As of today, it has been 1,026 days since the U.S. Senate last passed a budget.
That's about 20 dog years.
Imagine if you were employed in a business where one of your duties was to plan an annual budget for each upcoming year and you just decided you weren't going to do it. And 1,026 days later, you still had not done it. Assuming your employer hadn't already canned, assuredly you would lose your job after such a long failure. If you are a Democratic Senator, however, you not only keep your job because a majority of the people still vote for you, you get greater influence and power.
To give you an idea of how long 1,026 days is, let's look at some historical events. Since the Senate last passed a budget on April 29, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV campaigned for 20 months, was reelected to the Senate and has served more than a year since his reelection. The entire Lewis and Clark expedition in the Pacific Northwest took 862 days. John F. Kennedy served 1,036 days as president before he was assassinated, only 10 more days than the Senate's current budget failure. The Korean War lasted 1,128 days until the armistice ceased active hostilities.
If ever there was a time for Congress to address the fiscal federal government crisis, this is it. And yet the Senate continues its intransigence even going so far as to say the Budget Control Act passed last year to deal with the debt ceiling is enough. That's like saying it is just as acceptable for you to increase unilaterally and without any analysis your annual household budget expenditures and borrow the extra money to pay for the increase, as it is for you to actually review your income and expenditures and craft a budget based on the numbers. That might work for a year or so, but 1,026 days is far too long especially given our national debt and deficit crises, the increasingly risk to our nation's credit rating and currency valuation, and the stagnant economy.
One big reason why we see this is most senators know their constituents will never vote them out. Do you think of senators like Reid, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Durbin, Murray, and Mikulski fear losing their seats? They and their liberal brethren might as well have life-time appointments given their constituencies. Before you point out Senator Scott Brown, R-MA taking over for Ted Kennedy, he is a rare exception who had to wait until Kennedy died--after Kennedy served in the Senate for several decades. And Brown has turned out to be a Massachusetts moderate who will doubtless face a serious election challenge from the left. So the Senate will continue not doing its job and liberals will continue to accuse Republicans of leading a "do nothing Congress."
Now that's chutzpah.
I have little confidence that Reid and his cronies will act with any degree of fiscal responsibility. Given President Obama's sorry excuse for a budget proposal--not to mention his penchant for profligate spending--I have no confidence in him either. Frankly, I also don't have much confidence in Republican House and Senate members either, outside of the few who are truly committed to cutting spending, lowering taxes and reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Meanwhile, our state and local governments are stretched increasingly thinner as the federal government takes more money, mandates more restrictions and curtails people's freedoms. What is largely missing from the federal government's current operating structure is a designated place at the table for the state governments to have their interests considered in the process of national governing and budgeting.
There is a crisis in the Senate that must be changed. Now is time to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.
The Seventeenth Amendment states in essence that senators are to be elected by popular vote. Previously, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution vested in each state legislature the power to appoint its two senators. Now if you are conservative, and tend to favor a smaller, decentralized federal government with more power, liberty and freedom in the hands of individuals and state and local governments, you might question the wisdom or merits of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment since it gives additional power to voters. Yes, the power ended up with the people but it was taken from the state legislatures, leaving the states with no institutionalized legislative voice at the federal level.
When the Founding Fathers were considering language for our Constitution regarding the make up, function and election of legislators, they debated the issue of how to balance federal and state sovereignty while ensuring federal and state governments would function with an appropriate degree of interdependency. In Federalist No. 59, Alexander Hamilton described this balancing act with recognition of concerns that states could shut down the Senate if given the authority to appoint senators. Hamilton concluded that vesting power in state legislatures to appoint senators was "an evil; but it is an evil which could not have been avoided without excluding the States, in their political capacities, wholly from a place in the organization of the national government." In other words, states would have no political place in the federal government absent their power to appoint legislative representatives.
Hamilton's concerns were well founded in the late 1780s. Northern free states and southern slave states distrusted each others motives and wanted to ensure equal power sharing. Sparsely populated states were concerned about the influence that more heavily populated states like New York would have if Congress had two houses with straight proportional representation. States with no claims to western lands feared losing clout to those with potential to expand territory westward. Reflecting the political climate, the Founding Fathers feared one or more states could effectively stall the Senate by refusing to appoint one or both of its senators. However, Hamilton argued that giving states the power to appoint House members every two years, instead of senators every six years, would mean, "every period of making [the House appointments] would be a delicate crisis in the national situation," potentially resulting in the dissolution of the Union. With state representation considered vital, the best place for it was the Senate.
James Madison also addressed the issue in Federalist No. 62. Madison did not spend much time on the topic but simply recognized that state legislative power to appoint senators is, "probably the most congenial [option] with the public opinion." He continued noting, "It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems."
This represents a small example of the astounding brilliance of the Founding Fathers. Learned men of faith were attempting to invent a system of governance that divided power among federal, state and local governments, and the people, and strike the proper balance among them all. And this issue shows their concern for all parties with a solution that struck just such a balance. The senate would give each state government equal representation in the federal government to provide a balance against federal tyranny and, as Constitutional Convention delegate Edmund Randolph put it, "to restrain, if possible, the fury of democracy" that could arise from the House.
Vesting power in state legislatures to elect senators was not, however, without potential problem. Possible corruption loomed largest as the founders wondered whether senate positions would be bought and sold. The other primary issues were possible state collaboration to thwart Senate function and individual state legislatures deadlocking on choosing senators. None of these potential problems manifested to any significant degree to disrupt the Senate in its first century.
Meanwhile, the push to reform senate elections sputtered for more than a century. Many state legislatures had passed laws for the people to vote for Senate candidates in a non-binding advisory capacity. There developed a perception that the Senate was becoming out of touch with the people and increasingly "aristocratic." As populism and progressive politics continued to rise in the early twentieth century, the states ultimately ceded their authority to the people by ratifying the Seventeenth Amendment and creating two "peoples" houses in Washington.
For the last century, the states have no legislative branch to represent their interests and check federal power. As a result, the balance of power has tipped dramatically in favor of federal government power. We see this in countless federal legislative acts throughout the last century including, for example, FDR's New Deal programs and more recently Obamacare.
Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment will restore governmental balance. It will not fix all of the Senate's problems over night but it would be a huge step forward.
Could state legislatures of today "buy and sell" Senate seats if they are returned power? Yes, but the current system is not immune from this type of corruption. One need only look at disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) to see a recent example. Could states refuse to appoint senators or band together to bring Senate business to a halt? Yes, but the differences between states today in our fully developed nation are miniscule compared to the real disputes over slavery, territorial expansion and influence that existed 230 years ago. Could the Senate become an "aristocratic" body if the legislatures elect them? Frankly, it already has. It is hard to imagine a more aristrocratic legislative body than our current Senate. Many of the members listed above are among the wealthiest people in America and scores of senators of both parties accumulated their wealth while serving in the Senate.
Our economic crisis is so severe, the federal government's power so large and unwieldy, its taxing, spending and borrowing so extravagant, that the balance of power must be reestablished. Term limits might help but even popularly elected, term-limited senators would not have motivation to represent their state government's interests. It's still the people who vote. Change can only come if senators are accountable to their respective state governments. Only then can the states act again as an effective counterweight to federal power.
The people have their voices represented in the House. Representatives are elected every two years so the people do not have to wait long to "throw the bum out" if they choose. A Senate that goes 1,026 days without a budget is irretrievably broken and unresponsive to either the people that elect them every six years or the states that are supposed to share government power with the feds. It's time for the states to regain their place of influence the way the Founding Fathers so brilliantly intended.
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. And impose term limits while your at it.
Showing posts with label conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservative. Show all posts
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Justice Ginsburg's Clumsy Constitution Criticism
During a recent interview with Al-Hayat TV in Egypt, United State Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was asked what the fledgling Egyptian revolutionary government should rely upon to draft new governing documents. Her responses were alarming yet predictable.
Much to the surprise of people in the conservative blogosphere, Justice Ginsburg argued that the U.S. Constitution would be a poor place for Egypt to start. “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she remarked with all seriousness. Instead, she would look to more recently drafted documents such as the South African Constitution drafted in 1996, or Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms from 1982.
She justified her answer by reminding everyone that the U.S. Constitution excluded rights for (and input from) women, slaves and Native Americans. She provided no historical context during the interview for these omissions, choosing instead to leave the false impression that the Founding Fathers were helpless racists and sexists. Later on in the interview, however, she concedes with a chuckle that, “the men who met in Philadelphia were very wise...[but] they were lacking one thing, and that is that there were no women who were part of the Constitutional Convention.”
Nevermind that the Constitution also includes the twenty-seven amendments, many of which have served to eliminate disparities based on sex and origin for decades now.
Most critics of Justice Ginsburg's comments are merely appalled that a sitting Supreme Court justice would view our founding governing document so cavalierly. This is certainly a cause for concern. But while the problems with her comments go much deeper, she arrives at the right conclusion in spite of herself.
First, Justice Ginsburg's dismissal of our constitution in favor of others is clear evidence of the secular humanism that has infiltrated the highest levels of government and society, and the belief that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” and, therefore, ultimately meaningless.
Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms details numerous freedoms and rights, many of which are quite similar to language in our own Bill of Rights. The beginning of the document states that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” However, neither the Charter, the Canadian Constitution nor any other founding documents I could find contains anything detailing the true source of the included rights. And, of course, as a member of the British Commonwealth, Canada received its rights and obligations from the Queen.
As for Justice Ginsburg's other preferred document, there is nothing wrong with the language in the South African Constitution. It is a lengthy document borne out of tremendous and violent racial struggles. It includes provisions for equal protection under the law and anti-discrimination, as well as rights to “dignity,” life, “freedom and security of the person...[and] bodily and psychological integrity,” “privacy,” freedom of religion, expression and many other rights. Some of the rights are expanded upon in the document. And most (if not all) of the rights listed therein are fine ideas that reflect rights found in our own Constitution. No one would conclude, for example, that elevating to constitutional magnitude a right to be free from enslavement is a bad idea, especially in a nation with a long and recent history of slavery and maltreatment of native ethic groups. Similarly to the Canadian Charter, however, there is nothing in the South African Constitution detailing from where these rights emanate. The Preamble's ending comes closest: “May God protect our people.”
Both Canada and South Africa now have fine documents that codify the rights of people. The problem is that both nations seem to have ignored where rights come from, i.e. God. The U.S. Constitution, while not mentioning the source of rights either, was formed after our separation (and eventual war) with Britain which was formally initiated by the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration makes clear that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and that the signors were moving forward “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” Moreover, American founding documents are replete with references to the triune Christian God and how critical He was to the founders' lives and actions. It should be beyond dispute that the Founding Fathers were guided by their faith in Christ and recognized His supreme authority.
Whereas America's founding documents, including the Declaration and Constitution that followed it, are borne out of deep Christian faith and an acknowledgment of Him being the source of all that is good—including rights—the Canadian and South African counterparts are borne out of man's desire to bestow rights upon himself. This is an inherently secular humanist approach, one where man is believed capable of morality and self-governance absent God or religious faith. And it's perfectly acceptable to Justice Ginsburg, probably even preferable to acknowledging divine inspiration and direction.
People who believe the U.S. Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that should be malleable to fit current events and disputes also implicitly or explicitly hold this view. As the American people become “more enlightened” in their thinking and beliefs, they will recognize that additional rights need to be elevated to the constitutional level, so the theory goes. Abortion—no doubt an issue of premium significance to Justice Ginsburg given her as the ACLU's general counsel in the early 1970s—is a prime example. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, neither the Constitution nor any amendment to it included language that could even remotely be considered tacit recognition by the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) of a woman's “right to choose.” Yet, a majority of Supreme Court justices found [eureka!] just such a right rooted in the “right to privacy”—a another right that is not included in the Constitution's language—and the “emanations from penumbras” of the actually written constitutional rights, which was first alluded to by Justice William O. Douglas nearly 20 years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut.
Justice Ginsburg and fellow “living breathers” would doubtless argue that America had evolved in her thinking by the 1970s and appropriately rectified decades of wrongs by elevating to constitutional magnitude the right to abort. That is precisely the problem when man seeks to supplant God and become the provider of rights. If constitutional rights are given by man, then man enhances or restricts them at will. Man giveth and man taketh away.
If God endows rights, then man can only act with such power by usurping it from God. A “living, breathing document” is a meaningless document if it can be changed by the whims of men and women who act out of their immediate circumstances or current opinions. This is, unfortunately, exactly what has happened in the United States over the last 225 years--mostly over the last 100 years. The Constitution has evolved into a virtually meaningless document as unelected life-term judges, lobbyist-influenced congressional majorities, and power-hungry executive appointees have helped it “live” and “breathe” in ways the Founding Fathers could not have fathomed. Given man's history, we can imagine the same thing happening in Canada and South Africa much faster.
Second, Justice Ginsburg's implication that the Constitutional Convention needed women delegates is just bizarre. That's not to say a woman's perspective would not have added a different dimension. But has she cracked an American History book in the last half-century? Yes, in an utopian colonial world of the 1700s, all men and all women would have been absolutely equal, regardless of race or national origin. America was not utopian in the 1700s (what nation has been?) but it was ideal in that it was founded by men and women committed to their faith in God, and yearning for liberty and freedom. No other nation can make such a claim. Many colonists, including many of the Founding Fathers, abhorred slavery and wrote and spoke out passionately against it. Other nations would follow America's lead in ending slavery and discrimination in law and deed.
The other problem with Justice Ginsburg's suggestion that women should have been involved in drafting the Constitution is that she bases her comment on the false premise that women of the 1700s would have held different beliefs from the men of the same period. It is highly unlikely that colonial women would have held beliefs similar to "enlightened," "progressive" women of the present, like Justice Ginsburg. Certainly America's history is checkered and women have helped right some of those wrongs. But whole-scale changes to our founding documents would not have occurred simply if the men had given women equal seats at the convention. As far as “women's rights” are concerned, it would be laughable to suggest that colonial women would have convinced (or even thought to bring up to) their male counterparts to include a right to abortion, or women's suffrage, or free contraception, or gay marriage, just to name a few of the “rights” the National Organization for Women currently, zealously promotes.
It is troubling to hear someone charged with interpreting the Constitution claim the document is somehow deficient because of the historical context in which it was drafted. Indeed, the Supreme Court Justice Oath of Office states that a justice will “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [a justice] under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Remember, we have had justices who believe looking to the laws of foreign nations is a good place to find precedent for American legal cases and constitutional jurisprudence. Including Justice Ginsburg.
Are the constitutional duties of justices deficient, too, because no women were directly involved in the Constitutional Convention? Are Justice Ginsburg's duties merely guidelines from which she and her fellow justices can assert greater power and authority based on the “emanations from penumbras” of what is actually written? If the language in one part of the Constitution “lives” and “breathes,” why not the rest of it?
Finally, and in defense of Justice Ginsburg, the U.S. Constitution might not be the best place for Egypt to look for a document model. The United States was founded by people who yearned for freedom from an oppressive, distant regime, and believed in the goodness of God whom they worshipped. They desired to govern themselves and seek their own destinies led by their faith.
By contrast, Egypt has overthrown a brutal dictator and handed power to a coalition government led by the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt has no real history of individual freedoms or democratic government. David Pollock of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy recently commented on the Brotherhood's double-speak regarding its plans and beliefs. For example, Pollock notes that while the Brotherhood promotes democracy in several articles on its English language website, there were no similar stories on its Arabic language site. Women and support for them are often referred to on the English site, but almost never on the Arabic site. While acknowledging there is some level of mixed messages from all political parties, Pollock cautions, “when this degree of duplicity is demonstrated, the group's credibility is, or should be, compromised accordingly.”
It is the Egyptian people who have elected the Brotherhood to a majority in their parliament. The Brotherhood has shown a strong fondness for Sharia and has tended to act with less tolerance while speaking about more tolerance. Presumably, the Brotherhood will be heavily involved in drafting new governing documents, including a new constitution. So their decisions will have status and force of law given by the Egyptian people. Will their document begin, "We the people"? Even Justice Ginsburg acknowledges this concern when she cautioned in the interview, "Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution, first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor." I can give her an "amen" for that.
If we compare the Founding Fathers with the Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps it would be better for Egypt not to use the U.S. Constitution as a guide. Freedom and liberty only have true value if man acknowledges they are given by God and seeks Him to determine how best to protect and promote them. And he must yearn for the same for him and her. The Founding Fathers understood this, though they imperfectly executed it. I have no such confidence in the Muslim Brotherhood. If the Egyptian people yearn for freedom and liberty, they will rise up to protect and defend these sacred rights. However, if Americans can usurp power from God and restrict some constitutional rights while elevating other behaviors to constitutional status that would make the Founding Fathers scream in outrage, I am certain the Egyptians are capable of the same things in greater magnitude and shorter time.
Justice Ginsburg's suggestion that Egypt use Canadian or South African documents as models for her new government is not a surprise. It fits the justice's secular humanist, “living breather” view and the disdain she and other left-wing elites hold for America's founders. But it's not a bad idea in context.
Let Egypt follow Justice Ginsburg's suggestion. Let them use constitutions from other nations and draft their own documents where man bestows rights to man.
And watch how quickly man restricts or eliminates them.
Much to the surprise of people in the conservative blogosphere, Justice Ginsburg argued that the U.S. Constitution would be a poor place for Egypt to start. “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she remarked with all seriousness. Instead, she would look to more recently drafted documents such as the South African Constitution drafted in 1996, or Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms from 1982.
She justified her answer by reminding everyone that the U.S. Constitution excluded rights for (and input from) women, slaves and Native Americans. She provided no historical context during the interview for these omissions, choosing instead to leave the false impression that the Founding Fathers were helpless racists and sexists. Later on in the interview, however, she concedes with a chuckle that, “the men who met in Philadelphia were very wise...[but] they were lacking one thing, and that is that there were no women who were part of the Constitutional Convention.”
Nevermind that the Constitution also includes the twenty-seven amendments, many of which have served to eliminate disparities based on sex and origin for decades now.
Most critics of Justice Ginsburg's comments are merely appalled that a sitting Supreme Court justice would view our founding governing document so cavalierly. This is certainly a cause for concern. But while the problems with her comments go much deeper, she arrives at the right conclusion in spite of herself.
First, Justice Ginsburg's dismissal of our constitution in favor of others is clear evidence of the secular humanism that has infiltrated the highest levels of government and society, and the belief that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” and, therefore, ultimately meaningless.
Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms details numerous freedoms and rights, many of which are quite similar to language in our own Bill of Rights. The beginning of the document states that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” However, neither the Charter, the Canadian Constitution nor any other founding documents I could find contains anything detailing the true source of the included rights. And, of course, as a member of the British Commonwealth, Canada received its rights and obligations from the Queen.
As for Justice Ginsburg's other preferred document, there is nothing wrong with the language in the South African Constitution. It is a lengthy document borne out of tremendous and violent racial struggles. It includes provisions for equal protection under the law and anti-discrimination, as well as rights to “dignity,” life, “freedom and security of the person...[and] bodily and psychological integrity,” “privacy,” freedom of religion, expression and many other rights. Some of the rights are expanded upon in the document. And most (if not all) of the rights listed therein are fine ideas that reflect rights found in our own Constitution. No one would conclude, for example, that elevating to constitutional magnitude a right to be free from enslavement is a bad idea, especially in a nation with a long and recent history of slavery and maltreatment of native ethic groups. Similarly to the Canadian Charter, however, there is nothing in the South African Constitution detailing from where these rights emanate. The Preamble's ending comes closest: “May God protect our people.”
Both Canada and South Africa now have fine documents that codify the rights of people. The problem is that both nations seem to have ignored where rights come from, i.e. God. The U.S. Constitution, while not mentioning the source of rights either, was formed after our separation (and eventual war) with Britain which was formally initiated by the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration makes clear that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and that the signors were moving forward “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” Moreover, American founding documents are replete with references to the triune Christian God and how critical He was to the founders' lives and actions. It should be beyond dispute that the Founding Fathers were guided by their faith in Christ and recognized His supreme authority.
Whereas America's founding documents, including the Declaration and Constitution that followed it, are borne out of deep Christian faith and an acknowledgment of Him being the source of all that is good—including rights—the Canadian and South African counterparts are borne out of man's desire to bestow rights upon himself. This is an inherently secular humanist approach, one where man is believed capable of morality and self-governance absent God or religious faith. And it's perfectly acceptable to Justice Ginsburg, probably even preferable to acknowledging divine inspiration and direction.
People who believe the U.S. Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that should be malleable to fit current events and disputes also implicitly or explicitly hold this view. As the American people become “more enlightened” in their thinking and beliefs, they will recognize that additional rights need to be elevated to the constitutional level, so the theory goes. Abortion—no doubt an issue of premium significance to Justice Ginsburg given her as the ACLU's general counsel in the early 1970s—is a prime example. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, neither the Constitution nor any amendment to it included language that could even remotely be considered tacit recognition by the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) of a woman's “right to choose.” Yet, a majority of Supreme Court justices found [eureka!] just such a right rooted in the “right to privacy”—a another right that is not included in the Constitution's language—and the “emanations from penumbras” of the actually written constitutional rights, which was first alluded to by Justice William O. Douglas nearly 20 years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut.
Justice Ginsburg and fellow “living breathers” would doubtless argue that America had evolved in her thinking by the 1970s and appropriately rectified decades of wrongs by elevating to constitutional magnitude the right to abort. That is precisely the problem when man seeks to supplant God and become the provider of rights. If constitutional rights are given by man, then man enhances or restricts them at will. Man giveth and man taketh away.
If God endows rights, then man can only act with such power by usurping it from God. A “living, breathing document” is a meaningless document if it can be changed by the whims of men and women who act out of their immediate circumstances or current opinions. This is, unfortunately, exactly what has happened in the United States over the last 225 years--mostly over the last 100 years. The Constitution has evolved into a virtually meaningless document as unelected life-term judges, lobbyist-influenced congressional majorities, and power-hungry executive appointees have helped it “live” and “breathe” in ways the Founding Fathers could not have fathomed. Given man's history, we can imagine the same thing happening in Canada and South Africa much faster.
Second, Justice Ginsburg's implication that the Constitutional Convention needed women delegates is just bizarre. That's not to say a woman's perspective would not have added a different dimension. But has she cracked an American History book in the last half-century? Yes, in an utopian colonial world of the 1700s, all men and all women would have been absolutely equal, regardless of race or national origin. America was not utopian in the 1700s (what nation has been?) but it was ideal in that it was founded by men and women committed to their faith in God, and yearning for liberty and freedom. No other nation can make such a claim. Many colonists, including many of the Founding Fathers, abhorred slavery and wrote and spoke out passionately against it. Other nations would follow America's lead in ending slavery and discrimination in law and deed.
The other problem with Justice Ginsburg's suggestion that women should have been involved in drafting the Constitution is that she bases her comment on the false premise that women of the 1700s would have held different beliefs from the men of the same period. It is highly unlikely that colonial women would have held beliefs similar to "enlightened," "progressive" women of the present, like Justice Ginsburg. Certainly America's history is checkered and women have helped right some of those wrongs. But whole-scale changes to our founding documents would not have occurred simply if the men had given women equal seats at the convention. As far as “women's rights” are concerned, it would be laughable to suggest that colonial women would have convinced (or even thought to bring up to) their male counterparts to include a right to abortion, or women's suffrage, or free contraception, or gay marriage, just to name a few of the “rights” the National Organization for Women currently, zealously promotes.
It is troubling to hear someone charged with interpreting the Constitution claim the document is somehow deficient because of the historical context in which it was drafted. Indeed, the Supreme Court Justice Oath of Office states that a justice will “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [a justice] under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Remember, we have had justices who believe looking to the laws of foreign nations is a good place to find precedent for American legal cases and constitutional jurisprudence. Including Justice Ginsburg.
Are the constitutional duties of justices deficient, too, because no women were directly involved in the Constitutional Convention? Are Justice Ginsburg's duties merely guidelines from which she and her fellow justices can assert greater power and authority based on the “emanations from penumbras” of what is actually written? If the language in one part of the Constitution “lives” and “breathes,” why not the rest of it?
Finally, and in defense of Justice Ginsburg, the U.S. Constitution might not be the best place for Egypt to look for a document model. The United States was founded by people who yearned for freedom from an oppressive, distant regime, and believed in the goodness of God whom they worshipped. They desired to govern themselves and seek their own destinies led by their faith.
By contrast, Egypt has overthrown a brutal dictator and handed power to a coalition government led by the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt has no real history of individual freedoms or democratic government. David Pollock of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy recently commented on the Brotherhood's double-speak regarding its plans and beliefs. For example, Pollock notes that while the Brotherhood promotes democracy in several articles on its English language website, there were no similar stories on its Arabic language site. Women and support for them are often referred to on the English site, but almost never on the Arabic site. While acknowledging there is some level of mixed messages from all political parties, Pollock cautions, “when this degree of duplicity is demonstrated, the group's credibility is, or should be, compromised accordingly.”
It is the Egyptian people who have elected the Brotherhood to a majority in their parliament. The Brotherhood has shown a strong fondness for Sharia and has tended to act with less tolerance while speaking about more tolerance. Presumably, the Brotherhood will be heavily involved in drafting new governing documents, including a new constitution. So their decisions will have status and force of law given by the Egyptian people. Will their document begin, "We the people"? Even Justice Ginsburg acknowledges this concern when she cautioned in the interview, "Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution, first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor." I can give her an "amen" for that.
If we compare the Founding Fathers with the Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps it would be better for Egypt not to use the U.S. Constitution as a guide. Freedom and liberty only have true value if man acknowledges they are given by God and seeks Him to determine how best to protect and promote them. And he must yearn for the same for him and her. The Founding Fathers understood this, though they imperfectly executed it. I have no such confidence in the Muslim Brotherhood. If the Egyptian people yearn for freedom and liberty, they will rise up to protect and defend these sacred rights. However, if Americans can usurp power from God and restrict some constitutional rights while elevating other behaviors to constitutional status that would make the Founding Fathers scream in outrage, I am certain the Egyptians are capable of the same things in greater magnitude and shorter time.
Justice Ginsburg's suggestion that Egypt use Canadian or South African documents as models for her new government is not a surprise. It fits the justice's secular humanist, “living breather” view and the disdain she and other left-wing elites hold for America's founders. But it's not a bad idea in context.
Let Egypt follow Justice Ginsburg's suggestion. Let them use constitutions from other nations and draft their own documents where man bestows rights to man.
And watch how quickly man restricts or eliminates them.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Empathy: Sotomayor and Alito not birds of a feather
The MSM and liberal blog sites are attempting to conflate comments SCOTUS nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor with “similar” comments made by current Justice Sam Alito during his nomination process. Cacophonous cries of GOP hypocrisy can be heard throughout as a major component of the liberal talking points. Don’t believe it.
It is true that during his confirmation hearings, Alito said, “When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.” Does this statement suggest Alito has empathy? Sure, and there’s nothing to apologize for. As I’ve said in previous posts, judges are not automatons and the act of judging is not a series of precise, mechanical calculations.
Moreover, context, as always, is key. Alito’s statement was part of a longer response to a specific question from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK about “Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what’s important to you in life”. Neither the question nor the answer was designed to seek information about Alito’s judicial philosophy. Alito also responded that he thinks of his own children when he is presented with a case involving children, his immigrant ancestors when deciding a case involving immigration, and disabled friends when a disability discrimination case comes his way. So, he’s human. Duh.
Note, however, the middle part of Alito’s answer most libs leave out: “And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.” In other words, Alito is not saying that his feelings, heritage and upbringing are insignificant or the guiding forces in his decision making. They are merely a factor as he applies the law and are not a basis for bending the law to fit his feelings.
Compare Alito’s comments and their context with those by Judge Sotomayor. She delivered her quip that she, as a “wise Latina woman” would make better decisions than a white man, during a speech the UC Berkeley law school in 2001. Throughout the speech, Sotomayor stressed the significance of her past, upbringing, sex and ethnic heritage—sounds a bit Alito-esque, right?
Not really. She gave the address at symposium called "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation" and sponsored by La Raza—yes, the same La Raza that, for example, opposes a border fence and other security and illegal immigration measures, and supports driver licenses and in-state tuition breaks for illegals. Certainly a friendly audience for Judge Sotomayor to share her true feelings on race and gender. The entire tenor of her speech was a reflection on the revolutionary impact women and minority judges are having and will have in changing how cases are decided if we can just get more of them on the bench. Don’t believe me? Read the speech and see for yourself.
Her words speak for themselves. For example, in a challenge to another judge’s earlier remarks, Judge Sotomayor wonders whether the goal that “judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law…is possible in all or even in most cases.”
In other words, Judge Sotomayor questions whether judges can ever use the law with fairness and integrity. Nothing remotely this radical can be read into Alito’s comments.
Given Judge Sotomayor’s membership in La Raza, her articulated views, her obvious bias now is being dismissed as poorly chosen words—though completely scripted for that specific occasion—and her documented problems with judicial temperament, it isn’t a stretch to think that Justice Sotomayor would use her racial identity and empathy to reach conclusions driven by those qualities instead of the rule of law.
The comments of Alito and Sotomayor are not the same. And when you see the difference, who would you rather be your judge? If you are anything but a liberal minority, does Sotomayor sound like someone you want judging your case?
It is true that during his confirmation hearings, Alito said, “When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.” Does this statement suggest Alito has empathy? Sure, and there’s nothing to apologize for. As I’ve said in previous posts, judges are not automatons and the act of judging is not a series of precise, mechanical calculations.
Moreover, context, as always, is key. Alito’s statement was part of a longer response to a specific question from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK about “Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what’s important to you in life”. Neither the question nor the answer was designed to seek information about Alito’s judicial philosophy. Alito also responded that he thinks of his own children when he is presented with a case involving children, his immigrant ancestors when deciding a case involving immigration, and disabled friends when a disability discrimination case comes his way. So, he’s human. Duh.
Note, however, the middle part of Alito’s answer most libs leave out: “And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.” In other words, Alito is not saying that his feelings, heritage and upbringing are insignificant or the guiding forces in his decision making. They are merely a factor as he applies the law and are not a basis for bending the law to fit his feelings.
Compare Alito’s comments and their context with those by Judge Sotomayor. She delivered her quip that she, as a “wise Latina woman” would make better decisions than a white man, during a speech the UC Berkeley law school in 2001. Throughout the speech, Sotomayor stressed the significance of her past, upbringing, sex and ethnic heritage—sounds a bit Alito-esque, right?
Not really. She gave the address at symposium called "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation" and sponsored by La Raza—yes, the same La Raza that, for example, opposes a border fence and other security and illegal immigration measures, and supports driver licenses and in-state tuition breaks for illegals. Certainly a friendly audience for Judge Sotomayor to share her true feelings on race and gender. The entire tenor of her speech was a reflection on the revolutionary impact women and minority judges are having and will have in changing how cases are decided if we can just get more of them on the bench. Don’t believe me? Read the speech and see for yourself.
Her words speak for themselves. For example, in a challenge to another judge’s earlier remarks, Judge Sotomayor wonders whether the goal that “judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law…is possible in all or even in most cases.”
In other words, Judge Sotomayor questions whether judges can ever use the law with fairness and integrity. Nothing remotely this radical can be read into Alito’s comments.
Given Judge Sotomayor’s membership in La Raza, her articulated views, her obvious bias now is being dismissed as poorly chosen words—though completely scripted for that specific occasion—and her documented problems with judicial temperament, it isn’t a stretch to think that Justice Sotomayor would use her racial identity and empathy to reach conclusions driven by those qualities instead of the rule of law.
The comments of Alito and Sotomayor are not the same. And when you see the difference, who would you rather be your judge? If you are anything but a liberal minority, does Sotomayor sound like someone you want judging your case?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The nominee and the empathy continuum
“Empathy” seems to be the judicial buzz word of the day. We are told that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, has it in abundance. This, plus her “personal story” appear to be Judge Sotomayor’s most important qualifications, at least as far as the MSM is concerned.
Admirable qualities, to be sure, but they are not the weightiest qualifications for the highest court, nor should they be. Lots of people, including many lawyers and judges, have compelling personal stories. No doubt their stories provide broad perspective and inform their decision making. As for judges, while empathy might cause a judge to rule with more deliberation, it is not a substitute for sound legal reasoning.
Judge Sotomayor’s legal reasoning has come under fire with her nomination. Most political junkies now know about fellow Circuit Judge and Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes’ dissent to Sotomayor’s opinion in Ricci v. DiStefano. Cabranes took the rare step of directly criticizing Sotomayor’s reasoning asserting it lacked a clear statement of the claims and provided a “perfunctory disposition.” You’ll soon hear about the Supreme Court unanimously (8-0) overturning her decision in the 2006 class action case Merrill Lynch v. Dabit and the high court’s 6-3 decision reversing her decision in the 2007 environmental regulation case Riverkeeper v. EPA, among other decisions.
My primary focus at this point, however, is on the fallacy that empathy should be atop the list of qualifications. It is important to understand that the Supreme Court is exclusively an appellate court, meaning you can’t just file your lawsuit there. Rather, every year the high court reviews the decisions the justices choose to review—a handful of decisions at that—based on petitions filed with the court. And those decisions were authored by judges who have already reviewed the record and one or more lower court decisions at the local level.
It is at the local level, where judges preside over hearings, jury and bench trials, take testimony, review evidence and make rulings, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and reach decisions based on the merits, that empathy is critical. Real world experience can assist a trial judge in making sound decisions in cases every day because the judge is on the front lines, in the best position to evaluate and know when and to what extent empathy should play a role.
Frankly, by the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, it has been briefed, argued, reviewed and evaluated by numerous lawyers, law clerks and judges. The emotion and basis for empathy have been almost entirely excised. What is left is the smallest number of facts necessary to permit the Supreme Court to evaluate and rule on the decision they are reviewing, and the legal analysis used to accomplish this review. Empathy, while playing a role, is relegated to a minor consideration at this level.
Unfortunately, President Obama has it backwards. Empathy seems to be of paramount importance for his selection of a nominee. This is consistent with his stance during the campaign where he said:
“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”
He’s right in one sense. Judges should not be automatons that parrot back abstract legal theory in a vacuum without regard for the realities of claims and defenses. However, there is no justification for a Supreme Court justice to author an opinion based on whether people feel, for example, “welcome in their own nation.”
Put simply, the level of empathy that is relevant to a judge’s job decreases the further away from the trial court a case gets. The foot soldier who is on the ground is in a much better position than the general at the Pentagon to assess the immediate situation, evaluate the options and choose the best one based on the rules of engagement. If the justice system is a continuum, then empathy should be greatest in the local court and the least at the Supreme Court. And, of course, a judge should have empathy to all sides in litigation since neutrality is vital.
During a 2002 speech when she recounted a quote from Justice Sandra Day O’Conner that “a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding case”, Judge Sotomayor commented, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”
Strangely, even if President Obama is correct and empathy should be a critical element, he has chosen a nominee who by her own words doesn’t show it. At least not toward white men. Maybe that’s the whole point.
Admirable qualities, to be sure, but they are not the weightiest qualifications for the highest court, nor should they be. Lots of people, including many lawyers and judges, have compelling personal stories. No doubt their stories provide broad perspective and inform their decision making. As for judges, while empathy might cause a judge to rule with more deliberation, it is not a substitute for sound legal reasoning.
Judge Sotomayor’s legal reasoning has come under fire with her nomination. Most political junkies now know about fellow Circuit Judge and Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes’ dissent to Sotomayor’s opinion in Ricci v. DiStefano. Cabranes took the rare step of directly criticizing Sotomayor’s reasoning asserting it lacked a clear statement of the claims and provided a “perfunctory disposition.” You’ll soon hear about the Supreme Court unanimously (8-0) overturning her decision in the 2006 class action case Merrill Lynch v. Dabit and the high court’s 6-3 decision reversing her decision in the 2007 environmental regulation case Riverkeeper v. EPA, among other decisions.
My primary focus at this point, however, is on the fallacy that empathy should be atop the list of qualifications. It is important to understand that the Supreme Court is exclusively an appellate court, meaning you can’t just file your lawsuit there. Rather, every year the high court reviews the decisions the justices choose to review—a handful of decisions at that—based on petitions filed with the court. And those decisions were authored by judges who have already reviewed the record and one or more lower court decisions at the local level.
It is at the local level, where judges preside over hearings, jury and bench trials, take testimony, review evidence and make rulings, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and reach decisions based on the merits, that empathy is critical. Real world experience can assist a trial judge in making sound decisions in cases every day because the judge is on the front lines, in the best position to evaluate and know when and to what extent empathy should play a role.
Frankly, by the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, it has been briefed, argued, reviewed and evaluated by numerous lawyers, law clerks and judges. The emotion and basis for empathy have been almost entirely excised. What is left is the smallest number of facts necessary to permit the Supreme Court to evaluate and rule on the decision they are reviewing, and the legal analysis used to accomplish this review. Empathy, while playing a role, is relegated to a minor consideration at this level.
Unfortunately, President Obama has it backwards. Empathy seems to be of paramount importance for his selection of a nominee. This is consistent with his stance during the campaign where he said:
“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”
He’s right in one sense. Judges should not be automatons that parrot back abstract legal theory in a vacuum without regard for the realities of claims and defenses. However, there is no justification for a Supreme Court justice to author an opinion based on whether people feel, for example, “welcome in their own nation.”
Put simply, the level of empathy that is relevant to a judge’s job decreases the further away from the trial court a case gets. The foot soldier who is on the ground is in a much better position than the general at the Pentagon to assess the immediate situation, evaluate the options and choose the best one based on the rules of engagement. If the justice system is a continuum, then empathy should be greatest in the local court and the least at the Supreme Court. And, of course, a judge should have empathy to all sides in litigation since neutrality is vital.
During a 2002 speech when she recounted a quote from Justice Sandra Day O’Conner that “a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding case”, Judge Sotomayor commented, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”
Strangely, even if President Obama is correct and empathy should be a critical element, he has chosen a nominee who by her own words doesn’t show it. At least not toward white men. Maybe that’s the whole point.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
The 1960's, transgender tots, and parental abdication
I wasn’t born until the late 1960’s so I have no personal connection to the social and cultural upheaval happening then. However, I do know some aging hippies and, well, we all seem to hear about how cool the 60’s were. The era when “America came of age.” Oh sure, there was lots of sex, drugs, peace, drugs, tie-dye, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. And drugs. But we struggled as a nation with race relations and civil rights, the Vietnam War, the assassinations of President Kennedy, his brother and Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr., just to name a few of the major events.
It seems fair to say that America “grew” in the way we all do when we face adversity and come out the other end. We become stronger and gain new perspectives. Usually that’s a good thing.
Usually.
In response to the sexual taboos of the 1950’s, the sexual revolution was beginning to hit its stride as well and, as an outgrowth, the so-called gay rights movement. A lot was happening behind the scenes with sex and gender research courtesy of studies and publications by Masters and Johnson and others. Among the others was Dr. John Money.
Dr. Money “pioneered” new definitions of “gender roles” based on his belief that gender was not innate but could be assigned to a child before age 3. In other words, your DNA, sexual organs and hormones (to name a few things) don’t have to determine your sex. If Dr. Money got to you early enough in your childhood, he could help you choose your sex. Not surprisingly, Dr. Money also was a strong advocate of sex change operations while working at Johns Hopkins University.
To prove his theory, Dr. Money experimented in 1967 on a set of young twin boys, one of whom had had a botched circumcision that destroyed his penis. With the parents’ consent, Dr. Money removed the boy’s sex organs and put him on an aggressive hormone regimen so he could be raised as a girl. The result? An epic tragedy that ultimately led to the boy unsuccessfully reversing Dr. Mengele—sorry—Dr. Money’s plans several years later, the boy’s suicide in 2004, and his twin brother’s drug overdose in 2003. Ruined lives, broken relationships, a devastated family and generational lines lost.
The 60’s weren’t all bad and neither is some blurring of traditional gender roles. What is truly disturbing about the 60’s legacy is the indifference to and devaluation of life. People and traditional roles have become much less valuable with the approval and growth of abortion, assisted suicide, pornography, hedonism, and a culture that says it’s OK for anyone to do anything he wants as long as no one gets hurt. You’d think this legacy and the work of quacks like Dr. Money would teach us not to mess with God’s order.
Apparently the lesson hasn’t been taught in Omaha.
This past week, the Sioux City Journal reported that a local family planned to enroll their 8-year old son in a different school next year. Why? According to them, he is transgender and has wanted to be a girl since he was 4. The evidence? He says he’s wanted to be a girl, been allowed to wear girl clothes at home, and claims his inside doesn’t match his outside. No news on whether surgery will be involved.
Of course, the child’s family is responsible for making this decision and encouraging their son to live a heartrending lie. But we shouldn’t be surprised that this would happen in our “enlightened” post-60’s age. It used to be that men were men and women were women. And historically each sex was primarily responsible for certain familial and societal obligations. It is also true that these distinctions were the result in part of, as feminists might put it, male hegemony and a desire to keep women subjugated.
Most of it, however, was due to the fact that boys are boys and girls are girls. They are inherently different from each other! That’s God’s design. Boys will make guns out of any nearby toy because they are wired to be boys. Same with girls and tea parties. Yes, there are (very) few exceptions. I don’t know what causes the exceptions but I’m sure they are not the result of a choice one makes to be one sex or the other.
The approach of the Omaha parents is that their boy wants to be a girl, so let him be a girl and we’ll raise him that way. This has happened because either the parents have given up or society has deteriorated such that they’ve concluded their decision is valid and won’t be condemned. Either choice is a reflection of the changes in society that grew out of the 60’s—ambivalence and spiritual malaise, or free love, hedonism and the devaluation of life. Since the parents refused to permit publications of their names for fear of retribution, I suggest that they’ve given up. This family can likely expect broken relationships, heartache, and family devastation, courtesy of the “progress” our society has made.
Dr. Money’s work should be a cautionary tale to them and all of us. Thankfully, he died in 2006. He can’t mutilate anyone physically anymore, but his legacy and that of the era of his most prominent work will continue to mutilate families, lives, and life itself.
It seems fair to say that America “grew” in the way we all do when we face adversity and come out the other end. We become stronger and gain new perspectives. Usually that’s a good thing.
Usually.
In response to the sexual taboos of the 1950’s, the sexual revolution was beginning to hit its stride as well and, as an outgrowth, the so-called gay rights movement. A lot was happening behind the scenes with sex and gender research courtesy of studies and publications by Masters and Johnson and others. Among the others was Dr. John Money.
Dr. Money “pioneered” new definitions of “gender roles” based on his belief that gender was not innate but could be assigned to a child before age 3. In other words, your DNA, sexual organs and hormones (to name a few things) don’t have to determine your sex. If Dr. Money got to you early enough in your childhood, he could help you choose your sex. Not surprisingly, Dr. Money also was a strong advocate of sex change operations while working at Johns Hopkins University.
To prove his theory, Dr. Money experimented in 1967 on a set of young twin boys, one of whom had had a botched circumcision that destroyed his penis. With the parents’ consent, Dr. Money removed the boy’s sex organs and put him on an aggressive hormone regimen so he could be raised as a girl. The result? An epic tragedy that ultimately led to the boy unsuccessfully reversing Dr. Mengele—sorry—Dr. Money’s plans several years later, the boy’s suicide in 2004, and his twin brother’s drug overdose in 2003. Ruined lives, broken relationships, a devastated family and generational lines lost.
The 60’s weren’t all bad and neither is some blurring of traditional gender roles. What is truly disturbing about the 60’s legacy is the indifference to and devaluation of life. People and traditional roles have become much less valuable with the approval and growth of abortion, assisted suicide, pornography, hedonism, and a culture that says it’s OK for anyone to do anything he wants as long as no one gets hurt. You’d think this legacy and the work of quacks like Dr. Money would teach us not to mess with God’s order.
Apparently the lesson hasn’t been taught in Omaha.
This past week, the Sioux City Journal reported that a local family planned to enroll their 8-year old son in a different school next year. Why? According to them, he is transgender and has wanted to be a girl since he was 4. The evidence? He says he’s wanted to be a girl, been allowed to wear girl clothes at home, and claims his inside doesn’t match his outside. No news on whether surgery will be involved.
Of course, the child’s family is responsible for making this decision and encouraging their son to live a heartrending lie. But we shouldn’t be surprised that this would happen in our “enlightened” post-60’s age. It used to be that men were men and women were women. And historically each sex was primarily responsible for certain familial and societal obligations. It is also true that these distinctions were the result in part of, as feminists might put it, male hegemony and a desire to keep women subjugated.
Most of it, however, was due to the fact that boys are boys and girls are girls. They are inherently different from each other! That’s God’s design. Boys will make guns out of any nearby toy because they are wired to be boys. Same with girls and tea parties. Yes, there are (very) few exceptions. I don’t know what causes the exceptions but I’m sure they are not the result of a choice one makes to be one sex or the other.
The approach of the Omaha parents is that their boy wants to be a girl, so let him be a girl and we’ll raise him that way. This has happened because either the parents have given up or society has deteriorated such that they’ve concluded their decision is valid and won’t be condemned. Either choice is a reflection of the changes in society that grew out of the 60’s—ambivalence and spiritual malaise, or free love, hedonism and the devaluation of life. Since the parents refused to permit publications of their names for fear of retribution, I suggest that they’ve given up. This family can likely expect broken relationships, heartache, and family devastation, courtesy of the “progress” our society has made.
Dr. Money’s work should be a cautionary tale to them and all of us. Thankfully, he died in 2006. He can’t mutilate anyone physically anymore, but his legacy and that of the era of his most prominent work will continue to mutilate families, lives, and life itself.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Cautionary Tale of the Costly Crappers
“It’s a toilet, what else do ya wanna know?”
Well, not quite. Butch Behn of Tenino, Washington is being coy when he downplays his classy new commodes. They actually have quite a story.
If you’ve taken the “Seattle Underground Tour” you’ll know that plumbing has played an important role in the city’s history. With the arrival of the “water closet” Seattleites could flush with their more sophisticated cousins in the east. However, the local sewer system had a tendency to flow both ways thanks to the tides in Puget Sound. Imagine a toilet one minute, sewage fountain the next. A great fire in 1889 that burned much of the city also provided the opportunity for sewer modernization.
Fast forward about 100 years. Seattle is a thriving metropolis, a cosmopolitan port of entry with modern facilities and amenities. And one of the most liberal cities in the US. Seattle politics and city government are owned by liberal Democrats. How else to explain Rep. “Baghdad” Jim McDermott and virtually every mayor and city councilman coming from the left? Republicans have not had a controlling presence in the city since the 1980s. Conservative locals identify Seattle as existing “behind the Emerald Curtain”.
Thanks to growth, industry and positive media coverage, Seattle is a world leader. But, like all cities, it still struggles with urban problems.
Apparently, one pressing problem in 2004 was adequate toilet facilities for tourists. Seattle’s solution? Buy 5 enormous, shiny, stainless-steel self-cleaning toilets for $1 million each and install them at popular tourist locations for people to use for free. Tourists would appreciate the extra facilities and city leaders figured they’d get the added benefit of the homeless using the toilets to relieve themselves instead of alleys and parks.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well, once the costly commodes were installed, they quickly became popular with [surprise!] drug users and prostitutes. Self-cleaning, free toilets large enough for two sure beat crack houses and hourly-rate motels. Seattle’s outstanding outhouses had become the butt of jokes, just the latest classic liberal spending boondoggle.
Four years later, city leaders put the toilets up on eBay and eventually sold them to Butch Behn—for $12,549. Of that amount, the city recovered about $10,000. In other words, Seattle’s $5 million investment failed to serve its designated purpose and created additional, more serious problems than the one it was supposed to solve. Oh, and the city recovered a meaningless two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the original cost.
When we conservatives rail against runaway government spending, we don’t do so just to gainsay liberals. We do it because we believe government at all levels should spend less overall and the money government spends should be targeted to the issues government is in the best position to solve. We also believe people are enterprising enough to find a toilet to use on their own.
Back to Butch Behn. He recently installed a couple of his new toilets as a novelty item at his South Sound Speedway in time for this year’s racing season. Now the shiny crappers will be preserved by a local capitalist entrepreneur. Monuments to government waste and excess in service to Puget Sound race fans, a suburban/rural demographic that doubtless would have opposed the toilet project had they lived in the Big City. Congressional Democrats and President Obama should take note.
Behn’s son Nick summed it up this way: “Everybody’s gotta take a dump in a million dollar toilet.” Unfortunately, thanks to runaway liberal spending, we’ll all probably get that chance
Well, not quite. Butch Behn of Tenino, Washington is being coy when he downplays his classy new commodes. They actually have quite a story.
If you’ve taken the “Seattle Underground Tour” you’ll know that plumbing has played an important role in the city’s history. With the arrival of the “water closet” Seattleites could flush with their more sophisticated cousins in the east. However, the local sewer system had a tendency to flow both ways thanks to the tides in Puget Sound. Imagine a toilet one minute, sewage fountain the next. A great fire in 1889 that burned much of the city also provided the opportunity for sewer modernization.
Fast forward about 100 years. Seattle is a thriving metropolis, a cosmopolitan port of entry with modern facilities and amenities. And one of the most liberal cities in the US. Seattle politics and city government are owned by liberal Democrats. How else to explain Rep. “Baghdad” Jim McDermott and virtually every mayor and city councilman coming from the left? Republicans have not had a controlling presence in the city since the 1980s. Conservative locals identify Seattle as existing “behind the Emerald Curtain”.
Thanks to growth, industry and positive media coverage, Seattle is a world leader. But, like all cities, it still struggles with urban problems.
Apparently, one pressing problem in 2004 was adequate toilet facilities for tourists. Seattle’s solution? Buy 5 enormous, shiny, stainless-steel self-cleaning toilets for $1 million each and install them at popular tourist locations for people to use for free. Tourists would appreciate the extra facilities and city leaders figured they’d get the added benefit of the homeless using the toilets to relieve themselves instead of alleys and parks.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well, once the costly commodes were installed, they quickly became popular with [surprise!] drug users and prostitutes. Self-cleaning, free toilets large enough for two sure beat crack houses and hourly-rate motels. Seattle’s outstanding outhouses had become the butt of jokes, just the latest classic liberal spending boondoggle.
Four years later, city leaders put the toilets up on eBay and eventually sold them to Butch Behn—for $12,549. Of that amount, the city recovered about $10,000. In other words, Seattle’s $5 million investment failed to serve its designated purpose and created additional, more serious problems than the one it was supposed to solve. Oh, and the city recovered a meaningless two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the original cost.
When we conservatives rail against runaway government spending, we don’t do so just to gainsay liberals. We do it because we believe government at all levels should spend less overall and the money government spends should be targeted to the issues government is in the best position to solve. We also believe people are enterprising enough to find a toilet to use on their own.
Back to Butch Behn. He recently installed a couple of his new toilets as a novelty item at his South Sound Speedway in time for this year’s racing season. Now the shiny crappers will be preserved by a local capitalist entrepreneur. Monuments to government waste and excess in service to Puget Sound race fans, a suburban/rural demographic that doubtless would have opposed the toilet project had they lived in the Big City. Congressional Democrats and President Obama should take note.
Behn’s son Nick summed it up this way: “Everybody’s gotta take a dump in a million dollar toilet.” Unfortunately, thanks to runaway liberal spending, we’ll all probably get that chance
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
What You Need to Know about Swine Flu
If you want some advice on how the media suggests you prepare for swine flu, click here.
However, in case you hadn't noticed, the media has a tendency toward laziness and bias. So I decided to take the actual questions asked in this article and provide the true answers. Here we go:
"Q: How do I protect myself and my family?"
A: There is little you can do until the next Congressional election cycle in 2010. The Democrats who run Congress seem to have a particularly acute case of swine flu given their propensity for reckless and runaway pork. For now, try not to make too much money since it will doubtless be taxed at confiscatory rates. And drink plenty of fluids.
"Q: How easy is it to catch this virus?"
A: Outside of Congress, it seems that leftists, socialists, union leaders, MSNBC TV personalities, community organizers and Oba-Messiah worshipers are at greatest risk of infection. However, the virus has been known to attack spineless RINOs inside the Beltway. According to the CDC, one theory on how the virus has spread so rapidly is prolonged exposure to hot air and hob-knobbing in the Capitol Building cafeteria, attending White House press briefings, and getting within spitting distance of Speaker Pelosi.
"Q: In Mexico, officials are handing out face masks. Do I need one?"
A: At this point, it is recommended that you use a mask when you travel inside the Beltway, a particularly hot spot. Or if you are considering a run for public office. It's safer to avoid close contact with a likely host (see partial list of categories above) but if you can't do that, CDC guidelines say it's OK to consider a mask — or plug your nose and turn up your iPod.
"Q: Is swine flu treatable?"
A: Yes. If you suspect you might have been exposed to swine flu, it is recommended that you immediately begin a heavy dose of Ronald Reagan speeches in print or audio form. If you fear your Members of Congress have been infected, write them urgently and encourage them to seek treatment lest they be voted out of office.
"Q: Is there enough?"
A: Yes, but if you don't have easy access to President Reagan's speeches, you could begin a course of conservative talk radio treatment.
"Q: Should I take Tamiflu as a precaution if I'm not sick yet?"
A: What, you really think some drug will help you?
"Q: How big is my risk?"
A: It depends. If you are a taxpayer, you are at low risk to catch swine flu but are certainly most likely to be affected since you will be footing the bill for others. That disadvantage is balanced by the amount of pork that comes to your district. So, for example, if you are a taxpayer in Kittanning, PA, in the district of Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, your poor representative has been infected for years. However, your community previously received $300,000 of a renovations at the Belmont Complex, a county-run public swimming pool and ice rink center. And you probably only paid a few pennies for it. On the other hand, if you are a taxpayer in the district of Rep. Mike Pence, R-IN, your representative is healthy but you don't have any goodies to show for it. And you paid for a nice ice rink in western PA.
"Q: Should I cancel my planned trip to Mexico?"
A: Why in the name of all that is good and righteous would you ever travel to Mexico? Cancel it and see part of America instead.
"Q: What else is the U.S., or anyone else, doing to try to stop this virus?"
A: Unfortunately, the Obama Administration seems to be directly encouraging the spread of the virus. It is likely that we will see more porkulus packages in the future. Government servants have an especially difficult time healing from swine flu. If you attend any tea parties, however, you might discover that many fellow attendees actually have some good ideas about stopping the virus, though you'd be hard pressed to hear that from the MSM.
"Q: What are the symptoms?"
A: A spending fever, deep desire to bring money and pork home and pay off those campaign contributors, doublespeak, strong urge to secrecy and voting for spending bills without reading them, a "D" mysteriously appearing after your name, haughtiness and extreme pride, and malodorous and often painful gas.
"Q: Is there a vaccine to prevent this new infection?"
A: Yes. It's called small government, low tax, Bill of Rights, Ninth and Tenth Amendment, originalist interpretation, pro-US military, anti-terrorist conservatism.
"Q: How long would it take to produce a vaccine?"
A: One can be produced as quickly as November 2010.
"Q: What is swine flu?
A: Pigs spread their own strains of influenza and every so often people catch one, usually after contact with the animals." In this case, Democrats in Congress and President Obama caught the virus by directly suckling the tits of the federal government sow, i.e. your wallet.
"Q: So is it safe to eat pork?"
A: By all means, eat pork. Just buy it yourself instead of relying on your congressman to bring it home to you.
"Q: And whatever happened to bird flu? Wasn't that supposed to be the next pandemic?"
A: Swine flu is merely a mutate strain of bird flu caused by the excessive, obscene and drunken spending spree of those turkeys back in DC.
So there you have it. The bottom line? Elect true conservatives, you'll cure swine flu by eliminating pork-barrel projects, and bird flu by voting the turkeys out of office.
However, in case you hadn't noticed, the media has a tendency toward laziness and bias. So I decided to take the actual questions asked in this article and provide the true answers. Here we go:
"Q: How do I protect myself and my family?"
A: There is little you can do until the next Congressional election cycle in 2010. The Democrats who run Congress seem to have a particularly acute case of swine flu given their propensity for reckless and runaway pork. For now, try not to make too much money since it will doubtless be taxed at confiscatory rates. And drink plenty of fluids.
"Q: How easy is it to catch this virus?"
A: Outside of Congress, it seems that leftists, socialists, union leaders, MSNBC TV personalities, community organizers and Oba-Messiah worshipers are at greatest risk of infection. However, the virus has been known to attack spineless RINOs inside the Beltway. According to the CDC, one theory on how the virus has spread so rapidly is prolonged exposure to hot air and hob-knobbing in the Capitol Building cafeteria, attending White House press briefings, and getting within spitting distance of Speaker Pelosi.
"Q: In Mexico, officials are handing out face masks. Do I need one?"
A: At this point, it is recommended that you use a mask when you travel inside the Beltway, a particularly hot spot. Or if you are considering a run for public office. It's safer to avoid close contact with a likely host (see partial list of categories above) but if you can't do that, CDC guidelines say it's OK to consider a mask — or plug your nose and turn up your iPod.
"Q: Is swine flu treatable?"
A: Yes. If you suspect you might have been exposed to swine flu, it is recommended that you immediately begin a heavy dose of Ronald Reagan speeches in print or audio form. If you fear your Members of Congress have been infected, write them urgently and encourage them to seek treatment lest they be voted out of office.
"Q: Is there enough?"
A: Yes, but if you don't have easy access to President Reagan's speeches, you could begin a course of conservative talk radio treatment.
"Q: Should I take Tamiflu as a precaution if I'm not sick yet?"
A: What, you really think some drug will help you?
"Q: How big is my risk?"
A: It depends. If you are a taxpayer, you are at low risk to catch swine flu but are certainly most likely to be affected since you will be footing the bill for others. That disadvantage is balanced by the amount of pork that comes to your district. So, for example, if you are a taxpayer in Kittanning, PA, in the district of Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, your poor representative has been infected for years. However, your community previously received $300,000 of a renovations at the Belmont Complex, a county-run public swimming pool and ice rink center. And you probably only paid a few pennies for it. On the other hand, if you are a taxpayer in the district of Rep. Mike Pence, R-IN, your representative is healthy but you don't have any goodies to show for it. And you paid for a nice ice rink in western PA.
"Q: Should I cancel my planned trip to Mexico?"
A: Why in the name of all that is good and righteous would you ever travel to Mexico? Cancel it and see part of America instead.
"Q: What else is the U.S., or anyone else, doing to try to stop this virus?"
A: Unfortunately, the Obama Administration seems to be directly encouraging the spread of the virus. It is likely that we will see more porkulus packages in the future. Government servants have an especially difficult time healing from swine flu. If you attend any tea parties, however, you might discover that many fellow attendees actually have some good ideas about stopping the virus, though you'd be hard pressed to hear that from the MSM.
"Q: What are the symptoms?"
A: A spending fever, deep desire to bring money and pork home and pay off those campaign contributors, doublespeak, strong urge to secrecy and voting for spending bills without reading them, a "D" mysteriously appearing after your name, haughtiness and extreme pride, and malodorous and often painful gas.
"Q: Is there a vaccine to prevent this new infection?"
A: Yes. It's called small government, low tax, Bill of Rights, Ninth and Tenth Amendment, originalist interpretation, pro-US military, anti-terrorist conservatism.
"Q: How long would it take to produce a vaccine?"
A: One can be produced as quickly as November 2010.
"Q: What is swine flu?
A: Pigs spread their own strains of influenza and every so often people catch one, usually after contact with the animals." In this case, Democrats in Congress and President Obama caught the virus by directly suckling the tits of the federal government sow, i.e. your wallet.
"Q: So is it safe to eat pork?"
A: By all means, eat pork. Just buy it yourself instead of relying on your congressman to bring it home to you.
"Q: And whatever happened to bird flu? Wasn't that supposed to be the next pandemic?"
A: Swine flu is merely a mutate strain of bird flu caused by the excessive, obscene and drunken spending spree of those turkeys back in DC.
So there you have it. The bottom line? Elect true conservatives, you'll cure swine flu by eliminating pork-barrel projects, and bird flu by voting the turkeys out of office.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Barack Obama's Historic Win
In light of Election Day 2008, I decided to start a new blog to express my views and reach out to others. I hope you will enjoy and take the time to add your comments.
First, I did not support Barack Obama for President. I believe his associations, his policies and, most significantly, his complete lack of experience and lack of accomplishment militated strongly against him. I am sure my future posts will explore these issues more as Obama fills cabinet positions, makes decisions and proposes budgets and legislation. Nevertheless, the people have spoken, Obama will be our next President, and America will continue to survive and, hopefully, thrive.
However, let's be clear: John McCain's loss is not a loss that can be pinned on conservatives. From the very beginning of the campaign, we conservatives were wary of McCain for his various legislative stands and willingness to sell us out. At the same time we respected his service. His loss is at least in part due to his failures to be consistently conservative a la Ronald Reagan. Conservative Republicans should view this election as a clarion call to stop electing RINOs (Republicans in name only) and start putting up strong candidates with principled and demonstrative conservative views, because these views win the day when advocated. Look at Prop. 8 winning in California as well as the passing of similar measures in Florida and Arizona.
Obama ran a better, more organized, better funded campaign, and appealed to a new, starry-eyed generation of voters who were taken by his soaring rhetoric. We'll see whether his governing will match. I, for one, am highly skeptical.
First, I did not support Barack Obama for President. I believe his associations, his policies and, most significantly, his complete lack of experience and lack of accomplishment militated strongly against him. I am sure my future posts will explore these issues more as Obama fills cabinet positions, makes decisions and proposes budgets and legislation. Nevertheless, the people have spoken, Obama will be our next President, and America will continue to survive and, hopefully, thrive.
However, let's be clear: John McCain's loss is not a loss that can be pinned on conservatives. From the very beginning of the campaign, we conservatives were wary of McCain for his various legislative stands and willingness to sell us out. At the same time we respected his service. His loss is at least in part due to his failures to be consistently conservative a la Ronald Reagan. Conservative Republicans should view this election as a clarion call to stop electing RINOs (Republicans in name only) and start putting up strong candidates with principled and demonstrative conservative views, because these views win the day when advocated. Look at Prop. 8 winning in California as well as the passing of similar measures in Florida and Arizona.
Obama ran a better, more organized, better funded campaign, and appealed to a new, starry-eyed generation of voters who were taken by his soaring rhetoric. We'll see whether his governing will match. I, for one, am highly skeptical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
