I have an idea...Let's not eat at all!

Those leftist animal rights activists are up to their eyebrows in their extreme ideologies again. Their beef this time? Lobsters suffer when they are boiled alive!

Oh, no! Larry Lobster is suffering because we want to eat him! I suppose they will now want us to not eat any crustacean or shellfish at all!

Now, don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't care about animals and their treatment. On the contrary, I do want animals/pets to be properly cared for, to be treated humanely and to be as happy as we are in a household. I wouldn't want a dog to be trained to be an attack dog and then have it go and maim or kill a child, for roosters to be engaged in cockfighting only to be tossed aside like so much detritus, or fish to live in an unclean aquarium. But, we're talking about FOOD here, people!

While I wouldn't want to eat beef from a cow with mad cow disease or fish that are polluted with dioxins, mercury and other heavy metals and such, I still reserve the right to eat what is available and that I am not IDEOLOGICALLY opposed to.

It's one thing to not eat foods that are unhealthy for you because you either have an allergic reaction to them or you just aren't able to eat it at all, but it's another to IMPOSE one's ideological values on others all because it doesn't "jive with their lifestyle."

The leftist animal rights people who are opposed to eating crustaceans, the vegetarians who would have you only eat veggies are entitled to eat the way they feel that fits them best - but leave the rest of us out of it! You do not have a right to dictate how I or my family should eat because of your views!

If my son decided that he really did not like the taste of something that I served to him, that's fine. If he later on decides that being vegetarian is healthiest for him, that's fine. At least he came to that conclusion ON HIS OWN and not because SOMEBODY FORCE FED IT DOWN HIS THROAT AND BRAINWASHED HIS MIND! The same applies to my wife and her extended family - if they decided they didn't want to eat something because they aren't comfortable eating it, it gives them health problems or for whatever reason, then that is their right. I will not hold their feet to the fire for that.

For example, I cannot eat clams, crabs, lobster or shrimp because if I do I will have an allergic reaction. I used to enjoy eating them before I developed my food allergy. My in-laws have chosen to be inclusive of me by trying to not order too many items from a menu that include shrimp in it. I am appreciative of their concerns for my inability to eat such foods, but I do tell them that if that particular dish is something they desire to eat that it's okay to order that. I'll just eat whever else is available at the table.

Before, I used to feel indignant and somewhat left-out, but then I chose to do something about it: Instead of whining and pouting, I communicated my needs to them. I asked if it would be okay to order something different. My wife, bless her heart, has also stood up for me in the past and that led to an increased awareness of food allergies. With the birth of my son and their second grandchild, they became even more concerned with food allergies because infants can't eat certain items until they reach a certain age.

Do you see how this has worked well without imposing any value judgments on others to change their eating habits? I think the animal rights activists and the vegetarians could use a lesson in this. And, since they are such leftists and they are so big on inclusion and non-discrimination, how about stopping the hate-mongering, the scare ad campaigns and the eco-terrorism that they are trying to ram down the throats of others because they feel that it's immoral and amoral to want to eat meat, seafood and other foods?

How about this for using their ideology on them? Since they feel so strongly about how animals may think and feel, how about the plants and vegetables that they all so love to eat? They have feelings too! After all, some of them like to sing and talk to their plants, play music for them, and exercise all manner of earth-friendly practices. Hey, I'm all for that! When I was living at an apartment with my wife that had a compost bin provided by the garbage company, I composted the same way I recycle - to a fault. It drove my wife nuts when I separated out all the organic stuff to compost and all of the recyclables into piles to be placed in their respective bins downstairs. But, I digress.

While listening to KSFO (560 AM in the San Francisco Bay Area), they were talking about this very issue - how the animal rights activists feel that the boiling of lobsters is inhumane because of the pain inflicted upon them.

Now, if you ask me, that's a rather huge stretch because, when was the last time they actually asked a lobster how they felt about being boiled? Did they do any research of their own? If they have, I haven't heard about it! But, I doubt that they'd even show it to me because they, like most leftist liberals, like to use emotions, rather than logic, to get their point across. And, if you dare to oppose them, they will try to talk you down and intimidate you into seeing their perspective instead of actually having an intelligent discussion. Do you know why it's hard to have an intelligent discussion with a leftist liberal? It's because they aren't intelligent and they are highly illogical. They like things the easy way and they don't like it if they have to work for it. In this case, it means that they prefer you shut up and accept their ideology as gospel because "it makes the most sense" even when it doesn't.

Let's try using their ideology on them: They seem to feel that plants have feelings, so how would the animal rights activists feel if they learned that plants screamed in pain silently (because we can't hear them or understand them) and also felt pain when we pull them out by their roots or cut them up into our salads? Hmm? What do we do then? We can't eat animals because it's inhumane, seafood because they are sensitive to pain, plants because they have feelings...I know, let's JUST NOT EAT AT ALL!

There, that would solve everything for everyone! Nothing has to suffer because of our selfish human desire to give ourselves sustenance, no, there would be no more suffering at all! Or would there?

Just a little sidenote: The guys on Mythbusters (seen on the Discovery Channel, check your local cable/satellite directory for showtimes) busted the myth that plants do better or worse because of music or having somebody say good or bad things to them. I found that segment particularly interesting and amusing. And, since they conclusively proved it through their controlled experiments, I think that the leftists will be hard-pressed to sustain their arguments.

So, leave us alone on our eating habits and don't go imposing your (meaning the leftist extremists) values on others all because we don't see things your way.

In Memoriam...

On a sad note, and all politics aside, I wanted to express my sadness and condolences to my wife's friend's family on the loss of their father to cancer on Thursday.

This has been a difficult time for them and it's never easy to cope with the loss of a loved one at any age. Their father was only 65, just retiring, when he passed on.

For me, this has been a particularly dark month in that I've now known three incidences where somebody I knew or knew indirectly has passed on.

I hope that this is not a harbinger of things to come in the new year.

Bruce McPherson Chosen as Secretary of State

Thank goodness governor Schwarzenegger did the right thing and selected Bruce McPherson, a Republican candidate, to fill the position of Secretary of State that is being vacated by a disgraced Kevin Shelley.

On the ten o'clock news on KTVU, the Democraps in Sacramento even said as much that they would have preferred a Democratic candidate be put in position so that they could regain control of that seat when it is time for elections. How much more blatant could they be in their motives and intentions for the position of Secretary of State?

Regardless, most people agree that McPherson is an agreeable person who is qualified and capable. Also, in an unusual sign of approval, even state senate pro tem Don Perata gave his nod to McPherson's selection.

Given that the Democraps want that seat so badly, I'm glad that their hopes were dashed when Schwarzenegger chose McPherson. He did the right thing that made the most sense: Get somebody in there who will do what's right and do the job well. All I can say to the Democraps is this: You had your chance, but you blew it. Shelley has nobody to blame but himself for his downfall.

Remember my motto from the start of my blog? No? Here it is again as a refresher:

"Trust is earned by many deeds, and lost by only one." - Dr. Sun Yat Sen

In Shelley's case, he didn't lose the trust just once but MANY times! His abuse of his staff, misappropriating federal funds and other shenanigans while in office is inexcusable. And, being that he's a product of the liberal San Francisco Board of Stupidvisors, I am not surprised that he acted in his own self-interest and still didn't even own up to the errors of his ways when he held his resignation press conference.

So, in closing...WAY TO GO GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER!

Why? Because I'm entitled to, that's why!

Here's another shining example of how liberals feel that they are above the law:

I was driving through San Francisco's Marina District in the morning when all of a sudden a pedestrian, wielding his cup of Starbucks coffee, pops out from between parked cars in the middle of the block. He gets irate because I didn't stop and yield to him as I was driving through on Chestnut Street.

Oh, excuse ME for not yielding to YOU, your worshipfulness!

He lamely tries to flip me off with his hand that is cradling his cup of coffee (he's got what looks like his dry cleaning in his other hand) and yells at me.

Now, I don't know about you, but since when did they make JAYWALKING legal? And, since when was anybody ENTITLED to just do whatever they want whenever they wanted and bitch at others all because we didn't please them?

I think that Mr. Kaka-for-brains should be the poster-boy for liberals who feel that you should get down on your knees to them and let them walk all over us. Bwaaahahahahahaaaa!!!

Well, to that, I say, "Yarbles! Big bolshy yarblockos to you!" (Bonus points to those of you who know which book/movie that quote comes from. Name the book/movie title, the character who said it and who they are saying it to.)

So, my response is: No, you are NOT ENTITLED to jaywalk in the middle of the block; no, you are NOT ENTITLED to get irate because I didn't stop for you; and, NO, you're NOT ENTITLED to bitch at me because you had to wait an extra ten seconds because I didn't stop myself from running you over! If you'd rather I run your stupid ass over and take your idiotic genes out of the gene pool, then please, DO step in front of me as I bowl you over with my vehicle!

Stupid-ass liberals...

How biased is the media? Just read/watch the news.

I don't know if it's me or my imagination, but I just couldn't help but notice how the local San Francisco Bay Area media, especially the television stations, seem to refer to PRESIDENT George W. Bush as MISTER Bush.
However, when they refer to Bill Clinton, they always refer to him as President Clinton. For those who may not know, but once you are elected President of the United States (POTUS), you have that title for life. So, it seems that the media have a convenient case of amnesia when it comes to addressing people despite (or is that in spite of?) their proper title.
This is all the more disturbing for me because I used to be part of the media that I am criticizing at the moment. Although I worked as a photojournalist, I was a journalist nonetheless. When I was an intern at a newspaper in Texas (it shall go unnamed because I know how people's past can come back and bite them in the ass), I was covering a Republican breakfast where Phil Gramm was the featured speaker.
At the time, I didn't quite understand their consternation with the media and why they constantly accused them of liberal bias. Now, several years later, I do understand their angst and do not blame them for feeling the way they do. In fact, I feel a certain amount of indignation at the media for its selective handling of stories where politics are concerned.
Case in point: When state senator pro tem John Burton was stepping down, the media only talked to state senate Democrats. They never talked to any of the Republicans for their thoughts or feelings on the retiring of somebody the likes of Burton. Did they feel happy? Sad? Yes, he was a constant thorn in the side of Republicans, but I'm sure that even he had a few friends on the other side of the aisle. Nobody is THAT insular in politics, no matter what color their stripes.
And, what about when it comes to the media's attribution of problems that the state faces? They seem to focus on how Republicans are the problem, not the solution. And, when they cover the Democraps, it's always to bolster the position that Republicans are definitely the problem.
I still recall how people wanted to pin the blame for the whole Oakland Bay Bridge budget fiasco on Governor Schwarzenegger, even though he really had nothing to do with it since he wasn't even in public office at the time. Then (gasp!), it was revealed that CalTrans actually HID their findings so that the project would look good on the table. Gee, did anybody issue an apology or a correction on who they assigned their blame to? NO!
If I were to make a mistake, I own up to it. It's unlike me to pass the blame on to someone else when something goes wrong because, hey, if the project/issue/whatever the heck it is was assigned to me and me alone and something goes awry, how in the hell would I be able to pin the blame on someone else? Wouldn't that look really stupid? Besides, that's not how my parents raised me. They raised me with common sense, a sense of decency, honesty and propriety and also a solid work ethic. That comes irrespective of political alignments. You screw up, you face the consequences.
One of my co-workers made a really huge mistake a little over a month ago and had to own up to his error. Unfortunately, that also meant that he lost his job as a result of it. But, there would really be nobody else to put the blame on because nobody else would have made the mistake that he made. I cannot go into details because: 1) They are not here to defend themselves, 2) It is a personnel issue and I don't want to smear them, 3) It is now in the past. My point is: Democraps love to pin the blame on everybody else but themselves, especially Republicans.
Going back to the Bay Bridge budget fiasco example: They won't own up to their errors and lies because it's better to let somebody else take the fall. Republican governor? Let's blame him! If Gray Davis were still in office, they probably wouldn't say anything and the problem wouldn't come to light until they absolutely had to say something about it to the public. They would probably be in collusion over the whole problem. This is a HABITUAL pattern for liberals and Democrats - hiding things until it cannot be hidden anymore. Does anybody remember the Clinton-Lewinsky incident that led to MISTER Clinton's IMPEACHMENT? If anybody say, "I don't remember that." I'm going to say you're full of crap and that you have selective amnesia, which would prove my point that Democraps only remember things when they have to and would blame somebody else for their maladies.
Now, I know I got way off track here from talking about liberal media biases, but do you see how it snowballs from there? It's lie, upon lie, upon lie. It bothers me a lot how I used to buy into that and how I was a part of that machine.
It's no wonder so many people are cynics of the media. And you know what? We Republicans would be correct to be cynical about the media.

Quote for the day:

This quote comes from Dale Earnhardt from that same sign where I got the quote for James Reston. I think it's a rather interesting one - it says a lot about what constitutes one's attitude towards what one does in life.

"I race to win; coming in second just means that you're the first loser."

How to hide the truth: Don't say anything!

Okay, this is a little dated, but it bears mentioning: On the Thursday, Jan. 27, 2005 edition of the San Francisco Examiner, they had an article about how the San Francisco Unified School District may have to close between two and five schools because of budget woes. Well, it was repeated on tonight's television broadcast on KRON-TV Ch.4 and they even included a graphic that showed San Francisco as being among several San Francisco Bay Area school districts that will be experiencing school closures.

Well, wanting to find out more, I went to the San Francisco Unified School District's website (http://portal.sfusd.edu/template/default.cfm) to see if there were any additional information about the school closures. Guess what I found? NOTHING! Not a mention on their main page, nothing in their press releases, news & events, newsletter, public notices or their school information pages.

So, if I were a parent with a child in the SFUSD, I would be completely oblivious to the situation unless they were to send a notice home with my child informing me of said possible school closures. In this day and age when everybody touts the importance of closing the technology gap and trying to educate children through technology and other means, I find the lack of information disconcerting.

If you ask me, it seems that school superintendent Arlene Ackerman is not being as forthcoming as she should be. I hope that school administrators are more forthcoming than she is because that would be a disservice to the parents of the children who are attending public school in the SFUSD. However, I wouldn't hold out much hope on that. Why? Because, if you consider the interests involved, they (meaning the unions and the administrators) are looking at the $$$ that is involved.

They are all citing how there is declining enrollment in school districts across the Bay Area. And, they are all citing how the budget cuts are hurting them. Well, if you listen to their rhetoric, you should be asking yourself, "So, which one is the primary cause of the alleged maladies of the school districts?" If you listen to the liberals and unions, it's the governor's fault. Gee, how come they weren't as vocal BEFORE Schwarzenegger came into office? Why wait for a REPUBLICAN governor to come into office and then place the blame on him?

Because it's much easier to blame Republicans for problems rather than face up to the truth or reality. In the SF Examiner's news article about declining enrollment, they cite how many families are leaving the school district in droves by either putting their children in private schools or how they are moving out to the suburbs where school districts may be better than the one(s) their children are currently enrolled in. This is very telling, indeed.

If the schools are not providing what the families need, should they expect them to keep them in a non-productive environment? I certainly wouldn't, and I'm an individual who wants to become an elementary-school teacher in the future! If my child were to go to school, I would want them to get the best education possible. Every parent should expect that. But, from the sounds of it, the school districts expect the parents to keep their kids in public schools even if they are not performing at their best.

The news article cites how the view is that charter schools are "taking away students, oversight, and money from the district."

For me, the bottom line is this: Regardless of where the blame is assigned (and I know it shouldn't be Governor Schwarzenegger), why aren't the school closures disclosed on the SFUSD website? Don't they have a fiduciary responsibility to the parents of the children who are in the school district? If they would inform the parents, at least they can begin to make contingency plans for their children instead of scrambling at the last minute to get their children enrolled in another school and competing along with dozens of other desperate parents? Don't they care at all?

Apparently not.