Our Most Precious Commodity...

It is something I find myself having very little excess of lately. But then, do we ever truly have an excess of it, or only a specter that we perceive to be real?

It is right now. It is fleeting. It is unsure and unequally dispensed. It is, like so many things in this life, uncertain. That item is time.

I currently have a mother visiting (who has been so many times and severely ill that none of us ever really expected she would come home again). I also have a wife about to enter the hospital for a major operation with a recovery period predicted to be four to six weeks. I consider these reasons, rather than excuses, for my inattention to writing posts lately for my small handful of faithful readers to peruse. I have kept up with news and tried to be regular about visiting my favorite bloggers to add my two cents worth of comments when deemed appropriate.

So here are a couple of thoughts I wanted to contribute...

First and foremost, Fred Thompson has jumped over a cliff before even embarking on his stated dutiful path to rise to a need he said he clearly recognized. He said he saw a need for a real leader, someone who could measure the scope of the threat of Jihad to the Free World and effectively, concisely respond to it. He claimed to be that man.

He has now appointed Spencer Abraham to the position of Campaign Manager. If you are unfamiliar with the do-absolutely-nothing Lebanese Republican former Secretary of Energy from 2001 to January of 2005, appointed by formerly claimed Conservative Jorge W., you should read every bit of very upsetting history that is very well summarized here and here. All of a sudden Fred's extolled tough words regarding the issues (like the Jihadi threat and securing the borders) that concern real Conservatives begin to have a hollow ring to them. Abraham is a notorious Islamic sympathizer for groups like CAIR and the American Muslim Alliance.

Here's another upsetting overview of Abraham from Freedom Folks:

Abraham is most famous as an arrogant open-borders fanatic in his work as chairman of the Senate immigration sub-committee in the late 1990s. He was so bad on immigration that in 2000 Michigan conservatives and Republicans voted for Spencer’s challenger, pro-abortion liberal Democrat Debbie Stabenow, in order to drive Spencer from the Senate. Abraham lost his Senate seat because of his commitment to open borders, pure and simple.

End result in this corner is that I am seeing another claimed Conservative ( you know... like Jorge W. once was, remember?) make moves that do not support the claim. Is Fred just unaware? I doubt it and can't turn that into a plausible reason for such a colossally STUPID appointment anyway... Can YOU? How would 'unaware' be a good reason for someone we would presumably trust to be POTUS?

It looks to me like another faker. And I must admit being foxed. Damn! That's very, very bad news. I see that as leaving only good Conservatives like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, who I would have preferred to Fred anyway based on their histories, but who also don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of beating the coming Hildebeast/Obamawama ticket. Romney can't either and Rudy never was a Conservative (pro gun control and pro abortion).

Wonderful, ain't it? Do you feel like you just swallowed a handful of phenobarbitols?

Mostly unrelated Item #2:

It pertains to the latest discovered scumbag amongst the ranks of the NFL, Michael Vicks and his dog fighting side biz. While most folks are outraged, I discovered a late commenter at another favorite blog who went apparently unnoticed. I will not name that individual, as I see that as much less important than the comment. To be entirely fair, the entire comment is posted exactly as it was written:

Torturing animals, or using animals in cockfighting or dogfighting, should not be a crime. How in the world are you going to enforce that one, guys? Do you really want yet another stupid government agency coming around inspecting your house, requiring you to have a license to own a dog, verifying that this or that animal is torture-free, and then taking away your pets if you fail some bureaucratic test?

I’m surprised and disappointed. I suspect that several of you will raise a hue and a cry to high heaven should someone float similar proposals for children. Or do you sit back and advocate government control of your children, too? I’m just curious. Why can you trust parents to take care of their kids, but you can’t trust pet owners to take care of pets?

The government steamroller must be stopped, and if we’re not willing to say, no to pet inspectors and the department of animal welfare, then we’re not going to deny ANY bureaucratic intrusion into our lives.

Haven’t we lost the fight if we’re basing our arguments on the principles of laissez faire, freedom, and trust in the common man? Too many of us have bought into the liberal concept that the world can be perfectly controlled and are attempting to legislate consciences into pet owners!

As to the lead sentence... Horse Hockey! LARGE, DEEP STEAMING piles of it!

By that logic, it should be OK for an individual to string up his dog on a tree in his front yard, beat it, starve it, cut of limbs a bit at a time to see how long it will survive and, when it expires, just cut it down and troll the neighborhood for a replacement??? Right? 'Cause hey, it "should not be a crime"! Anybody got any doubts that it wouldn't go exactly this way in today's obscene world if it was legal?

Perhaps it should not be illegal to torture or murder anything or anyone because it MIGHT lead to someone investigating a "situation" that turns out to be something other than that which it was construed?

We should ignore the fact that MOST serial killers begin their careers of malicious abuse and evil murder of PEOPLE by torturing, mutilating and animals unable to prevent it.

The commenter is disappointed in us for our views??? I will tell you that I have grown to have the highest respect for this individual up to this point. This person has a giant brain, a gentle tone and an eloquent, tremendously rare writing talent. My regard is unchanged, but I don't have to agree, and I don't.

I also share the view that unwarranted, governmental intrusions into our lives are abhorrent and undesireable. But if you're going to have a system of laws, if you're going to have investigations of allegations of abuses (even human abuse), the risk of investigating something that turns out to be null is always going to be there. That is precisely why we have a judicial system with checks and balances. It is no excuse to scrap all laws and return to all out anarchy.

Yes, the system is very much imperfect and it does fail us on occasion. But that is a reason to make actual torture and killing of animals LEGAL when evidence is substantial to indicate that it may have occurred? My contention is that if you want to make torture/murder/abuse of animals an acceptable legal pastime for the twisted minds of the world (because it may otherwise result in an accusation of someone later found to be innocent) then delete all laws because the same thing can happen in any case. Yes, if you have a law you will have to establish some level of abuse as criminal. We also have to have levels and rules to define any other crime on the books.

We do trust parents AND pet owners to take care of their respective children and pets. Possible abuses are only investigated when appreciable evidence of a possible infraction arises. There is no "parent test" that is required to procreate... nor should there be. Neither is there any "pet ownership test" that is invoked... nor should there be. To do such would be to question the presumption of innocent intent and activity without provocation. (THAT is precisely what we have with states requiring permits and qualification tests BEFORE being allowed to carry concealed weapons in a country with a 2nd Amendment that already guarantees the right.) THAT would be unacceptable and again, that is why we have a judicial system to determine when someone is framed or otherwise falsely accused.

I have no vision of any sort of "perfect control". I have immense disdain for the liberal mentality that would suggest such a concept could ever be reality. No one I know is seeking perfection either, but simply justice for verifiably inhumane acts. I also could care less about a pet owner or a parent having a "conscience". That is morality and I agree it cannot and should not be legislated. That is quite different from a society's refusal to accept proven murder and/or torture. And guess what... to convict someone of such an act, it will have to be investigated!

To round file all laws (which is a simple extension of the advanced logical argument) based on the possible abuse of an investigation is far more than throwing out the baby with the bathwater... it would be leveling the entire house.

Sorry... no sale here. OK, rip me apart. That's what the comments are for, if you are so inclined...