A Different Slant

Well here we go again...

I'm not always so angry or upset. Sometimes I actually write poetry. If you do not like poetry, now's the time to log out and go somewhere else!

Here are two songs I wrote over the past two years. No, I actually write quite a few, not just one per year. But these may have some special meaning for some folks...


MOUNTAIN MOURNING

From here in the hills of old West Virginia,
I left my parents when I was a kid.
To make my living I went up to Ohio,
And that was the hardest thing I ever did.

I spent four years in Youngstown and Akron,
Then I went up north and made Cleveland my home.
I came back every spring to see all my old folks
And always felt so sad 'cause I had to roam.

Well, Dad up and died way back in the Eighties.
Mom was heartbroken, and soon she did too.
We buried them there, on the hill by the homeplace.
And I never dreamed that I'd come back so soon.

The procession just passed out of Southern Ohio;
Down Route 10 to Harts Creek I'll take my last ride.
And now up the hollow I see the old homeplace,
And there stands my Dad with his blushing young bride.

The preacher's there waiting with them in the graveyard.
The rest of my family are all here with me.
And now I can rest here with Mama and Daddy,
Back at my home for eternity.

Now I'm home forever, and I won't leave, no, never.
I'll sleep here forever with Mama and Dad.
Now I'm home forever, just lay the grass over.
I'll sleep here forever with Mama and Dad.

(c) 11 Dec 2004

And for a little bit of a change, there's...

MOUNTAIN IN THE MORNING

Pulled off the expressway and headed
South down through the countryside.
Grass and brush was green
But still they couldn't hide,
The rocky ramps and gullies,
Filled up hollows and flattened hills.
Coal company took the money
And left us to pay the bills.

Worked inside a mountain,
Shoveled coal 'til that day came;
Got busted up and since then
I've had to use this cane.
But never had to ride a dozer.
Never had to bear that shame,
Of watching so-called miners
Pull down hills, to this state's shame.

A mountain in the morning,
A rubbish pile at end of day.
I grieve now for my children
Who will be forced to pay
For the ignorance of their parents,
Who let the company have its way.
And the Appalachian Mountains
Are the flatlands of today.

(c) 21 Aug 2006


Just a little something to break up the monotony of reams and reams of prose. I'll continue to weave a few in now and then.

Israel, Child of Woe

Well, here's your chance to crucify me.

Hezbollah attacked Israel with rockets. Israel attacked southern Lebanon where it was supposed Hezbollah agents were located. Lebanon refused to get involved.

Let's look at what we've got. (1) An outlaw organization moves in and takes over the southern part of Lebanon and the duly constituted government of Lebanon does nothing. Receiving arms and money from Syria and Iran, Hezbollah amasses a huge cache of rockets as well as buying enough men to fire them and places to set up firing stations all over southern Lebanon, not to mention small arms of all kinds. (2) In retaliation, Israel launches attacks against the duly constituted government of Lebanon which is the responsible government of the territory from which the rockets were launched. After a week of pounding Hezbollah positions all over Lebanon, Israel announces it will begin an all-out frontal assault on the southern portion of Lebanon (where the bulk of Hezbollah members reside.) The duly constituted government of Lebanon does nothing. (3) The United Nations arranges a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon. Hezbollah declares total victory.

Hello.

Does anyone besides me see any problems here?

Is everyone as dumb as that?

Boy, I think I'll start me another pyramid scheme if they are! But has anyone got the guts to say anything? Not so far.

Well, here goes nothin'. Hezbollah is correct. It is a total victory for them. There is no mention of disarming Hezbollah after the cease-fire. The UN peacekeeping troops are not allowed to detain anyone. The UN peacekeeping troops are not allowed to shoot anyone. The UN peacekeeping troops are sitting ducks with no power to even wipe their ass unless Hezbollah lets them. They are not even charged with observing. Just what they are there for, no one really knows for it was not made clear by the UN. I use the term 'UN peacekeeping troops' advisedly and purposely, and hopefully to excess, to show how utterly ridiculous that term is.

I cheered when Israeli forces started into southern Lebanon. I thought, well, maybe, now we'll get something done about Hezbollah. But, just as Bush I was stopped before toppling Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War, so Israel was stopped from completing the oncoming rout of Hezbollah. Israel would have scorched the earth if necessary to rid the world of those vermin. But the UN stopped them. And, by doing so, has left untouched one of the most evil force for terrorism the world has ever known.

Seems to me they were involved in the killing of over two hundred American Marines a number of years ago in Beirut--and any number of other killings, kidnappings and bombings that have occurred. And the UN just doesn't get it. Kopi Annan is a complete ass, one whose only talents are for graft and allowing future slaughter to occur with the hope of current stability. I don't know how other people feel; for myself, I'd rather I die now that my children and grandchildren would be able to live in peace in the future. The UN apparently does not feel that way. Exactly the opposite. Am I wrong?

Now, why are Lebanese troops being used by the UN in Lebanon? This is a first in the history of the world. Never have a country's own troops been used by the UN to keep peace in their own country. What's the point? They are the reason for the dispute at the outset. If the Lebanese government had employed them to do their job and rid their country of an outlaw organization, there would have been no war. These troops have been so ineffective that Lebanon's government indicated they were not strong enough to even begin rooting out Hezbollah.

Comes now a question. If the war was between Israel and Hezbollah, why was Lebanon asked for it's approval of the cease-fire terms? If the war was between Israel and Lebanon, the Lebanese would have rolled over and played dead after one day of it. Lebanon was not involved one way or the other, so why was it's approval sought?

Comes now a question. Since the war was between Israel and Hezbollah, why was not Hezbollah asked to approve the cease-fire? Of course, the answer is, that Hezbollah is not a country certified to the UN as a country in it's own right, it is simply an outlaw, terrorist, political arm of Syria and Iran.

Comes now the real question. Why in hell did Israel accept asuch a cease fire agreement? This is the boner I can't get through my thick skull. Why would Israel accept such an obviously bad cease fire agreement? Did the Israeli government have so much political pressure put on it that it had to yield? Was the US putting on that pressure? God, I hope not!

But Israel has put itself in the most precarious position it has been in since it's inception back in 1948. There is really no way out for Israel now. With Hamas on the south and Hezbollah on the north; with both Syria and Iran spoiling for a fight; with the UN imposed cease-fire agreement hamstringing it, I have grave doubts for Israel's survival. She's a tough old bird but she's playing a losing hand right now. And our government is not putting up much squawk, either.

I can hear St. Peter calling, I can almost smell the flowers-------

The King's (Queen'S) English

Back in the Dark Ages, when I was a kid, there was a word that denoted laughter, joy, happiness; but now that word has come to mean homosexuality or lesbianism, whichever you choose, and has none of the previous connation attached to it. I point this out only to illustrate that what was once the King's English, is still the King's English and has simply undergone a strain, as it does constantly, due to individuals placing their own meanings upon the words and rules of construction. Kind of "When I say a word it means what I mean it to say."

For years I have railed against the use of nouns as verbs and all it has ever gotten me is some relief from Mrs. Sumpter's pronouncement: Thou shall not trifle with the King's English. Use it as you received it and cursed be he that tries to change it (or something like that, ask Dave Peyton, he can tell you.) I have a group of four or five little diatribes I have written regarding the inappropriate usage of nouns for verbs, contractions that aren't, synonyms that never were and so on. Everyone reads them and laughs. Says, "Boy that's the truth." And goes ahead and does it incorectly anyway.

But this is not to say that it will not grate on my nerves and provoke me to shout, "Dammit, say it right or shut up!" I will forever and ever refuse to tolerate sloppily written prose. And sloppily spoken language. If it is part of an act, that might be acceptable, but as a matter of daily ritual, it isn't. I reserve the right to be a cranky old SOB to anyone who makes horrible blunders. I will make them aware of their errors. If they want to use impact as a verb, that only shows their foolishness. If they want to say that gay is a homesexual, I hope they never let Gay know it, because she was as straight as they are not.

So there's another word, straight. How did it ever get to mean heterosexual. It always meant directly ahead or behind, right or left, at a ninety degree angle from the perpendicular, or, in some cases, the perpendicular. If you were a straight guy, you were a regular guy, and the straight meant more about your sense of right and wrong than about what you did with whatever is between your legs. So those of the homosexual , or gay, persuasion just defeated their own damned purpose by calling the opposition, straight. For if you are straight, then you are right by definition, so gay must by definition, be wrong. Nothing biblical about that, chums, just the way it is.

God, I hate it when I go off on a tangent like that. But I digress...

The local newspaper, in apparent adherence to some Associated Press bible has recently been the victim of saying, "on the 1600 block of Some Street." Well-----it ain't. It is "in the 1600 block of..." It may look right in print according to the AP, but try saying it. I live on the fifteen hundred block of... Doesn't that sound stupid. And well it should.

And , while I'm at it, there isn't any such word as "bust" except as a slang devolution of 'burst'. I don't care if there was a drug bust, you cannot refer to it in that manner. Call it as drug raid or whatever, just not a drug bust. The local media as well as national are just as guilty as each other. Monkey see, monkey do.

I'm sick and tired of television, radio and newpaper personnel who do not know geography or history. It seems to me those would be absolute requirements for their jobs, and, if not, should be so.

And, as another digression, I prefer health workers and others to refer to me as Mr. SoandSo, not by my given name. I'm 64 years old and these young turks have not earned the right to call me by my first name, until I tell them to do so. Even when working, my co-workers called me Mr. unless I asked them to use my first name. Why should unknown people be allowed to do so? Ain't gonna happen, I'll correct them in a whipstitch.

Back the the topic at hand--Back in the Dark Ages, when I was a kid, even commercials made sense. Very few featured cartoon characters whipped up by a computer so the development company could save cash by not having to employ actors, cameramen, sound technicians, ad nauseaum. Of course, they now look terribly naive and outdated, but that was the times we lived through and made us what we are today. And what we are today is the richest land in all the world, the strongest land in all the world, and the recognized leaders of the world.

And we got it by being straight. We didn't cheat, lie or coerce our way. We did it the old fashioned way--we earned it. With, as Winston Churchill was wont to say, "...blood sweat, toil and tears..." So why are some in our country now poor-mouthing it? Damitall, they have no backbone for substantive, progressive work. All they want to do is tear down the country our forebears bought for us with their misery and joy. But, unfortunately, the United States government has made a few military blunders of late.

The most recently negotiated 'ceasefire' in Lebanon will come back to haunt the entire world, I'm afraid. The immediate cause of the upset, Hezbollah, was not stripped of their arms and no provision has been made to do so. Verily, I say unto thee, beware the Iranian and Syrian who supplies money and arms and the whole damned world who supplies moral support to Hezbollah, for it places Irsael and the United States into one camp and the rest of the world into another. And, while we might be able to lick'em, I don't like the odds too much.

Again, we stopped short in Iraq. Now I ask you, tell me the truth, did we not confiscate every except ceremonial, weapon the Japanese and Germans had at the end of WWII (add all the AXIS partners.) Why did we not do it in Iraq? Why did we not do it in Afghanistan? And why did we not do it in Iraq in the Gulf War? Anyone with any sense at all knows that if an enemy is allowed to walk around with a gun on his hip, he's likely to use it against someone.

And guess who that someone may be. You got it in one.

Now, what is the tie-in between the beginning of this diatribe and the end? Just this. The way to win the world is through consistent steadfastness to the rules of conduct. Language is only one part of that steadfastness, but the English, in their colonial days, knew it to be an important part, and so they capitalized it and called it THE KING'S ENGLISH. And, as such, it was not to be trifled with. The same is true today, even though two hundred and more years have passed, keep control over the small things and control over the large things will be much more easily accomplished.

The United States kept that control until the late fifties /early sixties saw a breakdown begin or accelerate, perhaps. By that time we had in reality already won the world for the major opposition, communism, was becoming a doddering old man who would fall into his grave within a few years. Only one major country in the world now professes communism and that is Red China--who is rapidly becoming the most capitalistic country on earth, also. Cuba can be disregarded as well as other smaller nations.

But the same internal rot that sent communism into its grave will consume America if allowed to continue. We must keep tight to our forebears and keep straight in our path or we are lost. Not tomorrow, nor within the next few decades, but eventually the house must fall if the termites work long enough.

But you know its hard to stop me when I get started. But I will. Now.

Tanstaafl

RIGHTS AND WRONGS

The local news media announced a day or so ago that the county mounties, super troopers and local police are going to hold 'sobriety checks' locally, while across the county, other departments are doing the same. Now I ask you, where is the probable cause? Constitutional guarantees against illegal search and seizure prevented this kind of foolishness at one time.

But you must understand that the very first time you applied for and received a drivers license, in whatever state, you gave up that right. While it has only recently (within the past ten or fifteen years) been practice for state dmv's to publish this information on paperwork, it has been a common practice to take that right since before I can remember, and that is sixty years ago.

In order for a police agency to obtain a search warrant, they must provide probable cause acceptable to a judge. This must state the name of the individual suspected and the alledged crime or misdemeanor that that individual has engaged in.

Does any competent police force have the names of any or all possible drivers on a specific part of a specific road at a specific time, and, if so, who among them may be guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs? Does this lack of knowledge give them the right to stop any and all drivers along a particular road and subject them to illegal search and potential seizure of them and their personal effects?

By God, I say no.

And I will forever say no up until the day I die or until the constitution is reworded by properly adopted amendment of that constitution by three quarters of the fifty states. To allow the government, whatever the level, to decide when and where they may enter private dwellings, automobiles, businesses, you name it, without the proper judicial proceedings prior, is giving away your most basic rights.

Probable cause is not what the police or other agency thinks may have occurred, is about to occur, or anything like it. It is a provable set of circumstances that provide a reasonable thinking adult to conclude that something has occurred or is about to occur. It must be person specific and time specific.

I don't think sobriety checks have proven to have probable cause. They are not specific to person, nor specific as to crime or misdemeanor that specific person has committed or may commit within that specific time frame. The U. S. Supreme Court disagrees. But they were wrong on Roe vs. Wade also, and a number of other more recent decisions, which have adversely affected your rights under the Constitution.

While I do not drink, much less drink and drive, I won't be directly affected by these sobriety checks, but I still believe that others will be adversely affected, and that is just plain wrong. And I know I am a voice crying in the wilderness, because most people don't seem to be upset in the least by this. But they will, eventually, when their last right is sacrificed for their last rite.