They had to pass a law for this?

The Texas House of Representatives has approved a bill that would require jurors to be able to read and write English. Is it just me, or is it ridiculous that we had to pass a law for this? Shouldn't it just be a given that if you don't understand English, you aren't qualified to serve as a juror?

The vote on the bill was 111-31. Who in the heck are the 31 who voted against it? Does it surprise you to know the 31 included Alonzo, Alvarado, Gutierrez, Hernandez, Luna, Marquez, Martinez, Martinez Fischer, Munoz, Oliveira, Quintanilla, Rodriguez, and Villarreal?

"House OKs English requirement for jurors." The Dallas Morning News, April 20, 2011; p. 5A.

I fear for the next generation.

Students in California are protesting cuts in funding to state colleges. They staged sit-ins at empty offices last week. That was really smart, don't you think? At any rate, some of their signs read "Education is a right," and "No more greed."

No, my dears, education is not a right. It is a privilege. As for the "no more greed," the students are the ones who are being greedy. They want what they have not worked for.

Cecillee Espanol is a 22-year-old psychology major. She said she's going to have to get a job next year to cover the cost of her classes. Well, bless her little pea-pickin' heart! Mr. Essie May and I worked two jobs and occasionally three at a time to pay for our educations. Where did Cecillee get the idea that her education should be free? She says she's "mad at the government for funding more for prison and war than for education." Perhaps she should take a course in history and study the Constitution. Wars and prisons are legitimate government expenses. Paying her way through college is not.

"Students fight California cuts." The Dallas Morning News; April 14, 2011; p. 9A.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

Obama is still trotting out the liberal spin on taxation. "We cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society," he said. No one, not even the most conservative Republican, is talking about a tax cut. What Obama is talking about is a tax increase.

It would be kind of like going to Wal-Mart and buying a bell pepper for $1.25. Next week, you go to Wal-Mart and they have a big sign on the bell peppers that says "Bell Pepper Price Cut!" But they're still marked $1.25. You tell the produce manager that you paid $1.25 last week, and they're still $1.25, so that's not a price cut. "Oh, but it is," he explains as he looks at you condescendingly. "We were going to raise the price to $1.50 this week, but we decided not to. We cut the price by 25 cents."

As my hero Judge Judy is fond of saying, "Don't piddle on my leg and tell me it's raining."

Read my lips, Barack: "It's not that we aren't paying enough taxes. It's that you're spending too much."

"Lines drawn in debt battle." The Dallas Morning News; April 14, 2011; p. 1A.

It's gone beyond toleration.

Remember the gay lib mantra: "Tolerance"? How's this for tolerance . . .

David Aldridge of Los Angeles had a kidney transplant in 2006. He now needs another. "I feel sorry for him," you might say. But let me tell you the rest of the story. Aldridge is HIV positive. Until recently, those with HIV and/or AIDS didn't qualify for transplants because of their poor prognosis. Now they can get multiple transplants while those who need transplants through no fault of their own must wait due to a shortage of available organs.

Now here's even more to the story. To address this shortage, they are now trying to change the law so that organs from HIV positive donors may be used. "That's great for those who already have HIV," you say. And I can agree with that. But that law change will also make it legal for patients who don't have HIV to receive those compromised organs.

And I can just see it now . . . if you need a kidney or a liver, it will be at least discrimination and at worst a hate crime for you to ask if the donor was HIV positive. Just how tolerant do you think we should be then?

"Organ donor change sought." The Dallas Morning News; April 13, 2011; p. 14A.

A rose is a rose is a rose . . .

Rep. Vicki Truitt of Keller has introduced legislation in the Texas House to ban certain words from state documents. It passed without objection or debate. But I object. Among the words that are out the window are retarded, disabled, developmentally disabled, mentally disabled, mentally ill, mentally retarded, handicapped, cripple, and crippled. Those will be replaced by "persons with a disability," "persons with mental illness," etc. Why do I object? Because it's silly. All these words were once the politically correct terms until somebody said, "Shouldn't we call this abc instead of xyz?" And then everybody was afraid of offending somebody so they all jumped on the bandwagon. We'll have to have legislation two years from now to ban "persons with mental illness" with "persons who aren't mentally well." Then we'll probably have to change it to "persons who don't think like I do." And it will continue to be watered down until nobody can tell that what you are talking about is a mental case. Another objection I have is wordiness. As if government documents aren't hard enough to wade through already, now we'll have additional mumbo jumbo to try to parse. Another objection: what do we do about diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and all the other illnesses? Must we now refer to "persons with diabetes," etc.? And my final objection: Just because you call a man "a person with a mobility challenge" instead of a "cripple" doesn't change the fact that he can't walk. I don't see anything wrong with calling it like it is. "Bill to bar 'retarded,' other phrases passes." The Dallas Morning News; March 31, 2011; p. 5A.

What a plan!

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass Obamacare so we could know what was in it? She wasn't just whistling Dixie.

In a recent interview, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius answered some tough questions . . . sort of.

When asked about the long-term care part of the law and talk of reforming it, Ms. Sebelius said that the legislation gave her "flexibility" to look at changes. She said they didn't want a plan supported by taxpayer dollars, so "we are reaching out to . . . the aging community to the financial services industry to come up with a plan." Translation: "There ain't no way on God's green earth we can make this work, so we'll just pass along that responsibility to somebody else, and they can take the blame."

When reminded that they had been warned beforehand that this part of Obamacare was unsustainable, Ms. Sebelius said, "The framework was unsustainable. That is why we are proposing changes." Translation: "They were right, and we're going to act like we thought that all along and hope the average American citizen buys it."

When the interviewer pointed out that her actions indicate the criticisms of Obamacare were justified, she said, ". . .We will learn about best practices." Translation: "We don't know what in the heck we're doing."

"Health care reform, one year later." The Dallas Morning News; March 20, 2011; p. 5P.

I'm offended.

Saima Sheikh of Allen is trying to enlighten the world. She understands all about religions other than her own, and she's going to bring together all those people who are less informed than she in order to educate them. I'll discuss some of what she said later, but I find her general attitude offensive. It's kind of like all these companies that require their employees to go through "diversity training." Have you ever really thought about what that implies? It implies that you are a racist, and you're just too stupid to realize it. So they'll bring in some guy who probably really is a racist to tell you how bigoted you are.

Anyway, Saima is upset with Terry Jones, the Florida nutcase who makes a big production out of burning the Koran. She says, "It's hard to understand how a pastor could burn another religion's scripture. No religion teaches hatred against others. It is the people who have misunderstood or misconstrued its teachings." Uhhhhhh . . . that Koran she's so upset about him burning? It says, “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war,” and “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.” Kind of hard to misunderstand or misconstrue that.

She says that if Jones really wanted to know about Islam, he should have held "interfaith dialogues" in his church. I'm pretty sure Jones already knows quite a bit about Islam. I don't agree with him purposely antagonizing those people, but let's face it. Burning a book isn't quite as bad as flying planes into buildings. And if you think it is, there's definitely something wrong with your religion.

Saima says if Jones had held these "dialogues," he would have learned ". . .it is part of a Muslim's faith to believe in all the revealed books like the Gospels and the Torah and to believe in all the prophets and angels." So, Saima, if you believe in "all the books," what do you do when the Bible tells you there is one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus, and the Koran tells you Mohammed is your link to God? How do you reconcile that? She says Jones would have learned "the exalted status of Mary, mother of Jesus, in the Holy Quran." Sorry, Saima, but that's in direct contradiction to the Bible, and it would only have given Jones more fuel for his fire.

The bottom line is that Saima doesn't appear to be nearly as enlightened as she thinks she is, and her "interfaith dialogues" are offensive.

"We can learn from one another." The Dallas Morning News; April 2, 2011; p. 25A.