---By Ron Dupuis
This column was published in the Hampton Union on May 16th. Ron’s column “In My Humble Opinion New Hampshire will appear in that Newspaper every other week from this date on.
Hampton Union, May 16th...Since the Hampton Union is graciously allowing me to write a column from time to time, I thought perhaps some biographical information would be in order.
My name is Ron Dupuis, I’m 62 years old, and, have been married to the lovely Dorene Dupuis for almost twenty five years. (Hope you enjoy the vacuum cleaner you got for Mother’s day sweetheart). A little over twelve years ago God blessed our marriage when my wife gave birth to our only child Casey, who, by the way, recently informed me that as an adult she intends to be a famous rock star, a lawyer, AND a bartender. This proves that God certainly has a sense of humor. Imagine, my daughter, A LAWYER! Where have I gone wrong?
A few years ago someone described me as a “dull minded, red necked, gun toting, opinionated, right winged radical Republican.”
My response was immediate. “Guilty on all counts.”
“Dull minded”; although I never graduated, I did attend four different colleges in six years. Or was it six different colleges in four years? I forget. It was the 60’s.
“Red necked”; most people think the term red neck was derived from farmers who worked the fields all day in the hot sun. Not true in this part of the country. In my world the term comes from misspent college youths who spent all their spare time sitting at bars, staring up at the T.V., watching sports while consuming adult beverages. Since this is how I spent most of my early academic career, a degree for me was just not in the cards.
“Gun toting”; from the Red Ryder BB gun of my youth, the m-16 I carried as a Marine in Viet Nam, or the Smith and Wesson 38 revolver used when I was a police officer, guns have been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. I’m a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and feel that any American who is of sound mind and not a convicted felon should be allowed to buy any gun they desire.
“Opinionated”; of course I am. The free market place of opinions and ideas to be discussed is the only way our problems are going to be resolved. In order for it to work, opinions must be voiced. Otherwise we face the dangers of apathy and that leads to stagnant growth both personally and as a culture.
“Right winged radical Republican”; this is my favorite and I plead guilty, guilty, and guilty. One of our founding Fathers once said that the job of government should be to “protect our borders and represent us to foreign governments.” Neither of which is happening adequately. Our borders are so pores that it is estimated one hundred thousand illegals cross over each year placing a strain on our economy and national identity. The job as “Ambassador” to foreign countries was, at one time, a position for career Statesman, has generated simply as a payoff for political hacks. If these thoughts make me a right wing radical than so be it.
Ron Dupuis is a long time New Hampshire resident, a freelance writer, and former State Representative. He can be reached by e-mail at (drcdupuis@comcast.net)
5.22.2007
Environment Angst: having it both ways
---by Micheal
It seems like popular environmental Politically Correct thinking is contradictory. It can't decide if change should be abhorred or worshipped. So, it does both.
An example of first, is the rending of garments over climate change. For now, let's set aside debate over whether the globe is warming or not and say it is. So what? This change is bewailed as mega-terrible. But why? From the temperature record, it appears the globe has always been warming up or cooling off. Climate change appears to be normal.
From 800 to 1300 AD, the world was warmer. What we consider a balmy mediterranean climate nowadays extended as far north as foggy ol' England. Sea ice diminished, so Vikings were able explore Greenland (which was green back then.)
After the Medieval Warm Period, the world cooled off several degrees to experience what they call the Little Ice Age. From 1500 to about 1850, ice advanced and summers shortened. Rivers froze which hadn't before. Britain wasn't good for growing grapes anymore. After the mid 1800s, the world changed again. It started to warm up.
A world in which the climate patterns never change would be the freak. But isn't that what climate change alarmists are proposing we spend billions to accomplish? Nature-without-change is the goal.
Yet, on the other hand, natural change is held as sacred.
I know a landowner who has a wetland between his house and the road. Over the past 15 years, the cattails and rushes have been overrun by maple, poplar and alder saplings, becoming a thick scrub woods. This has become a problem. Since his house is now hidden from the road, he's had repeated trouble with trespassers and vandals.
To make his property safer, he wanted to go into his swamp and cut back the brush. It's not like he wanted to bulldoze, fill and pave the swamp. He wanted to restore it to the cattails, rushes and patchy open water which used to attract ducks. (and which allowed the police to see his house.)
His town's enviro-monitors, however, said no. It's "natural," they said, for grassy wetlands to evolve into wet scrub woods. Since it's a natural change, he is not permitted to tamper with it. Nature-in-change is sacred.
Enviromentalism wants to have it both ways. Change is bad. Change is good. A sure sign of confusion or a scheme to get into our pockets.
It seems like popular environmental Politically Correct thinking is contradictory. It can't decide if change should be abhorred or worshipped. So, it does both.
An example of first, is the rending of garments over climate change. For now, let's set aside debate over whether the globe is warming or not and say it is. So what? This change is bewailed as mega-terrible. But why? From the temperature record, it appears the globe has always been warming up or cooling off. Climate change appears to be normal.
From 800 to 1300 AD, the world was warmer. What we consider a balmy mediterranean climate nowadays extended as far north as foggy ol' England. Sea ice diminished, so Vikings were able explore Greenland (which was green back then.)
After the Medieval Warm Period, the world cooled off several degrees to experience what they call the Little Ice Age. From 1500 to about 1850, ice advanced and summers shortened. Rivers froze which hadn't before. Britain wasn't good for growing grapes anymore. After the mid 1800s, the world changed again. It started to warm up.
A world in which the climate patterns never change would be the freak. But isn't that what climate change alarmists are proposing we spend billions to accomplish? Nature-without-change is the goal.
Yet, on the other hand, natural change is held as sacred.
I know a landowner who has a wetland between his house and the road. Over the past 15 years, the cattails and rushes have been overrun by maple, poplar and alder saplings, becoming a thick scrub woods. This has become a problem. Since his house is now hidden from the road, he's had repeated trouble with trespassers and vandals.
To make his property safer, he wanted to go into his swamp and cut back the brush. It's not like he wanted to bulldoze, fill and pave the swamp. He wanted to restore it to the cattails, rushes and patchy open water which used to attract ducks. (and which allowed the police to see his house.)
His town's enviro-monitors, however, said no. It's "natural," they said, for grassy wetlands to evolve into wet scrub woods. Since it's a natural change, he is not permitted to tamper with it. Nature-in-change is sacred.
Enviromentalism wants to have it both ways. Change is bad. Change is good. A sure sign of confusion or a scheme to get into our pockets.
4.13.2007
Throwing Imus into the volcano
---by Micheal
So, CBS decided that someone needed to be thrown into the volcano as an offering to appease the cultural storm gods. In goes Don Imus. It's for the greater good, you know. Unfortunately, like the all the other sacrifices before him, he will have gone in vain. The storms will continue. The "gods" are never satisfied.
What bothers me is the whole unruly mob process by which Imus was sacrificed. Everyone should be nervous instead of feeling better. Yes, Imus is a pompous, rude and insulting guy. That's why I never voluntarily listened to his program. But when I read the transcript in which he made his fatal remark, it seemed like the trumped up charge a lynch mob might cite.
Imus and his producer were engaging in some typical banal sportscaster blather with some lame affectations towards inner city slang. They weren't trying to defame. They were trying to sound cool. Dumb, I know, but trivial. Actually, Imus' producer said more of the "bad words", both before and after Imus did. Yet, no mob insisted that McGuirk be thrown into the volcano. The mob's capriciousness is a bit disconcerting. "Bad" words are only bad when the mob decides?
Even black commentators have pointed out that Imus' fatal words are fairly common in rap lyrics. Yet, rappers are not thrown into the volcano. Black males can call black females a "ho" but (some) white males cannot, (sometimes). During the early Civil Rights era, black men were killed by white mobs for saying something trivial like "hey baby" to a white woman.
With Imus tossed to the flames, we seem to have the exact same system at work. If a group is offended, someone must pay. Mob "justice" demands a sacrifice. Fairness, or even rationality, is not important -- only that someone be tossed into the volcano to appease the angry "gods".
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
So, CBS decided that someone needed to be thrown into the volcano as an offering to appease the cultural storm gods. In goes Don Imus. It's for the greater good, you know. Unfortunately, like the all the other sacrifices before him, he will have gone in vain. The storms will continue. The "gods" are never satisfied.
What bothers me is the whole unruly mob process by which Imus was sacrificed. Everyone should be nervous instead of feeling better. Yes, Imus is a pompous, rude and insulting guy. That's why I never voluntarily listened to his program. But when I read the transcript in which he made his fatal remark, it seemed like the trumped up charge a lynch mob might cite.
Imus and his producer were engaging in some typical banal sportscaster blather with some lame affectations towards inner city slang. They weren't trying to defame. They were trying to sound cool. Dumb, I know, but trivial. Actually, Imus' producer said more of the "bad words", both before and after Imus did. Yet, no mob insisted that McGuirk be thrown into the volcano. The mob's capriciousness is a bit disconcerting. "Bad" words are only bad when the mob decides?
Even black commentators have pointed out that Imus' fatal words are fairly common in rap lyrics. Yet, rappers are not thrown into the volcano. Black males can call black females a "ho" but (some) white males cannot, (sometimes). During the early Civil Rights era, black men were killed by white mobs for saying something trivial like "hey baby" to a white woman.
With Imus tossed to the flames, we seem to have the exact same system at work. If a group is offended, someone must pay. Mob "justice" demands a sacrifice. Fairness, or even rationality, is not important -- only that someone be tossed into the volcano to appease the angry "gods".
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
12.06.2006
Peaceful Islam?
---by Micheal
Awhile back Pope Benedict touched off a fire storm of protest from the Muslim world when he quoted an ancient Byzantine emperor who said that Islam was a violent and intolerant religion. How dare the Pope say such things, the Muslim world shouted. Riots and death threats ensued. (see previous blog entry) Anyone who says Islam is intolerant is to blame for violence by Muslims. An odd logic at best.
Now enter the Islamic court in a Somalian town. "Anyone who does not pray five times a day to Mecca will be beheaded." (I kid you not. See Fox News story for Dec. 6, 2006). The court will impose what they call "Islamic Law" on all residents. Infractions will bring death.
Okay, NOW what do we do with Muslim outrage at being called violent and intolerant? Beheading isn't violent and intolerant?
I realize that any organization, religious or secular, has its occasional wackos. There are millions of quiet postal workers, and only a tiny few who go nuts with guns. One wacko postal worker is not respresentative. There are millions of respectable Christians, and yet the occasional Jim Jones or David Koresh surface from time to time. They're not representative of real Christianity.
The huge difference here, is that we do not hear a larger Muslim community saying, "There are some wacko Muslims out there, but we're not like that. They preach hate and intolerance and death, but that's not the true basis of Islam." Instead, we hear only of riots and protests, as if the statements were true enough, but how dare anyone actually say them. "For calling me violent and intolerant, You Die!"
If the greater Muslim community does not want to be "profiled" as all wackos, they need to speak out -- and loudly -- against the wackos in their backyards. If Islam really is NOT violent and intolerant, they need to take to the airwaves and teach everyone who'll listen, what the Quran really says, if it is, in fact, peaceful and tolerant.
Christians have to do this constantly. Some idiot somewhere decides to kill people he doesn't like and says God told him to do so. Christians everywhere are tarnished by such idiots. The sane Christians then have to spend lots of time explaining to people that God says (in the Bible) that murder is wrong and that vengance his His (not ours) to extract. Or that Jesus commands us to love our enemies (not kills them), etc. etc. Christians set the record straight. No one can prevent wackos from cropping up, but sane Christians defend their faith against the wackos.
Where are the Muslim defenders? Where are the Quran lessons that prove that Mohammed did not preach beheading to those who do not pray five times a day? Where have the wackos gotten Islam all wrong? Muslim defenders have a right, an obligation to speak up. If they don't distance themselves from Muslim wackos, we've no real choice but assume the wackos are actually representative of true Islam.
Awhile back Pope Benedict touched off a fire storm of protest from the Muslim world when he quoted an ancient Byzantine emperor who said that Islam was a violent and intolerant religion. How dare the Pope say such things, the Muslim world shouted. Riots and death threats ensued. (see previous blog entry) Anyone who says Islam is intolerant is to blame for violence by Muslims. An odd logic at best.
Now enter the Islamic court in a Somalian town. "Anyone who does not pray five times a day to Mecca will be beheaded." (I kid you not. See Fox News story for Dec. 6, 2006). The court will impose what they call "Islamic Law" on all residents. Infractions will bring death.
Okay, NOW what do we do with Muslim outrage at being called violent and intolerant? Beheading isn't violent and intolerant?
I realize that any organization, religious or secular, has its occasional wackos. There are millions of quiet postal workers, and only a tiny few who go nuts with guns. One wacko postal worker is not respresentative. There are millions of respectable Christians, and yet the occasional Jim Jones or David Koresh surface from time to time. They're not representative of real Christianity.
The huge difference here, is that we do not hear a larger Muslim community saying, "There are some wacko Muslims out there, but we're not like that. They preach hate and intolerance and death, but that's not the true basis of Islam." Instead, we hear only of riots and protests, as if the statements were true enough, but how dare anyone actually say them. "For calling me violent and intolerant, You Die!"
If the greater Muslim community does not want to be "profiled" as all wackos, they need to speak out -- and loudly -- against the wackos in their backyards. If Islam really is NOT violent and intolerant, they need to take to the airwaves and teach everyone who'll listen, what the Quran really says, if it is, in fact, peaceful and tolerant.
Christians have to do this constantly. Some idiot somewhere decides to kill people he doesn't like and says God told him to do so. Christians everywhere are tarnished by such idiots. The sane Christians then have to spend lots of time explaining to people that God says (in the Bible) that murder is wrong and that vengance his His (not ours) to extract. Or that Jesus commands us to love our enemies (not kills them), etc. etc. Christians set the record straight. No one can prevent wackos from cropping up, but sane Christians defend their faith against the wackos.
Where are the Muslim defenders? Where are the Quran lessons that prove that Mohammed did not preach beheading to those who do not pray five times a day? Where have the wackos gotten Islam all wrong? Muslim defenders have a right, an obligation to speak up. If they don't distance themselves from Muslim wackos, we've no real choice but assume the wackos are actually representative of true Islam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)