Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Saturday, August 18, 2007

From LifeSite: China's New Big Brother Scheme

By Hillary White

SHENZEN, China, August 17, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Face recognition software installed in 200,000 close circuit tv cameras; government monitoring of all personal computers and cell phones; a central computer system that will store data on all citizens including the number of their children, education records, medical and credit histories, medical insurance status, names and phone numbers of landlords and employment histories and ethnicity.

All of this may sound like something out of a futuristic spy thriller or dystopian science fiction novel, but it will soon become the reality for citizens of the large southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, near Hong Kong, where it is being run as a pilot project by China's national security. The Daily Telegraph reports that the Chinese government announced the technology to run the scheme will be provided by China Public Security Technology, a company run by Chinese entrepreneurs and registered in Florida."

If you think this has nothing to do with us here in the USA, just go to China-Mart, I mean Wal-Mart, and see where the majority of merchandise is made. China's stuff has invaded, and continues to invade, our lives daily. When will this technology be practiced on us "by them" as the norm?

Friday, August 17, 2007

What 'Hate Crime' Legislation Can Do

Watch this video to see what Orwellian "hate crime" legislation had wrought in England already:

Remember, liberals always point to Europe as the place they want the United States to be like.

How would you like to have the police approach you like you'd done something wrong just for sharing your faith? How would you like to have to hire an attorney just because you repeated something the Bible said?

The U.S. House has already passed a hate crimes bill, and the Senate is considering one now. If you value your freedom, you may want to contact Senator Tim Johnson and Senator John Thune and ask them to vote NO to hate crime legislation that seeks to give special rights to homosexuals and potentially make criminals of Christians.

The Problem With the Fairness Doctrine

A Free Republic post yesterday points to a 1997 Cato Institute paper on the Fairness Doctrine and why it is a weapon of the government that is the enemy of the First Amendment:

In 1962 President Kennedy's policies were under sustained attack from conservative broadcasters across the country. Of particular concern to the president were vocal right-wing opponents of the nuclear test ban treaty being considered by the Senate at the time. The administration and the DNC seized upon the Fairness Doctrine as a way to "counter the radical right" in their battle to pass the treaty. The Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was established and funded by the Democrats, orchestrated a very effective protest campaign against hostile radio editorials, demanding free reply time under the Fairness Doctrine whenever a conservative broadcaster denounced the treaty. Ultimately, the Senate ratified the treaty by far more than the necessary two-thirds majority.

Flush with success, the DNC and the Kennedy-Johnson administration decided to extend use of the doctrine to other high-priority legislation and the impending 1964 elections. Democratic Party funding sources were used to establish a professional listening post to monitor right-wing radio. The DNC also prepared a kit explaining "how to demand time under the Fairness Doctrine," which was handed out at conferences. As Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

By November 1964, when Johnson beat Goldwater in a landslide, the Democrats' "fairness" campaign was considered a stunning success. The effort had produced 1,035 letters to stations, resulting in 1,678 hours of free airtime. Critical to the campaign was the fact that much of the partisan commentary came from small, rural stations. In a confidential report to the DNC, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former FCC staffer, explained,

"The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."

One of the key strengths of the Fairness Doctrine as a weapon of the government (e.g. incumbents) is that it creates a false perception of public opinion. For instance, if there is a huge outcry from the public against strawberry icecream, but the Fairness Doctrine mandates that for every person who expresses an opinion against strawberry icecream, broadcasters must find and broadcast someone who likes strawberry icecream, not only will they expend a lot of their resources finding the rare person who likes strawberry icecream, by giving the overall impression that 50% of people hate strawberry icecream and 50% of people like strawberry icecream, that presents a false impression of the overall public opinion on the issue--a false impression received by the listening public, and by the representatives who may vote on icecream legislation.

Now apply this to a real issue such as illegal immigration. The vast majority of people in the country oppose it an oppose amnesty, as outcry a few weeks ago demonstrated...and as a result, amnesty proposals in Congress flopped. But if the news had been forced to give equal time to both views, Congress would have been presented with the "picture" of public opinion that people were evenly divided on the issue. Then amnesty would almost certainly have passed.

The perception of the threat of public outcry is often the only tool--between elections--the people of the United States have when their representatives go badly off course. The Fairness Doctrine would take that tool away from them.

And contrary to the public protestations of liberal politicians and their apologists in the Left wing blogosphere, they want very much to bring it back, and have already been strategizing extensively on how to do so.

Health Care: Cost Shifting Doomed to Fail

A good summary of the nature of health care insurance and socialized medicine at the American Thinker:

Indeed, health insurance fundamentally is designed to shift the cost of providing health care from those who need it but can't afford it, to those who don't need it but can afford it. When people complain about a lack of national health insurance, in other words, what they really are saying is that someone else should be required to pay the cost of their medical care. Not only is this a radically irresponsible and immoral position in itself; but also, as a practical matter, few people, even in a society as rich as ours, have sufficient personal resources to pay out-of-pocket for the very best health care our medical industry has to offer in all contingencies. (Just as very few people can afford the nicest homes or fanciest cars or toniest prep schools.) So trying to shift the cost to other people through a scheme of national health insurance, ultimately, can't work. Whether individually or as a nation, we cannot consume more health care than we can afford.

HT to Free Republic.

Bush Hating in the Newsroom

Need more proof that the media is overwhelmingly biased to the Left?

Here's a quote from Joe Scarborough on Newsbusters:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: There was a story out of Seattle, and the reason I love it is that it's transparency in the news. You have an editor who was actually outing his own people. The Seattle Times newsroom broke into applause when Karl Rove resigned. And of course that's bad. What I like about it is that the editor actually wrote about it and went in and told the people in the newsroom that was unacceptable.

And I've got to say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President's State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president actually from the beginning to the end. And I actually talked to [NBC/MSNBC executive] Phil Griffin about it, and he said "how was it last night?" Because he was the one that called me out of the Ace Hardware store, got my vest on. He said "how was it last night?" I said "well, it's OK, I understand it's a little bit different up here than it is down in northwest Florida, but you had people in the newsroom actively booing the President of the United States. Phil turned red very quickly. That didn't happen again.

Everyone is biased; anyone who doesn't have a philosophy or political opinion is woefully ignorant or has already taken liberal "tolerance" to it's logical extreme--however, there are few people who fit either of those categories, at least to the degree that they'd have no political bias.

The problem comes in when journalists allow that bias to so color and shape what they report, what they DON'T report, and how they report, then it crosses the line.

And when they try to pretend they're objective and unbiased, when even the average American can see that they are, then the story of the emperor's new clothes comes to mind.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Why so many Americans today are 'mentally ill'

David Kupelian has a lengthy but if you're a Christian it's a very interesting article on the "mental illness" epidemic we're seeing these days.

But is it really mental illness? Or is it something spiritual, like buried guilt and un-dealt with character (sin?) issues?

Are you a normal boy who doesn't really like shutting up and sitting at a desk for six hours a day listening to some boring teacher? You may have "attention deficit disorder." Are you an angry volcano inside? Then you suffer from "intermittent explosive disorder." Do you get drunk to deal with your problems? That used to be considered a moral failing, a character weakness, a failure to face your problems with courage and honesty. Now, of course, it's a disease called "alcoholism."

Today, everything is physiological and genetic and treated with drugs. Nothing is your fault. You're an innocent victim.

Furthermore, many of us like it that way. We like the idea that whatever is wrong with us is an organic disorder, that there's no sin, no weakness, no deficit of character on our part. Our egos love that, it comforts us.

Kupelian also talks about the trend of throwing a drug at every problem or negative feeling that comes along. He shares part of a letter from a Christian woman who had been using psychiatric drugs to run away from some issues where God was trying to work on her.
She added: "In the beginning, the drug was good, because it enabled me to think rationally and come out of my basement. If I had used that rational thinking to get a grip on the sin that was pulling me down into depression, I could have dealt with it biblically, and been off the drug in short order. But I did not. I became dependent on those pills and was gradually numbed to the seriousness of my sin. By God’s grace, I came to the recognition that this drug could be stunting my spiritual growth, and that turned out to be exactly the case."

Several years ago, before I became a drunk, I became very angry with God because I believed he had mistreated me. The error had actually been mine, but rather than face the fact that I had been wrong, I kept clinging to my anger and belief that God just liked to see me squirm, that he got a kick out of watching me suffer. That anger eventually became too much to deal with unaided, and I turned to the booze to help deaden my conscience. The only problem was, the longer my original sin problem went un-dealt with, the more booze it took to deaden the hurt.

It wasn't until I finally couldn't sink any deeper into despair and faced the fact that I had been wrong, that I received God's forgiveness, and though the habitual impulse of turning to the bottle was there for a while, God took away that need to medicate. I still have ups and downs, times where I get angry, confused, frustrated or hurt. But I now run to God instead of from God when that happens, and I get a lot more solace from Him than I ever did from the bottle.

We'd all be a lot better off if we dealt with our problems honestly and frankly. Unfortunately our society makes it easy to avoid that with "good times" images of alcohol use, and prescription pill-popping cure-alls.

Meanwhile, as Kupelian points out, such an escapist approach leads to more and more danger to those who "medicate" their consciences, and to those around them.

It's time we quit trying to escape our character (sin?) issues, and time we quit encouraging others to do it. It isn't smart, and it isn't loving.

Wisconsin: The High Cost of 'Free' Health Care

The National Center for Policy Analysis points to a Washington Times article about another of the "hidden costs" of socialized medicine.

This one should get the attention of even those elderly folks who are more prone to embrace socialism because of their dependence on it (Social Security, Medicare, etc.).

The NCPA piece summarizes what happens with European socialized medicine:

- More expensive drugs and treatments with fewer side effects are set aside for younger patients, while less expensive drugs are given to the elderly because of budgetary constraints in a system providing "free" health care.

- Studies of kidney dialysis show that more than a fifth of dialysis centers in Europe and almost half of those in England have refused to treat patients over 65 years of age.

- If governments continue these policies, euthanasia will soon be the price that the solidarity principle of the European welfare states imposes on the very old and the very sick.

From the Washington Times article "Costly 'affordable' health care" by Paul Belien yesterday:
John Stossel is right. Last week he wrote that the "Healthy Wisconsin" scheme, passed in that state's Senate and offering supposedly "free" socialized health care, is good for America because people apparently need bad examples. As Mr. Stossel says, "We need laboratories of failure to demonstrate what socialism is like. All we have now is Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the U.S. Post Office, and state motor-vehicle departments. It's not enough. Wisconsin can show the other 49 states what 'universal' [health] coverage is like. I feel bad for the people in Wisconsin... but it's better to experiment with one state than all of America."

Here's what Stossel says about Wisconsin's "free" health care:
In addition, as the Journal put it, "Wow, is 'free' health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes."

And, of course, down the road it will cost much more than that. Even the $15 billion is based on the usual Pollyannaish assumptions such as millions in savings "from putting more emphasis on primary care."

Stossel also points out something I've been saying for a long time: that government meddling has a great deal to do with why the cost of health care is so high:
Does it never occur to the progressives that the legislature's intrusion into private contracts is one reason health care and health insurance are expensive now? The average annual health-insurance premium for a family in Wisconsin is $4,462 partly because Wisconsin imposes 29 mandates on health insurers: Every policy must cover chiropractors, dentists, genetic testing, etc. Think chiropractors are quacks? Too bad. You still must pay them to treat people in your state.

Want to buy insurance from another state, like nearby Michigan, where an average policy costs less? Too bad. It's against the law to buy across state lines. Your state's Big Brother knows best.

This regulatory meddling, in addition to the government's existing forays into socialized medicine (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP/SCHIP, etc.) have a lot to do with why the cost of health care has shot past the ability of the average American to pay without over-regulated insurance.

Socialists always think that the last failure of socialism was just because the last bunch of Marxists weren't smart enough, or enough money wasn't thrown at it.

Maybe if they see that American Marxism is just as doomed to failure as European and Asian Marxism, maybe at least average Americans will wake up and reject this road to a dead-end promise that's paved with broken dreams.

Socialism promises you can have your cake and eat it too...and it never, ever, ever delivers.

Candidates Compete for the Idgit Vote

Democrats have always done extremely well in capturing this voting block. Republicans should wise up and try to reach this demographic.

In The Know: Candidates Compete For Vital Idgit Vote

Is Huckabee a Conservative Huckster?

Some are wondering why Mike Huckabee is getting fairly positive coverage, for a conservative. I have to admit I've pondered it myself.

Robert Novak takes brief note of this in his piece at Human Events today.
Marc Ambinder bounces off Novak's column and has this to say:

Certainly, Huckabee knows that the press still cricks its neck toward conservative evangelicalsm and so he plays against type: he knows that the press doesn't like to hear about the evils of homosexuality or the perils of abortion, so he rarely talks about those subjects. (He's a "pro-life for the whole-life" kind of guy.)

Could it be that the media doesn't think he's electable by the general public, or they want Republicans to spend more energy tearing each other apart before the general campaign, so they want to give him a leg up so he can burn up the resources of more viable candidates? Hard to say.

In any event, while there's a lot to like about Huckabee, some of his ideas give me pause.

For instance, I posted last month on comments he's made which indicate he has an unbalanced view of grace and righteousness (and many political philosophies flow out of theological issues). Those same comments also indicate he might have a little too much good will for socialist policies (again, some well-meaning but flawed socialist ideas flow from a misunderstanding of the Bible).

Would he be better than a Clinton or Obama? Undoubtedly. But you have to watch carefully anyone who minimizes doing the right thing, and believes government has a role to dispense charity.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Military Recruitment

The National Center for Policy Analysis spotlights an article in Investors Business Daily about the makeup of our military personnel.

You may recall Rep. Charlie Rangle (D-NY) has for at least a couple of years been calling for a return to the draft. As someone who served 10 years in the military, I can tell you that Rangle's class-envy rhetoric about the po' folk who have nowhere to go but serve as cannon fodder in our military is a bunch of bunk.

As NCPA and the article point out,

In both cases, he was wrong about the soldiers who comprise our all-volunteer armed forces:

- Roughly 95 percent of the recruits are high school graduates; the national average is about 80 percent.

- In the Air Force, nearly 50 percent have advanced professional degrees.

- The poorest Americans made up less than 15 percent of the recruits in 2003 while recruits from households earning between $42,000 and $200,000 a year constituted nearly 45 percent.

The fact is, the military has a distinct middle-America look, says IBD:

- The bulk of recruits come from households with annual income of $25,000 to $45,000.

- The share from households where the yearly income is $75,000 or $80,000 is strikingly similar to that from households where the income is $10,000 a year.

The article also points out that, contrary to Leftist rhetoric, there is not a disproportionate number of minorities serving in the military.

If we need to increase the number of our military personnel, we can always step up recruitment efforts and increase the pay/benefits package for military personnel. We haven't even tried these things, so calling for the draft is unnecessary.

Besides, having a volunteer force means you have a military made up of people who asked to be there. It means, with the exception of a few opportunists just looking for a free college education, that your military is made up of men and women who love their country fiercely and are willing to fight for her.

The whole call for a draft is disingenuous coming from the Left, since they were falling all over themselves to slash the military when the Cold War ended. Remember the "peace dividend?"

When are they going to learn that there are always going to be evil people out there who want America in their cross hairs?

Study: Multiple Stab Wounds Harmful to Monkeys

I had always suspected this, and now we have the proof.

Study: Multiple Stab Wounds May Be Harmful To Monkeys

The Human Cost of Environmental Radicalism

Think I'm too tough on the environmental wackos?

Try reading Walter E. Williams' new column as he recounts the cost of elevating God's lower creation above that which He said was created in His image:

- New Orleans flood control that might have made a difference in Katrina

- Lives lost to malaria due to the prohibitive hysteria around the use of DDT

- Fire proofing that could have prevented the World Trade Towers from crashing down

- Better insulation that would have saved the space shuttle Columbia astronauts

- The thousands dead from driving around in cheap plastic excuses for cars

Humans are to be good stewards of the planet God has given us. But plants and animals are NOT more valuable than human beings, with an eternal soul, created in the image of God. We should worship the Creator rather than created things.

Environmental Pandering Not Catching On

According to a new study mentioned by CNS News, all this pandering to environmental wackos by businesses just isn't getting the bang for the buck:

"Consumers are not drinking the Kool-Aid when it comes to green," said J. Walker Smith, president of the Yankelovich, Inc., marketing firm, which released the survey results on Monday.

"While they're highly aware of environmental issues due to the glut of media attention," said Smith, "the simple fact is that 'going green' in their everyday life is simply not a big concern or a high priority."

This is "the first study of its kind to examine how much consumers truly care about green issues," stated the research firm, based in Chapel Hill, N.C., in a news release, which further noted that only 34 percent of consumers feel much more concerned about environmental issues today than a year ago.

Also, only 22 percent of the 2,763 consumers surveyed think they can make a difference when it comes to the environment.

What a shame for American business to waste all that money chatting up environmental radicalism, then only have the wackos pay attention.

South Dakota Scores Well on ACT

According to the Argus Leader, South Dakota's students scored 18th best among the 50 states on ACTs:

The state ranked 18th in the nation with an overall score of 21.9, up from 21.8 a year ago and ahead of the national 21.2. South Dakota scores improved in each of the four subjects - English, math, reading and science - and continued a five-year growth trend for high school students taking the college-prep exam.

As you noticed from the article, we are ahead of the national average.

Yet despite doing better than the national average, some in our state contend we are not "adequately" funding education. Some in our state contend that one part of our government must use taxpayer money to file a lawsuit against another part of our government to squeeze more taxpayer money out of that second part of our government.

Uh huh. Nice lessons to our children, education establishment: (1) squeeze the taxpayers at every opportunity and (2) if you don't have what you want, sue sue sue.

Bureaucrats Banning Balloons

I know I just posted on "Political Correctness Gone Overboard" earlier, but when it comes to liberals and their PC, it seems there's a never-ending game of one-upsmanship to see who can come up with the strangest, silliest, most unnatural pronouncement.

Now the bureaucrats in Britain (the country liberals believe we should be like) have banned a clown from using balloons in his act, lest some child with a latex allergy be exposed.

I forget where I saw it, but earlier today I read about the paradox here: we don't want to expose kids to latex balloons, but we'll throw latex condoms at them at any opportunity and encourage them to use them.

Big Brother bureaucracy has been slowing bringing this clown's act to a close, even before this outright ban.

From Breitbart.com:

He said he was also told by one venue he could not twist balloons into the shape of guns for fear of encouraging youngsters to commit violence, although swords were deemed acceptable.

Maybe things have changed since I lived in England, but when I was there about 17 years ago, there was little danger that someone might shoot you (liberals had already confiscated all the guns except those belonging to terrorists--for some reason the terrorists wouldn't comply). But if you listened to the radio news, it was shocking how many people were stabbing, slashing and strangling one another.

I suppose the COL (Cocooning Our Lives) Committee, aka Politically Correct Committee, just hasn't seen fit to decide that sharp objects are now verboten.

Remember, this is what liberalism is working for here in the U.S. Cool, huh?

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Insurance Companies Sentencing People to Death?


A Smithville, Mo. man battling cancer says he's also fighting his insurance company.

Ed Fenton, 45, claims Coventry Health Care won't pay for a surgery he needs to stay alive. Fenton has been fighting colon cancer for a year."

Also in the report:

"This surgery, if I don't have it I'll die. Period. I don't have a choice," Fenton said.

Fenton's family said the insurance company's decision is tough for them to handle, because Fenton has a lot of living left to do.

"He's so strong. He wants to live. He has two children 13 and 17. He wants to see them graduate from high school. He wants to see them walk down the aisle," Rhonda Fenton, wife, said.

Insurance companies sentencing people to death by denying coverage? When did we start "allowing" that to happen?

Mrs. Fenton is right when she says,

"I think we really need to start stepping up as Americans and saying 'this is not OK,'" Rhonda Fenton said. "If you don't think it can happen to you, you're wrong. It can happen to anyone."

Homosexuals Too Precious to Risk in Combat

I confess I'd never looked at the issue this way before.

'Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat,' Says General

Political Correctness Gone Overboard

I know, I know: the title of this post is pretty lame, since PC went overboard a long, long time ago. But I'm tired and it's the best I can do.

I saw this article on CNS News called "School Calendar Drops 'History' Months After 'Gay' Flap" and just had to shake my head yet again.

A controversy stemming from the inclusion of "Gay and Lesbian History Month" in last year's calendar has prompted the Philadelphia School District to release a 2007-08 schedule that omits any tributes to the history of any groups of people.

But this change has sparked a new dispute: The head of a homosexual advocacy group called the move "appalling," and the leader of a pro-family organization hailed it as "a courageous step" to protect students "from the dangerous message that 'gay is okay.'"

Children really need to learn this stuff?

Here's a novel idea for American children: have an "American History Month" since it seems too much trouble for our education system to teach about our countrys origins, foundations, traditions, and form of government. They'd really learn a lot--more than they're learning in these divisive Hyphenated-American (and misc. demographical group) History Month farces.

Speaking of political correctness gone overboard, the Sunday edition of the Rapid City Journal yesterday had a "normalization" article on the front page of the business section. It was ostensibly about the high price of gas for RVs, but the featured "couple" was a couple of homosexuals and their "son."

Not a single "judgmental" word in the article, just
But Carl and Terry Haley know a bargain when they see one, which is why the Los Angeles couple recently paid $16,000 for a used home-onwheels.

With the caption under the picture:
From left, Carl and Terry Haley with son Corbin in the 30-foot motor home they recently bought.

In fact, there is no mention whatsoever that these two men are even homosexuals, other than the "couple" reference. Not even a passing mention that this living arrangement might be considered "by some" as "controversial."

Meanwhile, this young boy is robbed of a mother in his home and led to believe that a practice and lifestyle that is dangerous on many levels is "normal."

This is part of the process of "normalization," where we are spoon-fed articles, ads and such from the media placing homosexuals in a "normal" setting, thus leading the general public to see homosexuals, along with their relationships (including adopting children) as "normal."

So how does it feel to be a lab rat in the politically correct laboratory of homosexuals and their accomplices in the "mainstream" media? Is it working?

Rantings and ravings don't necessarily lower one's blood pressure

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: Rantings and ravings come in all sizes, shapes and colors. In fact, there's a newspaper in that town down by Harrisburg that publishes every once in a while a column of rants and raves by whomever volunteers for the day. So far, so good. However, it doesn¹t seem to make much difference if the author is ranting or raving about an issue, my blood pressure boils at some, and chills out at others. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to devote this week's column to some rantings and ravings of my own. (Full Article)

Hiding Behind a Sick Man

My column in the Rapid City Journal today addresses the recent meltdowns by some Democrats (sorry, Todd, I wanted to mention your blogosphere meltdowns, but I only had so much space in the column) after Senator John Ensign said Republicans weren't going to wait any longer to begin their campaign to capture the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Tim Johnson.

Here's the central gist in my column:

Republicans have been patient for eight months and haven’t tried to attack a sick man. It’s sad to think some Democrats might be willing to hide behind one.

Sorry, but I don't see it as unreasonable to get the campaign under way at this point, some eight months after Johnson fell ill, and many months after other campaigns are already building steam.

And Todd, I just haven't seen the despicable hatred of Johnson that you claim to have seen somewhere.

Republicans can get their fundraising efforts going and get their message out without "attacking a sick man." In fact, regardless of Johnson's health, I'd like to see them campaign on what they're for and what they want to do, rather than all on what they don't like about Johnson's votes.

But Ensign's announcement didn't warrant the hysteria that came from the Left in response to it. So does that mean the strategy of some Democrats is to stir up voter anger and raise money by capitalizing on a man's illness?

Monday, August 13, 2007

Weekend in Pierre

Sorry about the light (or non-existent posting) over the weekend. I published a few comments, but that was about it. My family and I spent the weekend in Pierre (the capital of South Dakota, for you out-of-staters), and there was lots to d.

Besides being busy seeing all the sites, I was supposed to have a "high speed" internet connection in our hotel, but it was about as slow as dialup for some reason, so I didn't spend much time online.

I'm posting just a handful of pics from this weekend. One is my wife and children by bronze statue of a soldier in Vietnam that was near the lake by the capitol building. Another is of the Korean and Vietnam veterans memorial nearby. Another is from a boat tour we took last night down the Missouri River, retracing some of the steps of the Lewis and Clark Expedition a little over 200 years ago (my daughter is helping demonstrate life vest useage). And one of my kids in front of the capitol building (my son was not a happy camper at that point--he'd had enough of the 100 degree heat).

I took tons more pics, and we saw many more things, but you get the idea. We try to make many of our family outings educational as well as fun, and this trip had lots of both.

I'd highly recommend a visit of a day or two to Pierre if you haven't had the opportunity to check it out.

Clicky Web Analytics