I went to DC a few days ago for an overnight trip. Just for fun.
A postal employee blew up on me, said I had a "John Roberts face". I'm not kidding. A postal worker went postal on me. After haranguing my friend and me for about 30 minutes about how other nations handle their capital districts better than the US, and how the US flies in the face of "international law" (that was the phrase that sparked the argument), I eventually said - jokingly of course - "international law? haha, I can tell you're on the left". This is where the explosion started. He yelled at me, told me to sit down (I didn't) and said a lot of nonsensical things. He walked away once, came back, yelled some more, walked away again... and fell flat on his face on the restaurant floor. Seriously.
We saw him again later that night, yelling at someone else in the bathroom at a bar. Kelly's Irish Times bar by Union Station receives a 3.5 out of 5 stars from The Aspiring Scholar (it loses one star for location and a half star for slow weeknights - but I will definitely go back if I'm ever in the neighborhood). It's definitely better than the other bars in the several block radius. We didn't realize how far the metro took us, and ended up trying to walk back from Union Station. When we finally flagged down a police car to ask for help, they told us they thought we had been robbed at gunpoint, because they were very surprised to see two young white males in shirts and ties on that particular street. Many thanks to Officer Hoffman and her partner (5th District, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington DC) for potentially saving our lives.
News... hmm... apparently John Roberts thought Michael Jackson was a bad role model for children, and the Washington Post seems to think that makes him some kind of uber-boy scout. I happen to agree with the man. I clicked Drudge's link to the Huffington Post's post by Cindy Sheehand, entitled Memo to Drudge, et.al. That post in and of itself wasn't too bad, but reading on, I was astonished at the sorts of things the left says. I'd reccomend it for anyone who wants to dance a little with the devil... just make sure your soul is entrusted to the Lord first.
As you can tell, this post is kind of a catch all. Hopefully September will bring some actual news - a welcome change from a protesting left-wing radical camped outside the President's ranch, and irrelevant documents about unrelated policy positions in the John Roberts confirmation process.
20 August 2005
11 August 2005
Dear Mrs. Sheehan
Dear Mrs. Sheehan,
We at the Aspiring Scholar are very sorry for your loss. As an army officer cadet and simultaneous member of the New Jersey National Guard, my heart goes to you and the family of every other soldier lost in combat. I dread the day I will have to write or call people just like you.
However, you are on a path to personal destruction. Any cheap Holywood production (like, say, a George Lucas production or a Tom Cruise film) knows that harboring revenge and striking out is not the way to peace. The President met with you in June, and you said you felt better knowing that he is sincere in his crusade for freedom (yes, crusade) and knowing that he is truly a man of faith. Please remember how you felt then and stop this nonsense waste of your time. You cannot expect President Bush to agree to meet with you again, when so far your form of petition has been, "I'm going to sit outside your Texas ranch until you do." Little kids try this all the time, and there is a very good reason parents don't accede to it. Accepting help from MoveOn-dot-org (I spell it out to avoid being accused to linking to them) also does not help your case, as it makes it appear that you are willing to politicize your son's death.
Your family calls on you to stop. They have taken the high road, the road to peace, saying, "The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect." I advise you to do the same. I think if you look inside yourself, and look to the Lord with prayer, you will find the peace you need, and you will definitely realize that your current actions are only hurting you, your family, and Casey's name (God rest his soul).
The nation feels your pain, but we also want to see you gain peace. Vengeance and anger do not beget healing.
God bless you and your family.
Yours in Freedom and in Christ,
The Aspiring Scholar
We at the Aspiring Scholar are very sorry for your loss. As an army officer cadet and simultaneous member of the New Jersey National Guard, my heart goes to you and the family of every other soldier lost in combat. I dread the day I will have to write or call people just like you.
However, you are on a path to personal destruction. Any cheap Holywood production (like, say, a George Lucas production or a Tom Cruise film) knows that harboring revenge and striking out is not the way to peace. The President met with you in June, and you said you felt better knowing that he is sincere in his crusade for freedom (yes, crusade) and knowing that he is truly a man of faith. Please remember how you felt then and stop this nonsense waste of your time. You cannot expect President Bush to agree to meet with you again, when so far your form of petition has been, "I'm going to sit outside your Texas ranch until you do." Little kids try this all the time, and there is a very good reason parents don't accede to it. Accepting help from MoveOn-dot-org (I spell it out to avoid being accused to linking to them) also does not help your case, as it makes it appear that you are willing to politicize your son's death.
Your family calls on you to stop. They have taken the high road, the road to peace, saying, "The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect." I advise you to do the same. I think if you look inside yourself, and look to the Lord with prayer, you will find the peace you need, and you will definitely realize that your current actions are only hurting you, your family, and Casey's name (God rest his soul).
The nation feels your pain, but we also want to see you gain peace. Vengeance and anger do not beget healing.
God bless you and your family.
Yours in Freedom and in Christ,
The Aspiring Scholar
09 August 2005
Not the brightest stars
(You'll see the double entendre/horrible punniness in a moment)
I haven't felt quite up to working up enough commentary on recent matters. May Peter Jennings - and the thousands of other people who died that very hour - rest in peace.
But yesterday, I read on AOL News that Kate Hudson thinks that monogamy is unrealistic. And I have to admit, for a moment I actually thought she was advancing an argument. "Monogamy is unrealistic" sounds like a thesis, and I actually read the story. There was a picture of her with her singer husband, who looked to be about twice her size and with more hair on his face than she has on her head. And she was saying things like, "Monogamy is just unrealistic... but I think that we, as people, can accomplish it."
No, Kate, monogamy is not unrealistic. In addition to being the mandate of the loving God who walks alongside us, it speaks to simple human decency (which comes from that same God). How incredibly out of touch do you have to be with life and the world, and the American people, to make such a comment? Not only does it sound like a disconnected excuse for immoral behavior, it's a perfect example of people thinking that being famous means being smart. Ms. Hudson is an attractive woman, and I'm sure she's a skilled actress. But she's not an ethicist nor a psychologist, and her views - which she has a right to express - don't count for any more than a high school sophomore who just cheated on his girlfriend. Remember Cameron Diaz's "if you don't vote, you're allowing rape" campaign?
And now Mic Jagger decided to throw his intellectual towel into the ring and write a song about American politics, called My Sweet Neo-con. As usual, I got the story from Drudge. Apparently, Mr. Jagger is using his considerable influence as a political intellectual and renowned analyst to present his carefully weighed arguments to the world - through song.
Despite the invective herein, I actually don't think that stars should refrain from expressing their opinions. I think the last election - with most of the mainstream media, all of Holywood, and half the music industry campaigning for John Kerry - proved that Americans aren't so foolish to be swayed by the opinions of those who have no authority on the matter, especially foreigners like Jagger who once had enough class to hold his tongue.
Next time you see a story about a "star" commenting on political or moral issues, think about what he or she is saying. Chances are it's as ridiculous as "unrealistic monogamy".
I haven't felt quite up to working up enough commentary on recent matters. May Peter Jennings - and the thousands of other people who died that very hour - rest in peace.
But yesterday, I read on AOL News that Kate Hudson thinks that monogamy is unrealistic. And I have to admit, for a moment I actually thought she was advancing an argument. "Monogamy is unrealistic" sounds like a thesis, and I actually read the story. There was a picture of her with her singer husband, who looked to be about twice her size and with more hair on his face than she has on her head. And she was saying things like, "Monogamy is just unrealistic... but I think that we, as people, can accomplish it."
No, Kate, monogamy is not unrealistic. In addition to being the mandate of the loving God who walks alongside us, it speaks to simple human decency (which comes from that same God). How incredibly out of touch do you have to be with life and the world, and the American people, to make such a comment? Not only does it sound like a disconnected excuse for immoral behavior, it's a perfect example of people thinking that being famous means being smart. Ms. Hudson is an attractive woman, and I'm sure she's a skilled actress. But she's not an ethicist nor a psychologist, and her views - which she has a right to express - don't count for any more than a high school sophomore who just cheated on his girlfriend. Remember Cameron Diaz's "if you don't vote, you're allowing rape" campaign?
And now Mic Jagger decided to throw his intellectual towel into the ring and write a song about American politics, called My Sweet Neo-con. As usual, I got the story from Drudge. Apparently, Mr. Jagger is using his considerable influence as a political intellectual and renowned analyst to present his carefully weighed arguments to the world - through song.
Despite the invective herein, I actually don't think that stars should refrain from expressing their opinions. I think the last election - with most of the mainstream media, all of Holywood, and half the music industry campaigning for John Kerry - proved that Americans aren't so foolish to be swayed by the opinions of those who have no authority on the matter, especially foreigners like Jagger who once had enough class to hold his tongue.
Next time you see a story about a "star" commenting on political or moral issues, think about what he or she is saying. Chances are it's as ridiculous as "unrealistic monogamy".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)