Observation. Some people constantly accuse the United States government of being in the pockets of oil companies, only caring about other countries when oil is involved, and going to war with countries over oil. They make these accusations as criticism of government policy, pretend that this is bad policy, and say it is not fair to other counties in the “world.”

Where do these critics think all the oil is going—into swimming pools in oil company executives' backyards? The oil is being used to fuel the economy and put gasoline into the tanks of the vehicles driven by every American. When oil prices rise or the oil supply is disrupted, these same critics whine, complain, and want something done about it. Then, when something is done about it, they criticize what is done.

Some people let their hate of a political party or a politician cloud their judgment. There only so much oil to go around. Who gets it? If you want to be generous to other countries and allow them control the oil supply, then don’t complain when you have to walk to work, walk the kids to soccer practice, and burn your furniture to stay warm. .

Comments. None.

Observation. In the words of Vice President Al Gore, "We must send a clear and strong message to all who would commit crimes of hate: it is wrong, it is illegal, and we will catch you and punish you to the full force of our laws."

All hate crimes were already crimes before the term hate crime came into vogue. Since murder was already a crime, why is a hate murder a worse crime because the murderer hated the victim? Would not it be worse if the murder simply chose his or her victim randomly? One could at least see some sense killing someone you hate, while it seems senseless to kill someone for no reason whatsoever

Are we saying that murder is a worse crime when the murderer has “bad” thoughts about the victim than it is when the murderer has “good” or no thoughts about the victim? Are victims who were loved by their killers any less dead than those whose killers hated them?

Comments. None.

Observation. The Ten Commandments state, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

Why is that believers of the Ten Commandments condemn those who say “God Damn” as taking God’s name in vain, but who think it is okay to make the vain statement “Oh my God” any time they please?

Comments. None.

Observation. I constantly hear politicians, pundits, and the media speak about President Bush’s speech on an aircraft carrier after the invasion of Iraq while he standing under a banner that said “Mission Accomplished.” These people would have us believe that the sign meant that the President was declaring the end of the war, in spite of his constant saying, at that time and many times since, that the war was not over, that much more had to be done.

The banner was hung by the ship’s crew to signify another mission accomplished. Any one who has ever served in the military knows that during a war, there are thousands and thousands of missions accomplished. Winning a war requires a victory, not a mission accomplished. The military does not use the term “mission accomplished” to signify the winning of war and it was not used to mean that in this case. The sign meant that the crew was proud of completing its mission, which was the successful defeat of the Iraqi National Guard. A war does not end until the politicians say it has ended. Warriors will fight a war up until that determination has been made by accomplishing each mission they are ordered to accomplish.

Comments. None.

Observation. Everyday we hear about the politicians, philosophers, professors, media, etc. speak about innocent civilians being killed in the Iraq War by the United States or killed by Israel in its war with Lebanon. If this is true then who are the guilty civilians and who is it that determines which civilians are guilty and which are innocent?

When a factory that is making weapons for the war is bombed and workers are killed, are they guilty civilians. What about the civilians who work in the company that supplies part to the factory, are they innocent? And what about the civilians who work in the restauObservation where all the employees of the company go to eat, are they innocent? Without the factory, the army will not have weapons to use to fight the war. Without the parts, the factory would not be able to make the weapons. And, if the employees of the company are unable to eat, they will not come to work in the company

Armies do not go to war; nations go to war. If you are a citizen of that nation, then you go to war, whether you like it or not. An army is merely the front line of a nation at war; they are the citizens that directly fight the war. The reminder of the nation’s citizens support the war in some way or another while remaining behind the front line, but this does not make them innocent. So, stop living in a fantasy and face reality. When your nation is at war, you are at war. When you are at war, you are an enemy of the opposing nation. As an enemy you are not innocent, you are a target and subject to being killed. War is hell!

Comments. None.

Observation. I used to go to a movie every week, sometimes more than once a week. In recent years, I have rarely gone to movies due to the quality of the movies: poor writing, poor plots, overuse of CGI in an attempt to hide the lack of a good script and good plot, lack of ideas (thus the remakes), and the lack of entertainment. I go to movies to be entertained, not to have Hollywood expound their view of the world or see Hollywood’s version of history.

Recently, I went to see Superman Returns. Overall, it was fairly entertaining, but nothing memorable, except for one thing. That one thing was another attempt by Hollywood to rewrite history.

Early in the movie, Lex Luther is talking to his girlfriend and telling her about why he uses technology for power. He said that nations have used technology for centuries to extend their rule of other nations. He said that Rome used roads, England used ships, and that the United States used the atomic bomb.

The United States used its power to defeat the countries trying to rule the world during World War II; it used the bomb twice on Japan to end the conflict. Name one nation that the United States took over after the war. Name one nation that the United Sates has taken over, or controlled, by the use of, or by the threat of using, the atomic bomb. The United States has grown in power by creating and using more technology than any other nation, and by using that technology to help other nations grow. However, according to Hollywood elitists, the power of the United States is due to the atomic bomb. Another attempt by Hollywood to rewrite history and subtlety interject that false history into the minds of movie viewers.

As a result of Hollywood’s arrogance; I will not go to see a movie again for a long time.

Comments. None.

Observation. Legal insanity and medical insanity are two different things. In court, defendants only need to prove that at the time they committed the crime they did not realize what they were doing was wrong or that, even though they knew their actions were wrong, they were not able to control them. The circumstances that led to the insanity may be temporary; therefore, a person may have been legally sane before a crime, legally insane while committing the crime, and legally sane after committing the crime. In relation to medical insanity, if doctors think a person is able to care for him or herself and is not a threat to him or herself or others, then they may decide the person is sane and must release him or her. Therefore, legally, a murderer may be found not guilty by reason of insanity and sent to a mental hospital—only to have the doctors decide the person is medially sane and release him or her a few weeks later.

Comments. None.

Observation. This term is used by people all the time in relation to everyday events. People seem to think this is the way criminal suspects, and even people who are suspected of non criminal behavior, should be viewed. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term that is only relevant in a court of law; it is not relevant anywhere else. Police actions are not governed by it (they may consider a suspect guilty and set out to prove it), so certainly businesses and the public are not governed by it. Contrary to public opinion, outside of a court of law it is okay to consider a person guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

Comments. None.

Observation. If you have never been able to be the person you wished to be, then—die! Death becomes you. The old saying is that "You should not speak ill of the dead." That saying seems to have evolved into, "You should only speak well of the dead."

The mother of a street thug who was killed while trying to rob a liquor store cries that her son was a "good boy" who just made a mistake. She says every young person makes mistakes. That is true; it was a mistake for me to believe the car salesman who sold me my first car; however, it is not a mistake when you rob a store at gun point, that was a conscious act. The wife who defends her child molesting husband saying that he was not all bad; he did not molest his own children. The friend of the drunk driver who just died in a car accident after crossing the centerline and hitting a van dead-on, killing an entire family, who say the guy was a good friend who would do anything for others. Apparently this is true since he gave his own life just so he could kill others.

Since they are no longer threats after they die, rivals and foes become saints. Look at all the politicians who line up to praise a rival after he or she dies. A person, who they criticized at every opportunity while the person was alive, is now praised at every opportunity. Even at the funeral of a mass murder, everyone speaks about how he was such a sweet child.

Martial art "masters" never hesitate to praise themselves or inflate their resumes, but after their death, their followers put them on a pedestal and make them "ethereal grandmasters" worthy of worship. A corporation may have the founder’s photograph in the lobby, but employees are not required to bow to the photograph when they enter or leave work.

If someone is great person, praise him or her while he or she is alive and can appreciate the praise. It is too late for praise once the person is dead; then the praise is only for the gratification of the living. Except maybe for the person’s family and close friends, everyone else has an alterative motive in their praise; it eases their conscious or they think it will benefit them in some way.

How is it a great loss to the country when previously great person dies of old age? The person did something great 50 years ago and has done nothing great or even productive in the last 30 years, so their death is not a loss. It would have been a great loss if they had died while in the midst of doing something great, but 50 years after the fact is not a great loss anymore than it would be for an ordinary person who had not done anything great during his or her life.

So, rest assured, even if you have been a good person during your life, when you die, people will speak good of you.

Comments. None.

Observation. In 2004:

• Newton, Massachusetts had a population of about 83,000 and had 0 murders.

• Camden, New Jersey had a population of about 80,000, about the same as Newton, and had 49 murders.

• United States had about 160,000 troops in Iraq and the military had about 700 hostile fire deaths in Iraq.

Since the Iraq troop strength is about twice the population of Camden or Newton, let us assume the hostile fire deaths for 2004 for 80,000 troops would have been about half the deaths for 160,000 troops, or 350 deaths.

Therefore, a person living in Camden, New Jersey would be 7 times more likely to die as a soldier in the Iraq War, but would 49 times more likely to die as a person living in Newton, Massachusetts.

Soldiers know they may have to go to war, that they may have to fight and kill the enemy, that the enemy may try to kill them, and that they may die in war. United States citizens living in the United States believe they should be able to live peaceful lives without having to fight for their lives or being killed by other citizens.

Opponents of the Iraq War say that waging the war is not worth the number of United States citizens being killed. Therefore, they say the Bush administration should withdraw our citizens from Iraq.

It is outrageous that the Bush administration continues to support Camden, New Jersey; the city is not worth the number of United States citizens being killed there. Therefore, we should withdraw our citizens from Camden immediately.

Comments. None.