Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Terry’s Tidbits

December 18, 2006

Terry Gray

“Why did Republicans just lose both houses of Congress? I will answer this question with another question: Why would anybody vote for conservatives who outdo their radical social counterparts on the far left?”

David R. Usher – News With Views

Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas…

          Yes, it’s one week premature but I’m going to say it year round from now on.  I just like the way it rolls off my tongue.  Say it with me, “Merry Christmas”.

Let’s look at the religion part of the first amendment.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” 

What do we not understand about this straightforward sentence?  It says, in modern vernacular, that the government will make no law regarding religion or stopping anyone from celebrating their relationship with their God.  Easy enough, huh?

If I want to tell a Jew or a Muslim Merry Christmas, then I will.  In response, they can say Happy Hanukah or whatever the Muslims say.  Then we all smile and go our own ways.  Or they can be offended if they desire.  I really don’t care. 

If our government, a government based in part on Christianity, wants to put a Christmas tree in town square or on the White House lawn, then do so.  If Jews then want to display a Menorah next to the tree, then have at it.  There is no constitutional law against a Christmas tree, a cross, the Ten Commandments, or any other religious symbol being displayed anywhere.

WHAS did a survey (of course.  I think that most of our problem in this country and in this town specifically, is the media.  They love to stir up the dust and create problems so they can report on them.)  Anyway, 93% of those surveyed said they weren’t offended by someone wishing them Merry Christmas.  Five percent said they were and 2% had no idea if they were offended or not.  The numbers should tell us a lot, as polls go.  The sentiment in this country is mostly live and let live, I believe, but there are a lot of big-mouthed idiots (mostly media) with clout who tell us what is supposed to offend us.

Now, I’m bothered by the 2% who don’t know if Merry Christmas offends them.  “Duh, I don’t know.  Should it?”  Well, buddy, you have to make that choice for yourself.  Maybe talk to Santa about it.

Burning Christmas Trees

          WHAS television, in an ongoing effort to scare us, did a segment on the dangers of Christmas trees catching on fire.  They used an artificial tree and had an “expert” Christmas/fire guy ready to demonstrate for us.  The “expert” held a lighter under one of the branches of the tree and it smoldered and went out.  He kept trying but the tree wouldn’t ignite.  I chuckled, finding it especially funny because it was a live demo.

          Now WHAS couldn’t let us begin to think that Christmas trees aren’t dangerous (they are the community watchdogs don’t you know) so the “expert” placed a blow torch under a branch.  The tree began to burn but once the blow torch was removed the flames went out but continued to smolder.  At that point, the reporter exclaimed, “See how dangerous Christmas trees can be?”

          What this demonstrated to me was that the real danger is our news media.  However, I do humbly thank them for reminding me to refrain from taking a blow torch to my Christmas tree this year.  Last year was a disaster.       

Clean Election Act

Arizona has it and California is looking at it.  A few years ago, when I first heard about it, I kicked.  It didn’t make sense to me that my tax dollars may go to fund a campaign with which I disagree.  After doing some research on it and thinking about it some, I’ve come to the conclusion that the pluses outweigh the negatives.

          Kentucky Representative Jim Wayne has proposed BR189 for the January session.  Here’s how it works:

          Candidates who claim certification as a Kentucky Clean Election Act participant can only accept seed money for contributions.  The amount of money the candidate can accept is limited to $10 per individual contribution and may not exceed $1500 for a candidate for the state senate and $500 for the state house.  This “seed money” is to be collected before the qualifying period only.  A candidate for the state senate must then collect 275 qualifying signatures/contributions, and a candidate for the state house must have 100 qualifying signatures/contributions during the qualifying period.

          Once a candidate is certified, he receives state money for his campaign.  State senate candidates receive $54,000 and state house candidates receive $20,000.

          So what if Joe Nazi decides to run for the state senate and my tax dollars go to fund his campaign?  I really wouldn’t be happy about it.  However, when I think about political candidates being owned by PAC’s and the amount of money that I lose because of pork, I think it is a fair trade-off to hand Joe Nazi or Joe Patriot some money to fund his campaign.  Joe Patriot is the guy I’m looking for, though I often expect Joe Nazi anyway.  I’ll take the chance that Joe Patriot will beat Joe Nazi. Joe Patriot will be owned by no one, and if his name holds true he’ll be able to tell the lobbyists to get out of his office.

(Editor’s note:  I strongly disagree with Terry on this one, but this is his column, not mine!)

Breaking News. 

I’m sick of breaking news.  I’ve heard the same breaking news story for hours and wonder how long a story can break.  Maybe they should change the term to tsunami breaking news – it just keeps breaking.

          When I think of breaking news, I think of grabbing my gun and hunting down enemy invaders.  I picture fall-out and civil defense sirens complete with homeland security telling us not to panic.  I think of liberals crying in the streets while their BMW’s are crushed by falling trees caught in the blasts.

          One of our local news channels did “breaking news” when the government released the results of the Taco Bell poisoning.  It was the lettuce.  Just in time, too, because I was headed out the door to grab a taco with no green onions. 

          There is the pre-breaking news where the news person tells us that breaking news is expected at any moment. 

There is secondary breaking news where the news person tells us that more breaking news on the same subject is forthcoming.  This is sometimes called “follow-up breaking news” for breaking news that they gave us six times earlier. 

          The one that really bothers me is the breaking news that tells me that the breaking news is over.  Who made the bright decision to break into programming to tell us that there is no more breaking news?

          By the way, breaking news is not an announcement that Jerry Abramson will not run for governor.

Boobers

          As a red blooded American man I don’t mind exposed breasts and I like babies okay as long as I don’t have to deal with them long term.  I think babies should eat and that mommies should feed them.  I also believe in the idea that if the sight of something offends me that I can look away.  But…

          The strong stance taken lately by mothers breast feeding their babies is a little crazy.  The latest incident occurred on a plane and evolved into a women’s rights issue.  All that was asked of the mother was that she cover her exposed breast with a blanket.  Apparently this was too much to ask, and a protest erupted by groups of “boobers” demanding the right to expose themselves in the name of lunch.

          There is a great likelihood that these women, so adamant about plopping out a breast for all to see, also are the first to snipe a “non-mother” with too much cleavage.  They’ll likely call the cops when Mrs. Smith next door removes her bra straps while sunbathing in her backyard.  They, as mothers are entitled, so they think, and no one else is.  They pipe up that sexual predators will always be sexual predators, making a misguided assumption that human beings cannot change.  Using the “boober” thought that people can’t change, the logical conclusion is once you let a boob fly free in public that you’ll devise ways to continue to do so long after the kids are grown.

Ladies, you engaged in sex, got pregnant and had a child.  This is no grand feat, and you are not unique by any means.  I personally think you are exhibitionists and using the modern day socialist adage of “It’s for the children” to further your show and tell ways.  Now cover up those boobs.  I never thought I’d say that. 

The Sign of Politics

          WHAS 11 is on some kind of kick about political signs being removed from properties.  They keep harping on how the property owner is responsible for sign removal and may be fined if the signs are not removed.  I went to the city website and looked up the ordinance.  Here is what it says:

           Ordinance 155.03, Paragraph F:  Political signs. Any type of sign which refers only to issues or candidates involved in any political or nonpartisan, special, primary, or general election, provided any such sign shall be erected no more than 30 days before and shall be removed within seven days after the election to which the sign pertains and provided such sign is not more than 16 square feet of display surface.

          Well, it seems on the surface that the investigative wizards at WHAS are correct.  However, if their gurus had bothered to read about 2 paragraphs down the page, they would have found this:

          Subsection (F) of this section was held unconstitutional in part in Vessels v. City of Louisville, CA No. 93-0512-L(CS). The Memorandum Opinion issued by the U.S. District Court held the placement of political signs 30 days prior to election restriction to be unconstitutional.

          Kind of makes one wonder what other “news” that WHAS is puking across the air waves.  And still the bottom line is that if I want to put an “Adolph Hitler for president ‘08” sign in my yard today, I’ll do it.

Fat Cops

          How often in the past few years have we heard about and read about what freedom will be lost next?  While the great smoking ban debate was under way in Louisville, many informed people expressed their beliefs that socialist agendas for the “greater good” wouldn’t stop there - that passing a smoking ban was just a springboard for further legislation oppressing individual freedom.   And while many people agreed with the snowball effect of government-gone-insane legislation, many believed that the insanity had to end somewhere.  Many people believed and still believe that government means well and that logic would bring the rampage against our liberties to an end.  Folks, rampant government is just like a kid tasting candy for the first time -- it wants more candy.  It is like a junkie; it needs its fix.  Logic goes out the window when the need to feed comes calling, and government is always hungry.

          Twenty-first district Louisville city councilman Dan Johnson has proposed legislation to remove trans-fats from restaurants.  Everyone knows “roosterman Dan”.  We have a chicken ordinance because of him.  What a claim to fame.

          Johnson claims that allowing restaurants to use trans-fat in their restaurants is akin to allowing restaurants to serve rat poison.  HEY DAN, people know about trans-fats and they choose to eat them.  If rat poison were served, it would be doubtful that it would be public knowledge.  Besides, if rat poison were served daily, our restaurants would be scrambling for living customers.

          Johnson supported the smoking ban, and he smokes.  Johnson wants a trans-fat ban, and he is somewhat overweight.  I can’t help but wonder if Johnson is so weak that he uses his public office to regulate his personal intake of products deemed unhealthy.  Following this logic, he should initiate legislation to place term limits on city council positions.

          Okay, now that I’ve ragged on Johnson and legislation-run-amok, I need to say that I believe that trans-fats are very bad for us.  I avoid them as best I can.  I know that a lot of restaurants use them and a lot of food stuffs contain them, so when shopping for food I check the labels.  In restaurants, I ask.  If as individuals we take responsibility for ourselves and avoid trans-fats, then restaurants and food suppliers would have to quit using them.  The market would decide.

          I think this issue could help make people aware of their roles in dictating what happens to them individually.  There would be nothing wrong with government, even local government, spending money on an awareness campaign on trans-fats.  Just don’t dictate to businesses what they may or may not produce.

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN