And like many politicians do, I just made a statement that might be true but for which I have no real proof. Anyway, I became entirely too angry while watching Campbell Brown interview a McCain representative this weekend. While Brown asked some relevant questions and attempted to get a straight answer, she also went entirely too far and made a mockery of her position as a "news anchor." For example, Brown strongly implied that Palin was a bad mother for accepting the vice presidential nomination and thrusting her pregnant daughter into the spotlight. I cannot imagine the same insinuation would be made if Palin was a man. And her pregnant daughter wouldn't be so much in the spotlight if anchors like Brown would focus on more newsworthy topics; surely CNN can find something else to criticize about Palin besides her parenting skills. Sigh.
CNN has been my network of choice for years now. I've recognized that it has a bias to the left but always felt like Fox News was even more slanted to the right (not to mention that its morning show is incredibly juvenile and irritating--or at least it was two years ago--the last time I watched it). Now both networks seem to be staffed by "commentators" more than reporters, which means everything is "reported" with misplaced cynicism, enthusiasm, sensationalism, etc. depending on the candidate. If you know about a more neutral news source, please share. Regardless I need not get so angry about it (or the continued computer issues at work....although I do now have my laptop--even if I can't have more than one internet explorer window open at a time...weird!).
p.s. I'm grateful for my friends Isabella and Chasie's visit to Chatty this weekend. We had a lot of fun, and I liked sharing part of my life here with them.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
A List: The Rick Warren Interviews
Evidently the cable company is not turning off the previous tenant's cable, so I was able to watch Rick Warren's interviews of McCain and Obama. It was nice to hear the candidates answer some different questions and not completely give their usual stump speeches. With that being said, once or twice I was wishing that the judge could direct the witness to answer yes or no and then explain his answer.
1. It's sort of old-man cheesy, but I liked how McCain refers to us as "my friends." Of course, that could get really old....
2. I'm glad Obama brought up the idea of decreasing the number of abortions as being common ground between those who are pro-choice and those who are not. Obviously the two camps are never going to agree about the morality and legality of abortion, but I think most everyone would like to see the number of abortions decrease. Over the last few months, I've looked into abortion more, and I've been astounded by how many are performed each year. It's really sad that there are that many unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and decreasing that number could be a great unifier.
3. Although the answers were fairly predictable, I liked the question "Which Supreme Court justice would you not have appointed." It certainly gives you an idea of where the candidates stand constitutionally, etc. And I totally agreed with what Obama said about Clarence Thomas; even as a child (granted a sort of weird one) I thought the entire Anita Hill issue distracted us from the fact that Thomas was otherwise unqualified to be a justice on the Supreme Court.
4. I certainly hope that McCain did not hear any of Obama's interview and tend to accept him at his word, but I wish he'd been in the "cone of silence."
5. When asked about who was rich Obama teased Warren about his millions in book sales. Funny.
6. While McCain may have told these stories a thousand times, I enjoyed hearing about his war experiences. Maybe I was just in a good mood. Or easily entertained.
7. While I found the interviews helpful in considering the candidates, I still wish there was some quick and easy way to evaluate the candidates, what they believe, and how those beliefs matter. I think sometimes we get caught up in what a presidential candidate believes on a certain issue, but if we looked into it more, we'd realize that it doesn't even matter (with regard to that issue) because there's no chance that his views on that would affect any policy. Or I'll read a candidate voted a certain way on an issue, but on further (and laborious) review, I might find that he actually voted that way because of a last minute rider or because passing this bill would mean something else and so forth. In fact, I heard a great story on this very issue today in which everyone was afraid to vote against a bill because they would then be labeled a certain way (basically in favor of "smut")--even though they all knew that the bill was unconstitutional. So the bill was enacted; the local governments acted in accordance with the new law; and voila local city was sued, lost, and had to pay enormous court costs (including attorneys' fees). It's all so complicated.
If you have any thoughts or opinions about the interviews, I'd definitely be interesting in reading them.
p.s. I'm grateful for the $2 Starbucks cold drink deal and that I liked my very first cold Starbucks drink. It was sort of like a milk shake (but according to the nutritional info less than 200 calories).
1. It's sort of old-man cheesy, but I liked how McCain refers to us as "my friends." Of course, that could get really old....
2. I'm glad Obama brought up the idea of decreasing the number of abortions as being common ground between those who are pro-choice and those who are not. Obviously the two camps are never going to agree about the morality and legality of abortion, but I think most everyone would like to see the number of abortions decrease. Over the last few months, I've looked into abortion more, and I've been astounded by how many are performed each year. It's really sad that there are that many unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and decreasing that number could be a great unifier.
3. Although the answers were fairly predictable, I liked the question "Which Supreme Court justice would you not have appointed." It certainly gives you an idea of where the candidates stand constitutionally, etc. And I totally agreed with what Obama said about Clarence Thomas; even as a child (granted a sort of weird one) I thought the entire Anita Hill issue distracted us from the fact that Thomas was otherwise unqualified to be a justice on the Supreme Court.
4. I certainly hope that McCain did not hear any of Obama's interview and tend to accept him at his word, but I wish he'd been in the "cone of silence."
5. When asked about who was rich Obama teased Warren about his millions in book sales. Funny.
6. While McCain may have told these stories a thousand times, I enjoyed hearing about his war experiences. Maybe I was just in a good mood. Or easily entertained.
7. While I found the interviews helpful in considering the candidates, I still wish there was some quick and easy way to evaluate the candidates, what they believe, and how those beliefs matter. I think sometimes we get caught up in what a presidential candidate believes on a certain issue, but if we looked into it more, we'd realize that it doesn't even matter (with regard to that issue) because there's no chance that his views on that would affect any policy. Or I'll read a candidate voted a certain way on an issue, but on further (and laborious) review, I might find that he actually voted that way because of a last minute rider or because passing this bill would mean something else and so forth. In fact, I heard a great story on this very issue today in which everyone was afraid to vote against a bill because they would then be labeled a certain way (basically in favor of "smut")--even though they all knew that the bill was unconstitutional. So the bill was enacted; the local governments acted in accordance with the new law; and voila local city was sued, lost, and had to pay enormous court costs (including attorneys' fees). It's all so complicated.
If you have any thoughts or opinions about the interviews, I'd definitely be interesting in reading them.
p.s. I'm grateful for the $2 Starbucks cold drink deal and that I liked my very first cold Starbucks drink. It was sort of like a milk shake (but according to the nutritional info less than 200 calories).
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Politics & Religion
Yup Dad, I'm talking about things you've told me not to--again.
My Bible study group had its weekly meeting last night, and the scripture from Romans (13:1-14) that our study covered perfectly suited the occasion of Election Day. Politics and religion have both been topics that I've thought a lot about over the years, but it's only been over the course of the last six months or so that I've been examining my political views, which formed long before I became a Christian, in light of my faith.
Fortunately the scripture and discussion didn't lend itself to the typical hot topic issues like abortion and stem cell research, but instead it addressed our relationship to the state and to the world. Until I read this passage, I hadn't thought about my obligation as a Christian to our government beyond obeying the laws. The scripture states that God put all governments into power and seems to suggest that civil governments are the institution of God and therefore deserve respect and submission. (And yes, there are all sorts of logical questions that flow from this--the first one that came to my mind was Hitler, but I'm glossing over the nuances for now.)
Over the last six years, I've failed to show any respect to our president.
The morning after the election in 2000, I was so disappointed in my fellow Americans. Almost half of American voters voted for him, and it made me sad. The debacle with the Supreme Court didn't help, and during his tenure, President Bush has provided plenty of fodder for me to make fun of him with and help me mentally justify my general lack of respect. I've never prayed for God to guide him in his decision-making or to give him wisdom. Instead I've mocked what I've perceived as his many flaws and concentrated solely on the negative. I'd never heard the verses about God sending the authorities to help me (Romans 13:4) or thought about Bush's presidency being part of God's providential control. Now that I have, I am re-thinking my attitude and trying to have an open mind and heart.
Christian or not, I think we seem much more credible when we focus more on facts and less on ridicule. Think about Venezulean President Hugo Chavez's comments about President Bush being "the devil" and smelling of sulfur. I'm also reminded of another lesson I've learned: it's better to present the facts and let people draw their own conclusions than to just call someone an idiot or stupid (or the devil). So I need to remember that it's not by happenstance that President Bush is our president, and I should recognize that, offering him my respect regardless of my disagreement with him and his policies.
p.s. Should I switch to beta blogger?
My Bible study group had its weekly meeting last night, and the scripture from Romans (13:1-14) that our study covered perfectly suited the occasion of Election Day. Politics and religion have both been topics that I've thought a lot about over the years, but it's only been over the course of the last six months or so that I've been examining my political views, which formed long before I became a Christian, in light of my faith.
Fortunately the scripture and discussion didn't lend itself to the typical hot topic issues like abortion and stem cell research, but instead it addressed our relationship to the state and to the world. Until I read this passage, I hadn't thought about my obligation as a Christian to our government beyond obeying the laws. The scripture states that God put all governments into power and seems to suggest that civil governments are the institution of God and therefore deserve respect and submission. (And yes, there are all sorts of logical questions that flow from this--the first one that came to my mind was Hitler, but I'm glossing over the nuances for now.)
Over the last six years, I've failed to show any respect to our president.
The morning after the election in 2000, I was so disappointed in my fellow Americans. Almost half of American voters voted for him, and it made me sad. The debacle with the Supreme Court didn't help, and during his tenure, President Bush has provided plenty of fodder for me to make fun of him with and help me mentally justify my general lack of respect. I've never prayed for God to guide him in his decision-making or to give him wisdom. Instead I've mocked what I've perceived as his many flaws and concentrated solely on the negative. I'd never heard the verses about God sending the authorities to help me (Romans 13:4) or thought about Bush's presidency being part of God's providential control. Now that I have, I am re-thinking my attitude and trying to have an open mind and heart.
Christian or not, I think we seem much more credible when we focus more on facts and less on ridicule. Think about Venezulean President Hugo Chavez's comments about President Bush being "the devil" and smelling of sulfur. I'm also reminded of another lesson I've learned: it's better to present the facts and let people draw their own conclusions than to just call someone an idiot or stupid (or the devil). So I need to remember that it's not by happenstance that President Bush is our president, and I should recognize that, offering him my respect regardless of my disagreement with him and his policies.
p.s. Should I switch to beta blogger?
Monday, October 02, 2006
Office Gossip...Sex, Politics, & Religion
99.9% of the time I eat lunch outside of the office. I like getting out of the office, meeting friends, and having a complete break from work. On a few occasions, however, I've gotten take-out and eaten in the break room where some of our staff eats their lunch. In comparison to the coworkers (attorneys) I sometimes eat lunch with, the ladies in the break room can seem like a complaining and gossiping bunch, although I suspect it's one ringleader that stirs them all up. And admittedly, my firm doesn't take human resources very seriously; I see so many ways we could encourage and support employees and have even mentioned several to our firm administrator, but the firm just isn't interested in things like that. It's really too bad.
So one day I joined them in the middle of a conversation about "certain people" (who it seemed like they had named before I joined them) who don't always wash their hands after using the restroom. This conversation seemed like it lasted five minutes. In an attempt to quell their outrage, I suggested that perhaps some people kept anti-bacterial lotions in their desk drawer and simply used that instead of drying out their hands with soap with repeated washings.
Anyway, I saw one of the participants "wash" her hands the other day. The washing included wetting her hands—no soap and 5 seconds of water. I'm not sure what the point was, but in her mind, that makes her superior to the women she was criticizing the other day. I personally don't get wound up about whether or not someone washes their hands, although I admit that I don't understand the point of wetting your hands--but whatever.
So all of this prompted me to think about lunch conversations in general. While I certainly don't mind lunching with coworkers and sometimes enjoy it, we never talk about anything beside ourselves (and our close friends, family, etc.). Granted it's better than when I taught elementary school and the teachers would share graphic details about their babies' bowel movements/eating habits and other stuff that was incredibly boring (not to mention gross). And as you know from my blog, I don't mind talking about myself and I love knowing what is going on with my friends' lives and feeling like I really know someone. But when my friend Charles worked at the firm this summer we'd talk about our faith, religious beliefs, the world, etc., and it was a lovely break from the monotony of just talking about weekend plans, etc.
I guess I would have thought that a bunch of lawyers would at least occasionally talk about politics or world events, but perhaps they all heed the advice my father gave me a long time ago—and that's to not talk about sex, politics, or religion. Needless to say I believe that excludes some of my most favorite discussion topics, and therefore I haven't abided by his recommendation. Anyway all of this made me think of a saying on a plaque in my step-father's old office: "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." --Eleanor Roosevelt. I discuss all three, so I'm not sure what that means, but I'm sure I'd be well served to focus more on God and ideas than other people (and what they are or are not discussing in the breakroom!).
p.s. Another side note about Grey's--I'm glad they are adding another hot guy (McSteamy) to the cast.
So one day I joined them in the middle of a conversation about "certain people" (who it seemed like they had named before I joined them) who don't always wash their hands after using the restroom. This conversation seemed like it lasted five minutes. In an attempt to quell their outrage, I suggested that perhaps some people kept anti-bacterial lotions in their desk drawer and simply used that instead of drying out their hands with soap with repeated washings.
Anyway, I saw one of the participants "wash" her hands the other day. The washing included wetting her hands—no soap and 5 seconds of water. I'm not sure what the point was, but in her mind, that makes her superior to the women she was criticizing the other day. I personally don't get wound up about whether or not someone washes their hands, although I admit that I don't understand the point of wetting your hands--but whatever.
So all of this prompted me to think about lunch conversations in general. While I certainly don't mind lunching with coworkers and sometimes enjoy it, we never talk about anything beside ourselves (and our close friends, family, etc.). Granted it's better than when I taught elementary school and the teachers would share graphic details about their babies' bowel movements/eating habits and other stuff that was incredibly boring (not to mention gross). And as you know from my blog, I don't mind talking about myself and I love knowing what is going on with my friends' lives and feeling like I really know someone. But when my friend Charles worked at the firm this summer we'd talk about our faith, religious beliefs, the world, etc., and it was a lovely break from the monotony of just talking about weekend plans, etc.
I guess I would have thought that a bunch of lawyers would at least occasionally talk about politics or world events, but perhaps they all heed the advice my father gave me a long time ago—and that's to not talk about sex, politics, or religion. Needless to say I believe that excludes some of my most favorite discussion topics, and therefore I haven't abided by his recommendation. Anyway all of this made me think of a saying on a plaque in my step-father's old office: "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." --Eleanor Roosevelt. I discuss all three, so I'm not sure what that means, but I'm sure I'd be well served to focus more on God and ideas than other people (and what they are or are not discussing in the breakroom!).
p.s. Another side note about Grey's--I'm glad they are adding another hot guy (McSteamy) to the cast.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Happily Ever After...
In an effort to avoid the melancholy I’m in threat of wallowing in, I am blogging about the very happy events of the last three days.
Saturday night I attended my most favorite wedding to date. The groom and I have been friends for a few years, and last spring we had several discussions about whether he was ready to pursue a relationship with the bride. He wanted to make sure it was the right time. I am the kind of person who immediately classifies “boys” into "friend” or “possibility,” so it was interesting for me to see him contemplate asking out a woman he had known for years. I can’t imagine. I’m also the kind of person who can’t eat just one cookie. I’m clearly not an expert at delayed gratification and would not have exercised the patience that he did.
In part, the groom had not asked the bride out earlier because he was beginning law school and knew the first year would not be an ideal time to begin a relationship. They had known each other for years, had developed a friendship, and knew each others' characters and beliefs before they ever went on a date. And things progressed quickly with an engagement within about six or seven months. While at one time that kind of whirlwind courtship would have seemed insane to me and is still kind of hard for me to imagine being a part of, they have my complete blessings (not that they need them).
Their ceremony was centered on God and included more than the rote marriage vows and scripture reading. One of the pastors admonished the bridal party to not take sides when the couple argued but rather to remember the priority was God and the marriage rather than their respective friendships with the bride or groom. The other pastor spoke at length about how the bride and groom must rely on Christ to fulfill their marriage vows as they could not possibly love one another as they should without Him.
It was all the more sweet because they had both maintained their purity and had clearly made God the center of their courtship. The groom can’t stop talking about the Tim Keller sermons on marriage that he has listened to for the past few months. His favorite thing about the bride is her heart for God. They took premarital counseling seriously and have discussed important issues of how they want to give to God’s kingdom.
And their courtship lacked the drama and heartache that I’ve become accustomed to in my relationships and those of some of my friends, and their courtship serves as a reminder of how different things can be when we choose to follow God’s plan for us and be obedient to His word.
More happy events to share, but for now here is a photo of Donatello (he even danced at the wedding!!) and me at the lovely reception.
Saturday night I attended my most favorite wedding to date. The groom and I have been friends for a few years, and last spring we had several discussions about whether he was ready to pursue a relationship with the bride. He wanted to make sure it was the right time. I am the kind of person who immediately classifies “boys” into "friend” or “possibility,” so it was interesting for me to see him contemplate asking out a woman he had known for years. I can’t imagine. I’m also the kind of person who can’t eat just one cookie. I’m clearly not an expert at delayed gratification and would not have exercised the patience that he did.
In part, the groom had not asked the bride out earlier because he was beginning law school and knew the first year would not be an ideal time to begin a relationship. They had known each other for years, had developed a friendship, and knew each others' characters and beliefs before they ever went on a date. And things progressed quickly with an engagement within about six or seven months. While at one time that kind of whirlwind courtship would have seemed insane to me and is still kind of hard for me to imagine being a part of, they have my complete blessings (not that they need them).
Their ceremony was centered on God and included more than the rote marriage vows and scripture reading. One of the pastors admonished the bridal party to not take sides when the couple argued but rather to remember the priority was God and the marriage rather than their respective friendships with the bride or groom. The other pastor spoke at length about how the bride and groom must rely on Christ to fulfill their marriage vows as they could not possibly love one another as they should without Him.
It was all the more sweet because they had both maintained their purity and had clearly made God the center of their courtship. The groom can’t stop talking about the Tim Keller sermons on marriage that he has listened to for the past few months. His favorite thing about the bride is her heart for God. They took premarital counseling seriously and have discussed important issues of how they want to give to God’s kingdom.
And their courtship lacked the drama and heartache that I’ve become accustomed to in my relationships and those of some of my friends, and their courtship serves as a reminder of how different things can be when we choose to follow God’s plan for us and be obedient to His word.
More happy events to share, but for now here is a photo of Donatello (he even danced at the wedding!!) and me at the lovely reception.
Friday, June 16, 2006
"Gay marriage?"
This has been on my mind a good bit lately, and I've been struggling to figure out exactly what I believe. Our elected representatives are not very helfpul since, from what I can tell, they have not put much thought into the issue. From what has been included in the news, a lot of them have just been droning on about their own great marriages and the "sanctity of marriage." Neither are very compelling or logical arguments. For every senator or representative who has a good marriage, there is another who has had an extra-marital affair or divorce. Oddly none of the elected officals in the second group are speaking up about that.
The sanctity of marriage argument is an interesting one. I wonder if it came up when states passed laws to permit "common law marriage" which gives heterosexuals marriage benefits despite the fact that they are "living in sin." I somehow doubt it. And if we get down to it, I'm not sure that permitting gay marriage is any more dangerous to the "sanctity of marriage" than the incredibly high rate of divorce and the divorce laws that make it incredibly easy to sever that union. Or television shows like the Bachelor. I guess my point is that our government does not otherwise seem very concerned about the sanctity of marriage. It's predictable that this issue has come back into the spotlight as it obviously gets the religious right out to vote.
The saddest part about this is that so many Christians express their disapproval of "gay marriage" in such an ugly, hateful, and non-Christian way. This response is a good example of how Christians can be the biggest threat to Christianity. Homosexuals' sin is no worse than any other sin, and in fact, the sin of homosexual sin is easily analogized to the sin of two unmarried heterosexuals. It saddens me to see how riled up Christians get about homosexuality, yet they don't have that same passion for the continual sin in their own life. Nor do they say a word about the unmarried couple in their Sunday school class who live together.
And alas, abstinence is a homosexual's cross to bear just as it is my cross to bear as a single person. So for a homosexual Christian, the answer is clear; pursuing a homosexual relationship is not God's will. I know that must be so tough for a homosexual Christian to conclude, but God's amazing love for us makes it so much easier to put aside our sinful ways and follow Him.
While I believe in the separation of church and state, I do not believe our government should permit "gay marriage." Doing so would force Christians to approve and support such sin--whether it be a business owner having to extend healthcare benefits to a homosexual's partner or a court clerk having to issue a marriage license to two men. This is asking Christians to do much more than tolerate sin; it is asking us to approve sin and in a sense, encourage it. Sure our laws permit a lot of sinful behavior, but I cannot think of any existing law that could potentially require me as a Christian to support sin.
As for what our government should do, I'm not sure. An amendment to the Constitution seems inappropriate. Practically, however, we might have an issue if a state permitted these unions. And already we have real issues given the fact that homosexuals have families, whether through artificial insemination or adoption. The problems arise when their relationships end, and only one parents has a "legal right" to the children from their union. Some issues can be circumvented with well written wills and other existing legal methods, but some cannot under the current state of the law.
I'm sure I'll have more to write about this at some point as my opinions and views on this issue are constantly evolving as I consider all of the different perspectives and considerations involved. I hope those that speak publicly on this issue will proceed with compassion and love rather than disdain and condemnation. We are all sinners after all.
The sanctity of marriage argument is an interesting one. I wonder if it came up when states passed laws to permit "common law marriage" which gives heterosexuals marriage benefits despite the fact that they are "living in sin." I somehow doubt it. And if we get down to it, I'm not sure that permitting gay marriage is any more dangerous to the "sanctity of marriage" than the incredibly high rate of divorce and the divorce laws that make it incredibly easy to sever that union. Or television shows like the Bachelor. I guess my point is that our government does not otherwise seem very concerned about the sanctity of marriage. It's predictable that this issue has come back into the spotlight as it obviously gets the religious right out to vote.
The saddest part about this is that so many Christians express their disapproval of "gay marriage" in such an ugly, hateful, and non-Christian way. This response is a good example of how Christians can be the biggest threat to Christianity. Homosexuals' sin is no worse than any other sin, and in fact, the sin of homosexual sin is easily analogized to the sin of two unmarried heterosexuals. It saddens me to see how riled up Christians get about homosexuality, yet they don't have that same passion for the continual sin in their own life. Nor do they say a word about the unmarried couple in their Sunday school class who live together.
And alas, abstinence is a homosexual's cross to bear just as it is my cross to bear as a single person. So for a homosexual Christian, the answer is clear; pursuing a homosexual relationship is not God's will. I know that must be so tough for a homosexual Christian to conclude, but God's amazing love for us makes it so much easier to put aside our sinful ways and follow Him.
While I believe in the separation of church and state, I do not believe our government should permit "gay marriage." Doing so would force Christians to approve and support such sin--whether it be a business owner having to extend healthcare benefits to a homosexual's partner or a court clerk having to issue a marriage license to two men. This is asking Christians to do much more than tolerate sin; it is asking us to approve sin and in a sense, encourage it. Sure our laws permit a lot of sinful behavior, but I cannot think of any existing law that could potentially require me as a Christian to support sin.
As for what our government should do, I'm not sure. An amendment to the Constitution seems inappropriate. Practically, however, we might have an issue if a state permitted these unions. And already we have real issues given the fact that homosexuals have families, whether through artificial insemination or adoption. The problems arise when their relationships end, and only one parents has a "legal right" to the children from their union. Some issues can be circumvented with well written wills and other existing legal methods, but some cannot under the current state of the law.
I'm sure I'll have more to write about this at some point as my opinions and views on this issue are constantly evolving as I consider all of the different perspectives and considerations involved. I hope those that speak publicly on this issue will proceed with compassion and love rather than disdain and condemnation. We are all sinners after all.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
I wish other law breaking individuals would have rallies…
Imagine if rapists or thieves began congregating and throwing rallies complete with national media attention. The police would be all over the rallies like white on rice. Our criminal justice system could have a field day. But our nation has tolerated illegal entry into our country for so long that we do not seem to notice the irony that the people participating in these heavily publicized rallies are largely criminals and could simply be checked for identification and loaded onto a bus for a one-way trip back to Mexico.
With that being said, I understand why the Hispanics who come to America do so. And based on what illegal aliens have told me, I understand that coming here legally is a very expensive process that often involves unfair politics and extremely long waits. It just seems terribly ironic to me that they are having these rallies and drawing attention to themselves. It’s hard for me to imagine any other law-breaking group of people doing the same thing. Hmm…I wish they would. We could clear up a lot of investigations.
p.s. Aren’t posts with photos more fun?
With that being said, I understand why the Hispanics who come to America do so. And based on what illegal aliens have told me, I understand that coming here legally is a very expensive process that often involves unfair politics and extremely long waits. It just seems terribly ironic to me that they are having these rallies and drawing attention to themselves. It’s hard for me to imagine any other law-breaking group of people doing the same thing. Hmm…I wish they would. We could clear up a lot of investigations.
p.s. Aren’t posts with photos more fun?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)