Well, a tour of Ft. McHenry would't be enough ... Keep in mind that the moron in
the White House went to a private school, too, and I wouldn't be surprised if he
had to be coached to recognize our national anthem right up to the time he began
to attend baseball games regularly.
Keep in mind, that it was in the early '50's that the line "under God" was added
to the Pledge of Allegiance, a fact which wasn't lost on me, as a new imigrant,
though it's likely a number of native born kids in my then 3rd grade class
missed it. I believe that if folks would take religion out of politics, as we
want everybody else, particularly the Iraqi's and Iranians, in the world to do,
we'd be better off. I have my own beliefs but certainly don't want to be just
another of those annoying twits who's got to try them out on someone else to see
if they make sense. It reflects a pretty funny way of "believing" if you ask
me, which I don't recommend.
See below, plz
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. D. Davis" <rdd_at_smart.net>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Russ Blakeman wrote:
> > Imagine having a neighbor kid hear "Star Spangled Banner" and ask "what song
> > is that?" - and he went to a PRIVATE school.
>
> Wow! It sounds as though that boy's parents need to get him enrolled
> in a tour of Ft. McHenry! ...if they know what that is, of course.
>
> It seems so strange for it to be so quiet on the 4th these days. I wonder
> if other parts of the US are as quiet as it is here in this suburb of
> Maryland.
>
> Back when I was a kid, kids used to be running around shooting off cap
> guns (I guess they're illegal now, thanks to the blasted tyranical
> politically correct politicians) and lighting firecrackersd and M80s,
> then, have we'd a cook-out followed by some marshmallow roasting and a
> watermellon seed-spitting contest/battle, which was followed later on
> in the evening with our own fireworks... fountains, exploding tanks,
> bottle-rockets, whistling rockets, and other small pyrotechnic
> displays such as pin-wheels, etc. :-)
>
Some of those same things were legally practiced when I was aged <10. Frankly,
I appreciate the quiet so far today. There'll be plenty of noise tonight when
the druggies are shooting at the cops and vice-versa, and the fire department is
out trying to keep the fireworks fanatics from burning down the town, and the
ambulances are hauling off the injured bodies, many of which will be repaired at
taxpayer expense because the same idiots who isist on using illegal fireworks
aren't smart enough to know how to do it without messing somebody or something
up. I'll be out in the yard with my garden hose, putting out the pop-bottle
rockets on my roof, courtesy of the guy across the street, even though they're
illegal anywhere in the state. It's not just illegal to discharge them, it's
illegal to have them, yet folks do. Now, those same guys will holler if, say,
somebody has a dog off-leash, or not wearing his collar with rabies tags ...
>
> Of course, even back then it was marginally illegal here in Maryland;
> we had to either have fireworks brought back from someplace like South
> Carolina or else drive out west to where Maryland, Virgiana and West
> Virginia meet and look for small stores in Virginia just over the
> border that were selling the fireworks.
>
It's funny how many "Law and Order" types think it's OK to thumb their noses at
some laws, depending on their own preferences.
>
> Did you ever think about what the real reason for the personal
> fireworks bans might be? Most likely it's not about safety---after
> all sparklers, which are legal, are rather dangerous; the real reason
> for the bans being as follows: anything that goes boom might give
> people bad ideas as to what they can do, and thus make them think more
> vividly about the revolution, tyrannical, tax-hungry and corrupt
> politicians, and certain words of Thomas Jefferson about an uprising
> every so often to keep this a free nation. Such thoughts ought not be
> thunk by good little citizens, what?
>
Such thoughts normally aren't "thunk" by persons of
greater-than-room-temperature I.Q.
The reason there's a right to keep and bear arms is that if private individuals
don't have that right, the government will be the only one with guns, and
they've already got their boots on our necks. The only requirements ought to be
that in order to purchase and own a gun one must have (1) scored 101 or higher
on a standard IQ test, (2) held a job for at least 3 consecutive years of his
life, (3) hasn't ever committed a felony or a misdemeaner involving violence,
and (4) demonstrate by regular blood, urine, or hair tests, at his own expense,
that he/she doesn't use illegal chemicals, or alcohol to illegal levels.
Failing any of these qualifications, even once, should permanently and forever
disqualify him from going within 10 meters of a firearm not being used against
him. Punishment for violation should be immediate immersion in molten iron. A
monthly list of apologies should be issued for cases in which there might have
been an error.
Further, I believe that every citizen should be required to demonstrate his
ability to read, write, and spell well enough that he could write the
Declaration of Independence without spelling errors, repeat it, pronouncing each
word correctly, defining each word correctly, and by paraphrasing every
paragraph correctly in context. Failure to do so, even once, should result in
that citizen's enrollment in a class to which he/she will be confined until they
repeatedly pass these tests three times in succession, only after which they'll
be allowed to eat, drink, or go to the bathroom.
Not everybody feels this way, however. Some may even believe that's a good
thing.
>
> --
> Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
> All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
> rdd_at_rddavis.net 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify
such
> http://www.rddavis.net beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
>
>
Received on Wed Jul 04 2001 - 14:51:46 BST