Thursday, February 21, 2008

Did you ever

have a discussion with someone and after walking away think of a dozen things you would like to have said??

I think most of us have.

A few months ago on another blog one of the Left Wing commentators drew himself up and declared that I had said he was un-patriotic and that he was insulted. To my shame I assured him that I didn’t mean to imply that he was.

What I should have said was this.

I understand that you consider yourself a patriot. That you embrace this delusion is your right, and I do not challenge the fact that you believe. But belief does not confer fact.

And the fact that you think you are does not mean that I must agree with you, or in fact do agree with you. In fact, I do not. What I believe is that you are terribly misinformed and are the end result of a failed education system and a life experience that, evidently, is so different from mine that I cannot imagine how you came to embrace the causes you do and the positions you espouse. But that is your life and your problems.

All I can do is offer my sympathy.

Further to my comments last night regarding

Wal-Mart, I decided to write them a letter. It is as follows.

February 21, 2008

Mr. Lee Scott
Chief Executive Officer
Wal-Mart Incorporated
702 S.W. 8th St.
Bentonville, AR 72716-8611

Dear Mr. Scott:

I note the following AP news story.

“AP - RIVERDALE, Utah (Feb. 20) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. apologized to a Muslim woman who said she was mocked because of her face veil.

"Please don't stick me up," a cashier told the shopper on Feb. 2, according to The Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Wal-Mart apologized Monday in a letter signed by Rolando Rodriquez, a vice president and regional general manager. It was released Tuesday by the council's Nevada chapter.

"I can assure you that the associate in question was disciplined in accordance with our employment policies as a result of the situation," Rodriguez said without disclosing details.

Rodriguez said employees at the Riverdale store would undergo "sensitivity training," specifically in the Islamic faith and Muslim culture.”

This is utter nonsense. What should have been done is to explain to the complainer that in our culture, in the country that she came to under her own free will, people do not go around with their face covered, and that those who do are often and usually regarded with suspicion.

You should have then said that you apologized if the joke offended her, but no harm was meant, and that Wal-Mart would be glad to work with her, and other Muslims, to help them better understand the culture of the United States. You should have then extended the same offer to CAIR.

Of course that would have required a small degree of courage. Something Wal-Mart did not exhibit in the face of pressure from an organization, CAIR that the US Government has designated as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the case against the Holy Land Foundation. (If you are unfamiliar, Google has about 21,800 hits on the subject.)

Mr. Lee Scott page 2 of 2

Now I understand that a commercial organization has a great reluctance to become involved in such things as national politics and thus can be easily pushed around by a lobbying organization that claims to represent a segment of the US population. But if you expect your customers to show loyalty to you, you must show that you believe in the values of this country. And one of those values is that all are welcome who want to become Americans. However, a dogged utilization of traditional dress and a demonstrated sensitivity to what, at worst, was an ill considered joke does not demonstrate a desire to be assimilated into our culture. Your demonstrated support of the actions by the Muslin female and CAIR are unacceptable. I again suggest the remedy I offered earlier in this letter.

Sir, the vast, vast, vast largest number of your customers are the American middle class. Working men and women who have fought, bled and died for the country and the freedoms we all hold dear. In fact, the Wal-Mart employee who has been “disciplined” most likely has a family member, a friend or a family member of a friend who has served in the military to protect the rights and “feelings” that seem to be in play in this matter.

As you can tell by the address I live in a small town, and I was pleased when you opened a Super Center about a year ago. Having been a Wal-Mart customer since the early eighties I looked forward to the better selection and competitive prices I expected you to provide, and have rewarded you with annual business in the neighborhood of $9,000.

It would be difficult to totally quit doing business with you, but let me assure you that you have lost my good will, and I think millions of other Americans like me. I will do my best to reduce my business level with you to the bare minimum and to actively seek other companies to do business with.


I don't exect a reply. If you would like to call them, the number is 479-277-7000.

This from my old bud Ron

It's a bit old, but everything around me is... In any event, it's a good'un.


A woman married three times walked into a bridal shop one day and told the sales clerk that she was looking for a wedding gown for her fourth wedding.

"Of course, madam," replied the sales clerk, "exactly what type and color dress are you looking for?"

The bride to be said: "A long frilly white dress with a veil."

The sales clerk hesitated a bit, then said, "Please don't take this the wrong way, but gowns of that nature are considered more appropriate for brides who are being married the first time - for those who are a bit more innocent, if you know what I mean? Perhaps ivory or sky blue would be nice?"

"Well," replied the customer, a little peeved at the clerk's directness, "I can assure you that a white gown would be quite appropriate.

"Believe it or not, despite all my marriages, I remain as innocent as a first-time bride.

"You see, my first husband was so excited about our wedding, he died as we were checking into our hotel.

"My second husband and I got into such a terrible fight in the limo on our way to our honeymoon that we had that wedding annulled immediately and never spoke to each other again."

"What about your third husband?" asked the sales clerk.

"That one was a Democrat," said the woman, "and every night for four years, he just sat on the edge of the bed and told me how good it was going to be, but nothing ever happened."

Algore fails again

My deck was iced over again this morning and yesterday I heard that this is the coldest winter in 10 years. Where oh where I ask is Global Warming when you need it?? Nothing from the MSM, of course, they are waiting for a hot day in July.

One of the puzzles of man made GW is this. If it is caused by Global Warming, shouldn’t we be having a steady progression of increases?? Do we have some years when our use of carbon fuels is less than the previous??

On a political note we find that the use to be Newspaper of Record, after endorsing John McCain has now published a hit piece. Leaving me to speculate on several things.

The NYT knew of this when they endorsed McCain for the Repub nomination. Why did they endorse him? If their claims are true it certainly calls into question their judgment, or lack there off.

But whether it is true, or not, their strategy was simple. First, try and help McCain beat Romney. And then, destroy McCain. That would leave Huckabee who is unelectable on a national level. There is a word for publications that do such things. And the word is not “newspaper.” Try “Democratic Party Magazine.”

Then there is this. Their sources are unknown.

Now I understand that protecting sources can be a good and necessary thing. When, that is, the source is outing someone in industry and/or government who has broken the law, and of whom the source is fearful. But the continual leakages of “claims” associated with politics is damnable at best and should not be allowed. Destroying people using “unnamed sources” for political gain is over the edge.

If the two people who made the claims about McCain are so concerned about him becoming President that they “tell on him” to the NYT, let them come forward.
In this case they may have picked a fight with a guy who is known for being tough, and John McCain is tough. He didn’t survive all those years of torture when he was a POW by being weak. I expect we will see the NYT hide behind the sources who aren't willing to support their claims in the open air. I expect McCain to just note he has called them on it.

There is an old parable that goes:

“If you attack a King you must kill him.”

Unless the NYT proves their charges they will unite the Republican base and other conservatives behind him and assure his elections.