Tuesday, February 26, 2008

A New Day Yesterday...

I have been diligently working on my time-travel story these last couple of months. No, I haven't added any new chapters, but I have improved (considerably, if you ask me) what I had previously written. Much more depth, description (especially the first couple of chapters), and realism. I really would like my little story to be as accurate and authentic as if it actually happened. Therefore, I have been finding it necessary to do extensive research to give the reader (if there are any beyond my very good friends) a total visual of what my characters experience.
I must say, it's been fun writing this little tale and I look forward to continuing the chapters.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

The Angry White Man

I recently received the following (written by Gary Hubbell, although I added a few of my own comments) from a friend.
Yup, it describes me (mostly) pretty well.


Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.


There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and will defend the lives of the unborn.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to watch Civil War movies, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, spend time with his wife and kids, re-enact the Civil War, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

The History Channel


Can someone please tell me the difference between The History Channel and the Discovery Channel? You can't, can you? Thought so. Why do we have a channel dedicated solely to history but there is very little actual history to be found on it? Look at the shows they have scheduled: Ice Truckers, The Universe, Shockwave, UFO Hunters, Monsterquest, Gangland, Human Weapon, and on and on...
The only show that remains of the Civil War era is Civil War Journal. Do you know when that is on? 7:00 a.m. on Tuesday mornings! How about a Revolutionary War Journal? A War of 1812 Journal? A French and Indian War Journal?
How about a show on America's museums? Greenfield Village, Colonial Williamsburg, Connor Prairie, Plimouth Plantation, Old Sturbridge Village, just to name a very few. In fact, upon a Google search, I found each state in our union has wonderful museums - outdoor and indoor - that are deserving of national recognition. Why can't The History Channel have a series on something like this?
How about everyday life as lived by the average person from the 19th, 18th, 17th, or before centuries? From their occupations and tools to clothing to personal hygiene to etiquette to mourning practices - the subject matter is endless.
How about a series on restoration that would be broadcast in the evening?
How about anything before World War 2, and especially before the 20th century???
It does not take a highly paid program director to come up with such ideas. And, please don't tell me that no one would watch. That line is a load of crap.
Am I alone on my opinions of The History Channel?

Friday, February 15, 2008

Revisionist "Historians"

I really hate revisionist history. I recently read a book entitled “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong,” by James L. Loewen, which purports to show that we were never taught the truth in American History. Talk about revisionist PC! The author is a left-wing liberal who is bent on finding fault on virtually everything European – he consistently uses adverbs such as ‘probably;’ throughout the text - in other words, offering his opinion as fact. Seriously - and many folks are buying into this crap. Don’t believe me? Check out the reviews on Amazon

www.amazon.com/review/product/0743296281/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/002-4049274-7729626?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

There are literally thousands of books about every aspect of American History. From the earliest colonists through 9-11, any subject about our great nation is easily accessible at nearly any bookstore or library. Most of these books use numerous original first-hand sources – letters, journals, diaries, newspaper accounts. Then one or two so-called historians will release a history book that goes against the grain (Howard Zinn is the other pseudo-historian that comes to mind), stating pretty much that all we have learned about history in school was untrue. Of course, the idea behind such books are very intriguing but, upon reading the text one will begin to notice that those so-called modern history books are based more on opinion and political correctness rather than hard facts. The authors will get their facts from other authors or biographers so, to find where the basis of their ideas came from one has to do some digging.

No thank you – I will read the history books available which cite their sources plain and simple.

What is it about these so-called "historians" (and their followers) in this day and age that are bent on changing our history? Yes, I will agree that much has been left out of the textbook history books. But, instead of writing an antithesis, why can’t we gather all of the FACTUAL information (not opinionated), and add it to the books instead of writing strictly a scathing, dare I say anti-white American piece of propaganda? Of course, that will not happen – not as long as this garbage is eaten up by liberal PC college professors and the like.

The following is just one teeny example of the B.S. perpetrated by these leftists:

The Europeans were able to conquer America not because of their military genius, or their religious motivation, or their ambition, or their greed. They conquered it by waging unpremeditated biological warfare.

How about re-writing this to state: Unbeknownst to the European colonists who settled on the American soil, they brought with them diseases that the natural anti-bodies of the Indians could not fight off. It was unfortunate that millions of the native peoples died because of this.

Here's another extremely biased accusation from the same page:

The scarcity of disease in the Americas was also partly attributable to the basic hygiene practiced by the region's inhabitants. Residents of northern Europe and England rarely bathed, believing it unhealthy, and rarely removed all of their clothing at one time, believing it immodest. The Pilgrims smelled bad to the Indians. Squanto "tried, without success, to teach them to bathe," according to Feenie Ziner, his biographer.

And where did biographer Feenie Ziner receive this information from? So Loewen call this "Biological” warfare? Because the Indians supposedly bathed more than the Europeans? Actually, I feel (I have no proof - this is JUST my opinion - at least I admit it) that because the Indians did not wear much clothing and the Europeans did, of course the smell might be a bit stronger. Also, I am sure the European's odor was different than the Indians, hence the idea that they smelled bad. This is common sense, folks!

Why would anyone want to spew crap like this? To justify what was printed in the past? So, two wrongs do make a right in some people’s eyes, I’m sure. Me? I’d rather get the truth – the whole truth. Loewen’s commentary’s are, in my opinion, anti-American, which fits in perfectly in this modern day and age in which we live - it’s “in” to knock everything American, everything patriotic, and everything traditional.

Another very easy target author Howard Zinn jumps on is Columbus and the slavery issue. Instead of admiring the greatness it took to navigate across the Atlantic Ocean in the 15th century, he chose to concentrate on a very 21st (or 20th century, when the book was written) issue: slavery. Did Columbus come here looking for slaves? Absolutely. As well as gold, as the author correctly writes. But, the author, throughout the Columbus segment, writes of nothing else. Now, to Mr. Zinn (and his followers), please understand something: in the 15th century (and many centuries before and a few hundred after) slavery was an accepted way of life, was it not? It was legal and promoted as such. In that era, one was either a slave, a slave owner, or one of the very few in between. Simple. No need to go deep in depth. Whites, Blacks, Asians, Indians…all were slaves at one time or another. Accept it. Get over it. You want the truth? Then print the whole truth.

Now, instead of fixating on changing our past, go after the modern slave trade that still persists today.

I am a proud American. Do I like and agree with all that is going on in this country today? Of course not. But, I also look at the positive and good. Yes, contrary to what you may hear, there is a lot of good going on in our society today. Of course, just stating that I am a proud American will give many so-called Americans the jitters. They will automatically pigeon-hole me with George Bush and the like. They will also think that, duh…I’m not the smartest because, duh, I am patriotic. Believe what you want – you’re going to anyhow.