Musings of a Real Texas Cowgirl

This blog contains the thoughts of a real Texas cowgirl. They may pertain to politics, religion, or life in general. If anything herein offends you, please go to another blog. If you disagree with anything herein, kindly use facts and intelligent argument. Anyone making personal attacks against Cowgirl or any commenter will be banned.

Monday, February 27, 2006

US/Mexico Border Increasingly Dangerous!

Check out this video on the increasingly dangerous situation along the US/Mexico border. Then phone, fax, email, or pony express your concerns to your elected officials!


Hooray for the Arizona State Legislature!!

The Arizona state legislature has voted to use state funds to pay for posting the Arizona National Guard along the Arizona/Mexico border. They have also designated additional funds to increase DPS patrols along the border.

Well done!

Gov. Perry, are you payin' attention?


Dems Have Their Priorities Straight!

Well, I would certainly have to agree that a 20 year old-looking neck on a 50 year old body is worth missing an important vote on disaster relief. Who says the Dems don't have their priorities straight?

Of course, there is that nasty little complication about actually doing the job you were elected and are paid to do. Sheesh!

From the Drudge Report
NV Dem Skips Hurricane Katrina Vote To Have Neck Lift
Mon Feb 27 2006 09:39:45 ET

Skipping last fall’s vote on the Hurricane Katrina relief bill in order to get plastic surgery was worth it, says Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), who loves her new look, ROLL CALL reports.

“For the last couple of years whenever I was on TV all I could do was look at my neck,” Berkley said in a recent online audio interview. “It was driving me crazy because my neck was starting to hang ... and it was making me very self conscious.”

Now, she joked in an interview with hosts of the Vegas-centric podcast show “The Strip,” “I have the neck of a 20-year-old and a 50-year-old body.” Until the Feb. 16 program, Berkley hadn’t said much about missing the September vote on the Katrina relief bill due to her nip-and-tuck job.

Berkley, 55, told the show’s co-hosts, Steve Friess and Miles Smith, “I decided that it was going to be very hard to hide and I’m a very public person.” And let’s face it, she said, that brilliant plastic surgeon “turned back the clock 10 years.”

Friess cracked Berkley up when he asked whether she thinks she’ll get more votes with her youthful, thinner neck. She laughed and said, “The 20-somethings! Maybe this will get them out to vote.”


More Hollywood Whining

Years ago, when he was on ER, I thought George Clooney was a good actor, and pretty easy on the eyes. Did I know or care what his political bent was? Nope.

But, now since he and most of the Hollywood bunch have decided to make movies that are offensive to me, with plots I am uninterested in, as well as bashing my country and President almost daily, it astounds me that they are whining like babies because nobody goes to see their films.

In the interview posted below, Clooney says, "And I want to be able to say that they boycotted my films... I want to be able to say I was on the cover of a magazine called a 'traitor,"' he said."

Well, just let me go on record as saying that this cowgirl boycotted your films because I will not pay my hard-earned money to watch a movie slamming my country. Bottom line. We all make choices in life. As a beef producer, I could set up a booth at a PETA convention, but that would be a waste of time and money, because no one would buy my product. That is called a good business decision. As an actor, you sell your product, which is your acting. If you choose to act in a movie most people will choose not to see, that is your choice. It's a dumb choice, and a bad business decision... but, hey! In this country, which you so abhore, you are free to make bad choices.

Clooney relishes 'traitor' attacks
From correspondents in London
From: Agence France-Presse

US actor and director George Clooney said this morning he was proud to be denounced as unpatriotic for questioning US policy because he wanted to be on "the right side of history."
Interviewed on BBC television's Newsnight about his latest films Syriana and Good Night, and Good Luck Clooney said that not only did he accept the right to be attacked for his views but he even relished them.

Clooney, who has weathered attacks since opposing the 2003 Iraq invasion, said at one point that it was "frustrating" to be listed as a "traitor" on a set of playing cards, but he also accepted people's right to free speech.

He later admitted he relished the attacks.

"I think it's important to be on the right side of history," Clooney said.

"I want to be on that deck of cards. And I want to be able to say that they boycotted my films... I want to be able to say I was on the cover of a magazine called a 'traitor,"' he said.

"I'm proud of those because those were badges of honour for me because that was when you did it when it was hard to do," the actor and director said.

Clooney has received critical acclaim for Syriana - about oil politics and Islamic extremism - and for Good Night, and Good Luck a reminder of the threat to civil liberties through a story about the anti-communist hysteria in the US of the 1950s.

Clooney said Syriana did not single out US President George W. Bush's administration for attack, though it "certainly goes at this administration" as well as at 60 years of failed Middle East policy.

"If it's an attack, it's because you're asking questions," Clooney said.

Clooney has said the chilling effect of the September 11, 2001 attacks on US politics had inspired SyrianaA and its unflinching look at the ways extremism and political instability are fostered by the interests of big oil.

Help | Contact Us | Jobs at News | Advertise with us | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy | Sitemap
Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT + 11).


Thursday, February 23, 2006

GWB Kicks Ass at Monopoly

Dafydd at Big Lizards is really on a roll on this port deal. Don't miss this interesting analysis from a different perspective at


Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Reason Beginning to Weigh In on UAE Port Deal

For an insightful analysis of the proposed UAE purchase of the ports, and an interesting solution, check out Dafydd's post at Big Lizards.

Capt. Ed at Captains Quarters has an excellent follow up to the above-referenced post.

After much thought, I am willing to trust the President on this one. He is, after all, the only one of the bunch with no future political aspirations, and is basically operating as a CEO making the best deal for his company/country.

I would like to point out, though, that this deal was negotiated 3 months ago, and yet it didn't see the light of day (i.e.: wasn't reported in the press) until, what? 3 days ago? Apparently, the MSM either missed the story completely, or didn't think the public would be interested, or chose not to report it because it didn't fit in with their Bush-bashing du jour. Rush is right. MSM = The Antique Media...... they have become worthless and irrelevant.


Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Update on Port Controversy

See my comment at Texas Fred's .

Ok, talk about mixed messages. Now, I'm actually getting worried about this:

Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal

Hillary bids to stop port takeovers

Man oh man! You KNOW it's a mess when Carter supports something and Hillary comes out on the other side of the issue.

I think I'd go with the rule of thumb: If Carter thinks something is good, then RUN AWAY!!! RUN AWAY!!!


Much Ado About Nothing


Nice to Be in Such Enlightened Company

Apparently, the legendary WFB agrees with me (i.e. much ado about nothing).

Killer Cheney

This commentator rations himself to only one prediction every 15 years. Mine now is that there is going to be a devastating backlash in the months and years ahead in the matter of Cheney and the quail shoot.

Some critics of the administration are arguing as if Iraq were a subsidiary concern. What has been brought forth in the plains of Texas is the venal character of the vice president of the United States.

One columnist for the New York Times headlined his column, “Mr. Vice President, It’s Time to Go.” Resign, “for the sake of the country and” — one inhales the purity of the writer’s motives — “for the sake of the Bush administration.”

Now that gentleman’s concern for the wellbeing of the Bush administration is on the level of his concern for the quail that Mr. Cheney did or did not kill (this is the only detail of the event unexplored by the historians). Why did the critic want Mr. Cheney to resign? Because “Mr. Cheney is arrogant, defiant and sometimes blatantly vulgar.” Oh? Yes — the critic arrived with documentation in hand: “He once told Sen. Patrick Leahy to perform a crude act upon himself.” You do not say! Well, that’s the kind of thing one would expect from somebody who goes about crippling his friends while ostensibly aiming only at quail.

It is to the credit of the newspaper of record that a few pages before the call for the resignation of Mr. Cheney, a careful reporter, Mr. Ralph Blumenthal, gave a detailed account of what had happened on Saturday at the Armstrong ranch.

Who all was there? Well, Pamela Pitzer Willeford, ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and her husband, a physician, the hostess, Katharine Armstrong, and her sister, and her husband. Also Nancy Negley, an art philanthropist, Ben Love, a West Texas rancher, and the victim, Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old lawyer, and his wife. Also several outriders, whose duty was to flush the birds. Also a dozen American pointers and Labrador retrievers. Close to 5:30 P.M., the two shooting groups had bagged about 40 quail each, and were working now on the last covey.

About 100 yards away from the jeep carrying the hostess and her sister (daughters of the fabled Anne Armstrong, whom Gerald Ford had once asked to run for vice president), “Mr. Cheney, Mr. Whittington, and Ms. Willeford were walking in a line in a low spot on gently sloping ground. After Mr. Whittington bagged his birds he dropped out of sight, along with one of Ms. Armstrong’s bird dogs.” (Her name — not originally disclosed to the press — is “Gertie.”) “Then, suddenly, he was in a dip about 30 yards away against the sun just as Mr. Cheney fired a blast from his Italian-made 28-gauge Perazzi shotgun.” That is when Mr. Whittington “caught the spray of birdshot on the right side of his face, neck, and chest.”

Mr. Cheney is recorded as having said, “Harry, I had no idea you were there!” The exclamation point is mine, and will offend only those who refuse to believe that Mr. Cheney was startled at finding that his friend stood in a line between him, Gertie, and the setting sun.

We all know what then happened. But the only thing that then happened that seemed to catch national attention was that the party drove not to the nearest newspaper, but to the hospital.

An account was filed with a local newspaper and the doleful news came from the hospital that one pellet had entered the heart of the victim. There is little doubt but that he will survive. Mr. Cheney has said that what blame there is, is Mr. Cheney’s. That detail, by the way is also not fully explored conceivably the victim had failed to identify his position when moving forward from the firing line established by hunters moving in parallel.

We can’t celebrate a backlash until Mr. W. is back home and well. But here is one observer who predicts that Mr. W. will chuckle over the misadventure, unless, after years of friendship with Mr. Cheney, he only now discovers that he is arrogant, defiant, and that he uses vulgar language.


On Letting Foreign Governments Handle Our Homeland Security

From The Counterrorism Blog:

DP World Expands Worldwide, including to United States Ports. What effect on Port Security?

The sudden announcement that Dubai Ports of the United Arab Emirates (DP World) will soon take over the operation of six US seaports has set off alarm bells in Congress and among homeland security specialists. A bipartisan Congressional group has written a letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, strongly objecting to ceding control of US ports to a country with a spotty record on terrorism. The US approval of this transaction couldn’t have come at a worse time for the Department of Homeland Security which is already reeling from Katrina criticism. Post 9/11 it just doesn’t sound right to most Americans.

The projected takeover includes the seaports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. It stems from DP World’s $6.8 billion acquisition of P&O Steamship Navigation Co., a staid British Company that has been operating ports through out the world since the Nineteenth Century. With the backing of the UAE government, DP World has grown rapidly from a small local port operation into an international conglomerate. In fact, DP World’s rapid expansion into the world’s third largest port operator raises some questions about its ability to oversee and administer its vast holdings, especially in the light of worldwide security requirements. The P&O acquisition brings an additional 29 container terminals, many in Europe as well as the United States, and the logistic operations of more than 100 ports under DP World’s control. It also gives DP World operational control over ferries running between the UK and France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland and Spain. Much of this expansion has been supported by the UAE Government and the huge inflow of petro-dollars. But, DP World’s acquisition of P&O is reportedly being financed mostly through a (syndicated) term loan facility through Barclays Capital and Deutsche Bank.

DP World first began expanding its operations outside of the UAE in 1999 when it took over operation of the Jeddah Port’s container facility. In 2000, DP World won the contract to manage the entire Port of Djibouti. Thereafter, it won concessions to develop and run container terminals at the Indian ports of Vizag, Cochin, and Vallarpadam. In 2003 DP took over management of the container terminal at Constanza, Romania. The just concluded P&O acquisition follows closely on the heals of DP World’s absorption in 2004 of CSX Corporation’s international terminal business and related interests. That transaction cost DP World some $1.15 billion and expanded its operation to ports in Europe, Latin America, Hong Kong, China, Korea and Australia.

US seaports have long been viewed as seriously vulnerable to possible terrorist activity. The burden of inspecting containers and cargos moving into these ports is overwhelming. On average, about 25,000 seagoing containers are offloaded at America’s seaports everyday. And few are subjected to any real inspection. Following 9/11 the United States undertook urgent measures to enhance US seaport security. This led to the so-called Container Security Initiative (CSI) which promotes the inspection and securing of containers at their point of origin and while in transit to the United States. It's true that the UAE became the first Middle East country to sign on to this CSI program, but that didn’t occur until December 2004, about two years after the Initiative was started.

DP World and senior UAE government officials pressed hard for, and got, quick UK and US government approval for the P&O takeover. The transaction was reportedly vetted and approved by the US Department of Homeland Security and TRANSEC, the UK’s Department for Transport's Security Division. It was also approved by the US Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment. Nevertheless, security experts in both the UK and US remain dubious. They question the wisdom of turning over control of so many major ports around the world, and particularly in the US, UK and Europe to this relatively new UAE based company. DP World’s senior management, they point out, draws mostly from a small circle of UAE nationals close to UAE’s traditional rulers. The concerns they express range from possible relaxation of security measures to potential infiltration into DP World’s administrative cadre by Al Qaeda supporters. Al Qaeda operatives working inside DP World might have access to sensitive port information including layout, vulnerabilities, and cargo and container movements. After-all, they point out, the UAE has a less than stellar record when it comes to dealing with terrorism. Critics note that the UAE was one of three countries that recognized the Taliban. And, UAE based charities and financial facilities have been implicated knowingly, or unwittingly in financing various Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. The UAE was used as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks. The critics also point out that lax controls at UAE ports made them a convenient transfer point for shipments of nuclear components smuggled to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

The tenor and strength of the bi-partisan and public reaction to the transaction may give rise to further congressional resistance to the deal. It may cause the Administration to take a second, closer look, and it certainly puts DP World on notice that it still has a long way to go to convince the American public that it can carry out its security and other responsibilities in running US ports.

So, my take on this, is that unless the President refuses to authorize this deal, the Federal government is making no attempt to secure any of our borders.

(Shaking head and feeling very sad....)


Saturday, February 18, 2006

Summing Up Furor Over Islamic Cartoons

This cartoon pretty much says it all!


Saturday, February 11, 2006

More Illegals Invading our Country

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A U.S. Border Patrol pursuit near San Diego ended on Friday when a van believed to be transporting illegal immigrants crashed, injuring at least 21 people, including eight critically, police said.

The other injuries were apparently minor, said Maurice Luque, a spokesman for the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department. He said the van involved in the crash carried 28 people.

The pursuit began early in the afternoon when the drivers of three vans and a sedan -- possibly transporting illegal immigrants -- fled from federal agents near the U.S.-Mexico border in southern San Diego County, authorities said.

The pursuit ended when the driver of one of the vehicles veered, spun out of control, careened off the freeway and overturned in a gully, police said.

So, what happened to the other 2 vans and the sedan?


Wednesday, February 08, 2006



Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Fave Commercial from Superbowl XL