such as they were. But "hater" doesn't accurately describe what I saw and heard. I think "disdain" would be more on the money. Maybe the worst I experienced could be called "personal disgust". The "Clinton Lied" meme was based on the theory that he was guilty of "waging the dog" by lobbing cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan to deflect attention from his personal scandals. But then, one of his former handlers, Dick Morris, has confirmed this was actually the case. And lest we forget he did admit to lying to a grand jury. Which of course the anti-Bush crowd turned into their mantra "Clinton Lied, Nobody Died" - it was all just about sex, don't you know? What's the big deal?
But (aside from some regulars on the "Freeper" boards) the antipathy of the so-called "Clinton Haters" never rose to anywhere near the level of intensity demonstrated by today's Left on a daily basis. It's ironic that the 527 entity that was created to defend Clinton during his impeachment - "MoveOn.org" - has now morphed into an attack machine against Bush and his party. And for some people, "Bush-bashing" has become a career. I've often wondered why this is so. Why is the Left so damn angry and bitter and filled with gob-smacking bile toward the Right?
Dennis Prager looks at this phenomenon is his column today at TownHall.com. The answer, states Prager, comes from the moral superiority that Liberals (particularly the extreme Left) feel towards anyone who disagrees with them.
As Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party, said on national TV, "Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." Republicans don't care about starving children. Liberals deem conservatives to be racist, homophobic, war mongering, money worshipping and sexist. It makes perfect sense to hate such people. I would, too.So what happens when Bush leaves office in January 2009? Does the anti-Bush feeling go away? I don't think so. The Left will continue to attack the President long after he's retired to his ranch in Crawford, TX. And the next target will be whomever is considered the top ranking Republican - whether he (or she) is in the White House or not.
The converse is not true. Conservatives tend to view liberals as immature and foolish. But childish adults and fools don't merit the hatred that racists do. And the liberal charge that conservatives generally label war critics "traitors" is pure fabrication.
Liberals may counter that conservatives hated President Bill Clinton. But that hatred has been more than matched by liberals' hatred for George W. Bush. And more to the point, Bill Clinton is one individual. Liberals hate virtually all conservatives with the same intensity that many conservatives hated one man named Bill Clinton.
There are conservative examples of such hatred. But they are much more rare. I am comparing the typical passionate liberal with the equally passionate conservative.
But if Democrats and Liberals are serious about getting back in power they first need to recognize that people who take the time to exercise their right to vote do so more often than not to vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something. If they don't give the electorate something to vote for, their chances of success aren't good. More likely the average swing voter will wonder what I'm wondering: What exactly is wrong with these people?
April 03, 2006
In the meantime, the new poll is up for the Vicki Vale Division. This division was so-named because Sean Young was the first actress cast to play this role in the 1989 film "Batman" but an on-set injury led to Kim Basinger being hired as her replacement.
View the updated 80's Crush Bracket HERE. Voting is open until noon Wednesday.
And who does the director of the original film blame? The U.S. government. No, really?!? Dutch-born Paul Vernoeven, the man who brought you such flops as "Showgirls" and "Hollow Man", says that the American government has been foisting its Christian values on its citizenry, making them unwilling to embrace "erotica".
"Anything that is erotic has been banned in the United States," said the Dutch native. "Look at the people at the top (of the government). We are living under a government that is constantly hammering out Christian values. And Christianity and sex have never been good friends."Oh, give me freakin' break. A country that has spent (to date) $82 million to see a love story between two gay sheep herders is in a "big puritanical mode"? Nice try, guys. But the sad truth is that the movie SUCKED
Scribe Nicholas Meyer, who was an uncredited writer on 1987's seminal sex-fueled cautionary tale "Fatal Attraction," agrees, noting that the genre's downfall coincides with the ascent of the conservative political movement.
"We're in a big puritanical mode," he said. "Now, it's like the McCarthy era, except it's not 'Are you a communist?' but 'Have you ever put sex in a movie?'"
Even people who are really into "erotic" thrillers could see this one for what it is: a rehashed concept without any of the elements that made the original so popular.
Scaring people must drive circulation up. What other reason would there be to waste time on an unproven theory? George Will reminds us that it was only about thirty years ago that these same "experts" had nothing but dire warnings for the coming Ice Age:
While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."Are surface tempuratures rising by a percentage of a degree? Sure. But then the rising and falling of surface temperatures is a phenomenon that has been recorded since...well since they've been recording surface temperatures. That is an empirical and undeniable fact. Ten years from now we'll probably be back on the "global cooling" thing. And once again the "experts" will be saying it's our fault.
The forces of nature are mightier than anything humans can dish out. Until someone somewhere can come up with some undeniable proof that human activity is in any way linked to this natural process, I remain skeptical...very skeptical.
METS WIN!!! 3-2
Glavine pitches a solid 6 innings for the win. Wagner turns out the lights - three up, three down. Excellent.
Ah, spring. Opening Day, when every team is tied for first.
April 01, 2006
March Madness may be winding down but the "80's Crush" post-March Madness Tournament is kicking off today!
So far, there have been twelve 80's Crushes - all my picks. Now it's time for you to vote. Here's how it works: Each gal will face off in a match-up of my choosing. Those women I rated a "10 out of 10" and the highest ranked number "9 out of 10" get first round byes.
The remaining eight have been grouped accordingly:
View the 80's Crush Bracket HERE.
Each poll - located in the sidebar to the left - will be open for 48-72 hours, depending on my schedule. The first poll is live. Voting closes Monday at noon.
Go HERE to see the entire 80's Crush Vault
In the meantime, go find out who Sadie's male 80's Crush is.
118 queries taking 0.0818 seconds, 271 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.