Someone please tell ACORN (and Congress) it's not their money
Posted using ShareThis
Friday, November 20, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
An open letter and apology to abortion providers and the pro-choice crowd
I have never been a militant anti-abortion guy. However, I am a pro-life Christian evangelical who believes life begins at conception. That makes me an easy target for pro-choice liberals and feminists. Nevertheless, the murder of Dr. George Tiller, a Wichita, Kansas abortion provider who was one of a handful of physicians who provides late-term abortions, saddened me as it should everyone.
Let me be clear: I abhor the practices of doctors like Tiller who commit brutal acts against the defenseless unborn. And I believe Roe v. Wade was a poorly reasoned decision, a power grab that improperly raised the “right” to abortion to the level of federal constitutional magnitude. Further, I believe that the value of life has been cheapened by Roe and other decisions, creating a callousness or indifference toward life. You might disagree, and both of us probably would be unsuccessful in converting the other to our cause, but that’s what I believe.
As for Tiller’s killing, there is plenty of information out there regarding the suspect and the fact that he is not a known member of anti-abortion groups. Many pro-life groups and supporters also have roundly and swiftly condemned the killing.
But the point of this commentary is not to debate abortion. It is for me to express an apology.
You see, my wife has been reading a book by Mike Erre entitled “Death by Church”. When my wife reads a book occasionally she will share interesting parts with me. With this particular book, she has found much more to share than usual. Yesterday, the day Tiller was killed, my wife pointed out to me a chapter in Erre’s book where he writes open apologies to people who have been hurt by the Christian church, including one to abortion providers and patients.
Erre’s apology reinforced in me my belief I have held that the Christians and the Christian church do not do enough to help women who are deciding whether to keep their babies. Part of this is caused by the pro-choice movement marginalizing and demonizing the pro-life movement but some of it is certainly due to the greater pro-life focus on the evils of the sin and not the forgiveness, salvation and love of the sinners.
That prompted a much parodied question we know all too well: What would Jesus do? I believe He would love the sinner, condemn the sin, and seek the restoration of the sinner with God. Not only did Jesus not condemn sinners (other than the excessively pious religious leaders), he welcomed, dined and hung out with them. He even made them his disciples. Of course, the sinner plays a significant role but it’s hard for a sinner to take those steps when Christians are instead condemning them instead of reflecting Jesus’ love.
So, even though I have not personally engaged in aggressive pro-life activities, I believe pro-life Christians should repent for our roles in perpetuating the damage abortion causes. While I have some quibbles with Erre’s apology, it seems overall to be an adequate and appropriate recognition of our contributions to the problem. Giving full credit to Mike Erre, I reproduce his apology below which you can find starting at page 235 of “Death by Church”.
“I want to ask your forgiveness for the ways we have polarized, alienated, and insulted you. I apologize for our aggressive tactics, our political manipulation, and the taunting that so often accompanies our interactions with each other.
“In our zeal to represent what we see as the lives of the unborn, we have used methods, messages, and strategies that are simply not of Jesus. If you are reading this and you have worked for a clinic, or have had an abortion, or simply believe the pro-choice position to be correct, I ask your forgiveness for the way the community of Jesus has treated you.
“Jesus had an amazing ability to hang around all kinds of people. The ‘sinners’ and ‘outcasts’ of His day loved to be around Him while the religious people were suspicious of Him. I grieve that 2000 years later, these perceptions of Jesus have exactly reversed.
“Please know that we care deeply about this issue. Behind our heated rhetoric and misguided attempts at intimidation, most of us are not concerned about the ways in which human life is increasingly devalued…. I, for one, wish we had done a better job welcoming and supporting those women who, in the absence of such support, chose an abortion. We have not done enough to ensure that those who wish to bring their babies into the world have the resources to do so. We have not been realistic about the effectiveness of our abstinence programs, which do little to decrease the rate of teen sexual activity and pregnancy. We have not embodied a radical alternative that opens up possibilities for pregnant women. Please forgive us.”
I add that my apology extends to the family of Dr. Tiller. I don’t agree with his conduct but I know he was a child of God and, apparently, a church-going family man. Now, he has met his maker. If Tiller had a personal relationship with Jesus, then God will have mercy on his soul, just as He will mine when I die. He loves Tiller no more or less than He loves me.
Some might say Tiller deserved it or that his killing was justified. Count me as one who is saddened for his family and believes it is not my role to condemn him, judge him, or declare where he will spend eternity.
Let me be clear: I abhor the practices of doctors like Tiller who commit brutal acts against the defenseless unborn. And I believe Roe v. Wade was a poorly reasoned decision, a power grab that improperly raised the “right” to abortion to the level of federal constitutional magnitude. Further, I believe that the value of life has been cheapened by Roe and other decisions, creating a callousness or indifference toward life. You might disagree, and both of us probably would be unsuccessful in converting the other to our cause, but that’s what I believe.
As for Tiller’s killing, there is plenty of information out there regarding the suspect and the fact that he is not a known member of anti-abortion groups. Many pro-life groups and supporters also have roundly and swiftly condemned the killing.
But the point of this commentary is not to debate abortion. It is for me to express an apology.
You see, my wife has been reading a book by Mike Erre entitled “Death by Church”. When my wife reads a book occasionally she will share interesting parts with me. With this particular book, she has found much more to share than usual. Yesterday, the day Tiller was killed, my wife pointed out to me a chapter in Erre’s book where he writes open apologies to people who have been hurt by the Christian church, including one to abortion providers and patients.
Erre’s apology reinforced in me my belief I have held that the Christians and the Christian church do not do enough to help women who are deciding whether to keep their babies. Part of this is caused by the pro-choice movement marginalizing and demonizing the pro-life movement but some of it is certainly due to the greater pro-life focus on the evils of the sin and not the forgiveness, salvation and love of the sinners.
That prompted a much parodied question we know all too well: What would Jesus do? I believe He would love the sinner, condemn the sin, and seek the restoration of the sinner with God. Not only did Jesus not condemn sinners (other than the excessively pious religious leaders), he welcomed, dined and hung out with them. He even made them his disciples. Of course, the sinner plays a significant role but it’s hard for a sinner to take those steps when Christians are instead condemning them instead of reflecting Jesus’ love.
So, even though I have not personally engaged in aggressive pro-life activities, I believe pro-life Christians should repent for our roles in perpetuating the damage abortion causes. While I have some quibbles with Erre’s apology, it seems overall to be an adequate and appropriate recognition of our contributions to the problem. Giving full credit to Mike Erre, I reproduce his apology below which you can find starting at page 235 of “Death by Church”.
“I want to ask your forgiveness for the ways we have polarized, alienated, and insulted you. I apologize for our aggressive tactics, our political manipulation, and the taunting that so often accompanies our interactions with each other.
“In our zeal to represent what we see as the lives of the unborn, we have used methods, messages, and strategies that are simply not of Jesus. If you are reading this and you have worked for a clinic, or have had an abortion, or simply believe the pro-choice position to be correct, I ask your forgiveness for the way the community of Jesus has treated you.
“Jesus had an amazing ability to hang around all kinds of people. The ‘sinners’ and ‘outcasts’ of His day loved to be around Him while the religious people were suspicious of Him. I grieve that 2000 years later, these perceptions of Jesus have exactly reversed.
“Please know that we care deeply about this issue. Behind our heated rhetoric and misguided attempts at intimidation, most of us are not concerned about the ways in which human life is increasingly devalued…. I, for one, wish we had done a better job welcoming and supporting those women who, in the absence of such support, chose an abortion. We have not done enough to ensure that those who wish to bring their babies into the world have the resources to do so. We have not been realistic about the effectiveness of our abstinence programs, which do little to decrease the rate of teen sexual activity and pregnancy. We have not embodied a radical alternative that opens up possibilities for pregnant women. Please forgive us.”
I add that my apology extends to the family of Dr. Tiller. I don’t agree with his conduct but I know he was a child of God and, apparently, a church-going family man. Now, he has met his maker. If Tiller had a personal relationship with Jesus, then God will have mercy on his soul, just as He will mine when I die. He loves Tiller no more or less than He loves me.
Some might say Tiller deserved it or that his killing was justified. Count me as one who is saddened for his family and believes it is not my role to condemn him, judge him, or declare where he will spend eternity.
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.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Obama's failure to know the enemy leads to Gitmo gaffs
It’s been a week of detainee drama for the Obama administration, none of which would have been necessary but for President Obama’s self-inflicted policy problems.
Obama rode (and stoked) the fire of anti-Bush liberals into the White House by being The Anti-Bush: Everything was Bush’s fault. Pertinently, Obama promised during the campaign to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, claiming it and the military tribunals enacted by Bush were “an enormous failure.” On only his third day as president, Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo within a year. Problem solved, right?
Not so fast.
Obama still wants to close Gitmo but closure is a tougher sell when you haven’t figured out what you’ll do afterwards. The Senate today voted 90-6 to scrap funding for Obama’s closing plans meaning every Republican and virtually every Democrat rejected the plans. The administration spins this—with Democrat support—as a matter of Congress needing more details before agreeing to fund the closure. That’s putting lipstick on a pig.
President Obama can say he’s keeping his campaign promise, and he is to a point. But promises made in the heat of a campaign, where facts are few but finger-pointing is plentiful, are difficult to keep once the campaign stops and the facts become known. Now that Obama is receiving the most top secret of information, closing Gitmo still sounds good publicly but makes him wince privately.
Any closure plan—no matter how specific or detailed—will face huge obstacles. Primarily there’s the pesky matter of what to do with the 240 or so detainees. No one save the ACLU seems to like the idea of housing them in US prisons. Other nations are smart enough not to take them. That was one of the problems President Bush ran into when he wanted to close Gitmo, a fact liberals conveniently forget. Nevertheless, even most liberals don’t want the detainees released into our population, though ACORN could use the volunteers.
Then there’s the justice angle. Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling last year, Obama has the green light to prosecute detainees in our federal courts. You’d think that would please The Anti-Bush, except that Obama recently expressed support for the very military tribunals he criticized during the campaign. And the administration successfully convinced a federal judge this week that some Gitmo prisoners can be held indefinitely without charges—just like the previous administration Obama so eagerly disparaged. Would the real Obama please stand up?
Worst of all were the comments of administration Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today. In response to questions about Gitmo, Gibbs reiterated that the president believes it should be closed because (Bush is evil and) Gitmo is a “rallying cry” for terrorists.
This, the administration’s official position, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of our enemies. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists don't need a “rallying cry” to plan and carry out terror attacks against us. Our very existence is their rallying cry! Our stench as the Great Satan has led them to war against us for decades, only we didn’t wake up and smell the jet fuel until 9/11.
Gitmo itself is not a rallying cry. Rather, the claim that Gitmo must be closed is a rallying cry that plays into the terrorists’ notion of America as the Great Satan. If America would just close Gitmo, liberals claim, our evil (read: Bush/Cheney) would be vanquished and the Muslims would like and respect us again. That will stop them from wanting to hurt us.
Hogwash. The terrorists have sworn to destroy us because of who we are. You can’t compromise a dispute with someone whose singular objective is your death. The enemy publicly expresses support for the nicest, most compassionate outreaches but privately views them with derision and as weakness.
Obama boxed himself into a corner during the campaign and by so quickly ordering Gitmo closed. In recent weeks, he has vacillated between his promised Change and his continuation of Bush’s policies. Now he has yet to come up with a viable plan to deal with closure and the related issues comprehensively. The right answer is to keep Gitmo open and stop the self-flagellation.
Being The Anti-Bush isn’t so easy after all.
Obama rode (and stoked) the fire of anti-Bush liberals into the White House by being The Anti-Bush: Everything was Bush’s fault. Pertinently, Obama promised during the campaign to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, claiming it and the military tribunals enacted by Bush were “an enormous failure.” On only his third day as president, Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo within a year. Problem solved, right?
Not so fast.
Obama still wants to close Gitmo but closure is a tougher sell when you haven’t figured out what you’ll do afterwards. The Senate today voted 90-6 to scrap funding for Obama’s closing plans meaning every Republican and virtually every Democrat rejected the plans. The administration spins this—with Democrat support—as a matter of Congress needing more details before agreeing to fund the closure. That’s putting lipstick on a pig.
President Obama can say he’s keeping his campaign promise, and he is to a point. But promises made in the heat of a campaign, where facts are few but finger-pointing is plentiful, are difficult to keep once the campaign stops and the facts become known. Now that Obama is receiving the most top secret of information, closing Gitmo still sounds good publicly but makes him wince privately.
Any closure plan—no matter how specific or detailed—will face huge obstacles. Primarily there’s the pesky matter of what to do with the 240 or so detainees. No one save the ACLU seems to like the idea of housing them in US prisons. Other nations are smart enough not to take them. That was one of the problems President Bush ran into when he wanted to close Gitmo, a fact liberals conveniently forget. Nevertheless, even most liberals don’t want the detainees released into our population, though ACORN could use the volunteers.
Then there’s the justice angle. Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling last year, Obama has the green light to prosecute detainees in our federal courts. You’d think that would please The Anti-Bush, except that Obama recently expressed support for the very military tribunals he criticized during the campaign. And the administration successfully convinced a federal judge this week that some Gitmo prisoners can be held indefinitely without charges—just like the previous administration Obama so eagerly disparaged. Would the real Obama please stand up?
Worst of all were the comments of administration Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today. In response to questions about Gitmo, Gibbs reiterated that the president believes it should be closed because (Bush is evil and) Gitmo is a “rallying cry” for terrorists.
This, the administration’s official position, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of our enemies. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists don't need a “rallying cry” to plan and carry out terror attacks against us. Our very existence is their rallying cry! Our stench as the Great Satan has led them to war against us for decades, only we didn’t wake up and smell the jet fuel until 9/11.
Gitmo itself is not a rallying cry. Rather, the claim that Gitmo must be closed is a rallying cry that plays into the terrorists’ notion of America as the Great Satan. If America would just close Gitmo, liberals claim, our evil (read: Bush/Cheney) would be vanquished and the Muslims would like and respect us again. That will stop them from wanting to hurt us.
Hogwash. The terrorists have sworn to destroy us because of who we are. You can’t compromise a dispute with someone whose singular objective is your death. The enemy publicly expresses support for the nicest, most compassionate outreaches but privately views them with derision and as weakness.
Obama boxed himself into a corner during the campaign and by so quickly ordering Gitmo closed. In recent weeks, he has vacillated between his promised Change and his continuation of Bush’s policies. Now he has yet to come up with a viable plan to deal with closure and the related issues comprehensively. The right answer is to keep Gitmo open and stop the self-flagellation.
Being The Anti-Bush isn’t so easy after all.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Wanda Yikes!
Well, the dumpster fire that was the Wanda Sykes stand-up routine for the White House Correspondents dinner this weekend continues to smolder and drive the news. The MSM’s treatment of Ms. Sykes is tediously predictable. Remember the pass Alec Baldwin got when he “joked” on Late Night with Conan O’Brien that then Republican Rep. Henry Hyde should be “stoned to death” and his family killed? Yuk, yuk. As long as the object of ridicule is conservative, or Republican, or Christian—or even better all 3—then it’s all in good fun and the MSM is quick to justify or excuse, and taciturn in its criticism.
I’ve seen Ms. Sykes stand-up on late night comedy shows and she can be quite funny, though frequently off-color and “edgy”. This night, however, she was cringe worthy at best.
Let’s take her remarks about Rush Limbaugh first. It wasn’t the attack on him that bothered me. Rather, it was the personal nature of it. Rush’s painkiller addiction is no funnier than jokes about Owen Wilson attempting suicide, or Anna Nicole Smith’s fatal overdose. Nevertheless, Ms. Sykes crosses the line by “joking” that she hopes Rush’s kidneys fail.
Hysterical.
Is it ever funny to joke about someone dying? Rush is a big boy who can defend himself if he feels the need so I won’t do it here. However, liberals like Ms. Sykes can’t honestly think that joking about drug overdoses and particular people dying painful deaths is funny. Unless of course the target is an outspoken critic of a guy you support and then jokes or wishes for death are perfectly fine—like liberal columnist Julianne Malveaux hoping Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife “feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.”
But Ms. Sykes didn’t stop there. Apparently, 9/11 is now fair game for comedians too as she suggested Rush was the 20th hijacker but missed his flight due to his drug use. Nothing like a good Holocaust joke, or Pearl Harbor bit to keep the crowd rolling. Heard any knee-slapping Katrina jokes lately? There aren’t many sacred cows in comedy but it seems that terror attacks should make the short list along with genocide and deadly natural disasters.
Some conservatives have criticized Obama for not storming out of the dinner in protest of Ms. Sykes’ bit. Under the circumstances, it was certainly poor taste for Obama to guffaw to his table mates. I’ll give him a bit of a pass since most of us have been present for the telling of an off-color or offensive joke and not left the room in righteous remonstration. However, he can be legitimately criticized for not showing some form of disapproval especially over the 9/11 comments.
Sadly, while skewering 9/11 is de rigueur thanks to Ms. Sykes, President Obama is still off limits to comedians! Ms. Sykes mustered up a joke about Obama being “half white” and photographed with his shirt off. That’s it. And David Letterman’s recognition on a recent Late Show that he hasn’t figured out how to poke fun at Obama generated a rollicking bit—filled with hackneyed jokes, not about Obama, but about George W. Bush. Now that’s entertainment.
We all need tougher skin when it comes to comments and jokes. Political correctness has created a culture of hypersensitivity about the words we use or “can’t” use. But I suspect not even the fiercest opponents of PC liberalism would sanction stand-up directed at the addictions and painful death of specific known individuals, much less terrorist attacks.
Just wait until Muslim extremists set off a WMD on American soil. Thanks to liberals like Ms. Sykes, we’ll be able to laugh it off. It’ll be a gas.
I’ve seen Ms. Sykes stand-up on late night comedy shows and she can be quite funny, though frequently off-color and “edgy”. This night, however, she was cringe worthy at best.
Let’s take her remarks about Rush Limbaugh first. It wasn’t the attack on him that bothered me. Rather, it was the personal nature of it. Rush’s painkiller addiction is no funnier than jokes about Owen Wilson attempting suicide, or Anna Nicole Smith’s fatal overdose. Nevertheless, Ms. Sykes crosses the line by “joking” that she hopes Rush’s kidneys fail.
Hysterical.
Is it ever funny to joke about someone dying? Rush is a big boy who can defend himself if he feels the need so I won’t do it here. However, liberals like Ms. Sykes can’t honestly think that joking about drug overdoses and particular people dying painful deaths is funny. Unless of course the target is an outspoken critic of a guy you support and then jokes or wishes for death are perfectly fine—like liberal columnist Julianne Malveaux hoping Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife “feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.”
But Ms. Sykes didn’t stop there. Apparently, 9/11 is now fair game for comedians too as she suggested Rush was the 20th hijacker but missed his flight due to his drug use. Nothing like a good Holocaust joke, or Pearl Harbor bit to keep the crowd rolling. Heard any knee-slapping Katrina jokes lately? There aren’t many sacred cows in comedy but it seems that terror attacks should make the short list along with genocide and deadly natural disasters.
Some conservatives have criticized Obama for not storming out of the dinner in protest of Ms. Sykes’ bit. Under the circumstances, it was certainly poor taste for Obama to guffaw to his table mates. I’ll give him a bit of a pass since most of us have been present for the telling of an off-color or offensive joke and not left the room in righteous remonstration. However, he can be legitimately criticized for not showing some form of disapproval especially over the 9/11 comments.
Sadly, while skewering 9/11 is de rigueur thanks to Ms. Sykes, President Obama is still off limits to comedians! Ms. Sykes mustered up a joke about Obama being “half white” and photographed with his shirt off. That’s it. And David Letterman’s recognition on a recent Late Show that he hasn’t figured out how to poke fun at Obama generated a rollicking bit—filled with hackneyed jokes, not about Obama, but about George W. Bush. Now that’s entertainment.
We all need tougher skin when it comes to comments and jokes. Political correctness has created a culture of hypersensitivity about the words we use or “can’t” use. But I suspect not even the fiercest opponents of PC liberalism would sanction stand-up directed at the addictions and painful death of specific known individuals, much less terrorist attacks.
Just wait until Muslim extremists set off a WMD on American soil. Thanks to liberals like Ms. Sykes, we’ll be able to laugh it off. It’ll be a gas.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Prosecute Yoo? You too, Madam Speaker
Yesterday, I wrote a defense of former US Justice Department lawyer and current Berkeley law professor John Yoo for the so-called "torture memo" he wrote in August 2002. I encourage all my fans to read Yoo's memo for yourselves. Yes, it's a bit dry and sounds like a stuffy lawyer wrote it. But it is a concise analysis of the issue on which Yoo was tasked with opining.
Today, the CIA revealed a memo showing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew of the Agency's plans to use waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques"...in September 2002. In other words, one month after Yoo's memo hit Attorney General John Ashcroft's desk, Pelosi, then the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed by the CIA on the very issues discussed in Yoo's memo. What's worse, Yoo's memo speaks in generalities never mentioning any specific techniques being reviewed while, by contrast, Pelosi's briefing included details.
Pelosi raised no objections during the briefing or afterward. That is, until about 18 months ago when Bush Derangement Syndrome manifested itself in the form of Attorney General Michael Mukasey's confirmation hearings. Over the past months, Pelosi has gotten out in front of the parade and formally endorsed a "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.
Tell you what, we'll make you a deal. Let's shine the light of truth on everyone involved, including you and your fellow members of Congress, and let the chips fall where they may. I propose we establish jointly with Congress and the Obama administration a blue-ribbon "torture truth" investigative team. If waterboarding or other techniques are torture, then everyone who actively approved or participated in the practices, or tacitly supported them through failures to object when alerted, should be investigated and tried for federal crimes. Yes, that includes you, Madam Speaker, many of your fellow representatives, and Professor Yoo, too.
Of course, the Anointed One would also have to go back on his promise and allow investigators to pursue the CIA agents and operatives who actually did or supervised the dirty work. And it would all have to be made public so we'd be providing invaluable intelligence to our enemies. Hmmm, that could get ugly. America would be in significantly greater danger, the CIA would be further emasculated, and terrorists would be emboldened. The damage would likely be catastrophic.
Ah, no matter. That's the price we pay for full disclosure.
Or we can recognize this issue for what it truly is--a half-baked, hysterical, hypocritical attempt at political gamesmanship, rewriting history, and blaming that Evil Bush, his puppet master Cheney, the war-mongers in his administration and those mean-spirited Republicans for every perceived ill--and realize that the rare American misdeeds (if they can be categorized as such) are not the equivalent of anything our brutal, misogynistic, Stone Age enemy does on a daily basis.
Choose your side, Madam Speaker. I'll pick the American patriots, who willingly do whatever it takes to protect us, over your blue ribbon commission every time.
Today, the CIA revealed a memo showing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew of the Agency's plans to use waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques"...in September 2002. In other words, one month after Yoo's memo hit Attorney General John Ashcroft's desk, Pelosi, then the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed by the CIA on the very issues discussed in Yoo's memo. What's worse, Yoo's memo speaks in generalities never mentioning any specific techniques being reviewed while, by contrast, Pelosi's briefing included details.
Pelosi raised no objections during the briefing or afterward. That is, until about 18 months ago when Bush Derangement Syndrome manifested itself in the form of Attorney General Michael Mukasey's confirmation hearings. Over the past months, Pelosi has gotten out in front of the parade and formally endorsed a "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.
Tell you what, we'll make you a deal. Let's shine the light of truth on everyone involved, including you and your fellow members of Congress, and let the chips fall where they may. I propose we establish jointly with Congress and the Obama administration a blue-ribbon "torture truth" investigative team. If waterboarding or other techniques are torture, then everyone who actively approved or participated in the practices, or tacitly supported them through failures to object when alerted, should be investigated and tried for federal crimes. Yes, that includes you, Madam Speaker, many of your fellow representatives, and Professor Yoo, too.
Of course, the Anointed One would also have to go back on his promise and allow investigators to pursue the CIA agents and operatives who actually did or supervised the dirty work. And it would all have to be made public so we'd be providing invaluable intelligence to our enemies. Hmmm, that could get ugly. America would be in significantly greater danger, the CIA would be further emasculated, and terrorists would be emboldened. The damage would likely be catastrophic.
Ah, no matter. That's the price we pay for full disclosure.
Or we can recognize this issue for what it truly is--a half-baked, hysterical, hypocritical attempt at political gamesmanship, rewriting history, and blaming that Evil Bush, his puppet master Cheney, the war-mongers in his administration and those mean-spirited Republicans for every perceived ill--and realize that the rare American misdeeds (if they can be categorized as such) are not the equivalent of anything our brutal, misogynistic, Stone Age enemy does on a daily basis.
Choose your side, Madam Speaker. I'll pick the American patriots, who willingly do whatever it takes to protect us, over your blue ribbon commission every time.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Leave Yoo Alone
Let me see if I have this straight.
It’s 2002. The US is still reeling in the aftermath of the terror attacks on 9/11. Al Qaeda is now Enemy No. 1 and we are at war. A lawyer for the US Justice Department is given the assignment to research the issue of whether interrogation methods proposed to be used on al Qaeda suspects constitute torture under US and international law. He reviews applicable federal statutes, treaties and agreements. He concludes that the proposed interrogation methods do not violate US or international law or treaties.
So he puts it on paper.
His reward? If some have their way, it’ll be disbarment and criminal prosecution..
Liberal lefties are having a conniption over Prof. John Yoo, the former Justice Department attorney who drafted the now infamous memo. They call him a war criminal, picket and protest his speaking engagements, and are demanding he be fired from his position as a Berkeley law professor. Nothing gets under a socialist hippy’s skin quite like a “person of color” who achieved high levels of success the old fashioned way (see e.g. Justice Clarence Thomas).
Whatever happened to free speech? I thought the liberal loons were all for it. Unless it’s racist. Or not politically correct. Or Christian or mentions God (or “god”). Sorry, I digressed.
Back to free speech. If you read Yoo’s memo you’ll find a thoughtful analysis of the issues presented. You won’t find any mention of “waterboarding” or other techniques some describe as torture. Instead, Yoo dispassionately interprets the relevant language in statutes and treaties and concludes the proposed (but unspecified) techniques are not torture. You might disagree with his analysis but he clearly is not war-mongering or out for blood.
The dean of Berkeley’s law school, Christopher Edley Jr. has rejected calls to fire Yoo but, like the good lefty he is, couldn't miss the chance to throw more fuel on Yoo's bonfire. “Assuming one believes as I do that Professor Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, that judgment alone would not warrant dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry.” Gee, thanks Dean Edley for the words of support. In other words, I agree with you liberal lefties about Yoo and even though the sight of him makes me vomit I just can’t fire him unless he's committed a crime...so keep it up and I'll have my chance to fire him.
Unlike Yoo, the liberal left is out for blood. They are all too ready to frog-march Yoo from his office directly to Gitmo. Maybe we should waterboard him to see if he knows anything about the Valerie Plame case. That way he can feel what it’s like. Yank his law license, vandalize his house and threaten his wife and kids while you’re at it. They deserve it for hitching their wagon to him. And get Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice at the same time.
Calling Yoo a war criminal is ridiculous and reprehensible. It’s nothing more than an attempt to project Bush Derangement Syndrome on anyone and everyone involved with the War on Terror. The lefty wackos should be ashamed of themselves, but apparently being a lefty means having no shame.
How do you expect an attorney to provide honest and comprehensive legal analysis of a complicated and controversial issue if he knows that he can be disbarred and prosecuted if he doesn’t come to the “correct” conclusion? I’m sure lawyers will be lining up for that job.
Prosecute Yoo and you might as well eliminate the Justice Department. In its place we’ll establish the Department of Peace, American War Crimes Prosecution, and International Criminal Court Enforcement. That’ll scare the crap out of al Qaeda.
It’s 2002. The US is still reeling in the aftermath of the terror attacks on 9/11. Al Qaeda is now Enemy No. 1 and we are at war. A lawyer for the US Justice Department is given the assignment to research the issue of whether interrogation methods proposed to be used on al Qaeda suspects constitute torture under US and international law. He reviews applicable federal statutes, treaties and agreements. He concludes that the proposed interrogation methods do not violate US or international law or treaties.
So he puts it on paper.
His reward? If some have their way, it’ll be disbarment and criminal prosecution..
Liberal lefties are having a conniption over Prof. John Yoo, the former Justice Department attorney who drafted the now infamous memo. They call him a war criminal, picket and protest his speaking engagements, and are demanding he be fired from his position as a Berkeley law professor. Nothing gets under a socialist hippy’s skin quite like a “person of color” who achieved high levels of success the old fashioned way (see e.g. Justice Clarence Thomas).
Whatever happened to free speech? I thought the liberal loons were all for it. Unless it’s racist. Or not politically correct. Or Christian or mentions God (or “god”). Sorry, I digressed.
Back to free speech. If you read Yoo’s memo you’ll find a thoughtful analysis of the issues presented. You won’t find any mention of “waterboarding” or other techniques some describe as torture. Instead, Yoo dispassionately interprets the relevant language in statutes and treaties and concludes the proposed (but unspecified) techniques are not torture. You might disagree with his analysis but he clearly is not war-mongering or out for blood.
The dean of Berkeley’s law school, Christopher Edley Jr. has rejected calls to fire Yoo but, like the good lefty he is, couldn't miss the chance to throw more fuel on Yoo's bonfire. “Assuming one believes as I do that Professor Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, that judgment alone would not warrant dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry.” Gee, thanks Dean Edley for the words of support. In other words, I agree with you liberal lefties about Yoo and even though the sight of him makes me vomit I just can’t fire him unless he's committed a crime...so keep it up and I'll have my chance to fire him.
Unlike Yoo, the liberal left is out for blood. They are all too ready to frog-march Yoo from his office directly to Gitmo. Maybe we should waterboard him to see if he knows anything about the Valerie Plame case. That way he can feel what it’s like. Yank his law license, vandalize his house and threaten his wife and kids while you’re at it. They deserve it for hitching their wagon to him. And get Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice at the same time.
Calling Yoo a war criminal is ridiculous and reprehensible. It’s nothing more than an attempt to project Bush Derangement Syndrome on anyone and everyone involved with the War on Terror. The lefty wackos should be ashamed of themselves, but apparently being a lefty means having no shame.
How do you expect an attorney to provide honest and comprehensive legal analysis of a complicated and controversial issue if he knows that he can be disbarred and prosecuted if he doesn’t come to the “correct” conclusion? I’m sure lawyers will be lining up for that job.
Prosecute Yoo and you might as well eliminate the Justice Department. In its place we’ll establish the Department of Peace, American War Crimes Prosecution, and International Criminal Court Enforcement. That’ll scare the crap out of al Qaeda.
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, April 22, 2009
Quick Hit #1--POTUS v. Miss California
Over the past few weeks, during his "I'm Sorry America Sucks" Tour, President Barack Obama ("POTUS") has (as the London Telegraph put it) gone further than any US president in criticizing America on foreign soil. America, according to POTUS, has been arrogant, divisive, and derisive, and he shouldn't be blamed for what happened when he was 3 years old. These beliefs drive POTUS's bus thanks to his influences (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Black Liberation Theology, etc.) and the goodness of America is relegated to the luggage compartment.
The MSM's response? POTUS is recognizing the fallibility of America. We have a president who is courageous and not reflexive--willing to recognize America's role in creating hardship around the world. Finally, a president of principles who won't genuflect to some American's outdated, simplistic notions of patriotism. The MSM "tolerates"--indeed, lauds-- POTUS for standing on principle.
Carrie Prejean, Miss California, also stood up for her principles. When confronted by gay gossiping blowhard Perez Hilton during the Miss USA Pageant with a question about gay marriage, Ms. Prejean spoke what she believed: marriage should be between one man and one woman, but people can have whatever private relationships they want. Uh oh.
Where's the tolerance and adulation for Ms. Prejean? Well, before the pageant she was essentially unknown. Now, taking Perez Hilton's lead (since when should a gossip be allowed to drive the news?) she's a "dumb bitch", "ugly", a public pariah with a huge target on her evening gown. She must have known that her answer would subject her to scorn and ridicule but she said it anyway. To an unfriendly crowd. On their turf. At the risk of losing the very crown she had worked so hard for.
POTUS, too, had ripe opportunities abroad to reassert America's principles. The goodness of America, the shining City on the Hill, the beacon of freedom and democracy, the flawed but mighty defender of liberty. To unfriendly crowds. On their turf. At the risk of losing their adoration. He could have stood his ground like Ms. Prejean. Instead, he blinked and told despots and dictators what they wanted to hear.
It's a sad day in America when a beauty queen has bigger balls than the American President.
The MSM's response? POTUS is recognizing the fallibility of America. We have a president who is courageous and not reflexive--willing to recognize America's role in creating hardship around the world. Finally, a president of principles who won't genuflect to some American's outdated, simplistic notions of patriotism. The MSM "tolerates"--indeed, lauds-- POTUS for standing on principle.
Carrie Prejean, Miss California, also stood up for her principles. When confronted by gay gossiping blowhard Perez Hilton during the Miss USA Pageant with a question about gay marriage, Ms. Prejean spoke what she believed: marriage should be between one man and one woman, but people can have whatever private relationships they want. Uh oh.
Where's the tolerance and adulation for Ms. Prejean? Well, before the pageant she was essentially unknown. Now, taking Perez Hilton's lead (since when should a gossip be allowed to drive the news?) she's a "dumb bitch", "ugly", a public pariah with a huge target on her evening gown. She must have known that her answer would subject her to scorn and ridicule but she said it anyway. To an unfriendly crowd. On their turf. At the risk of losing the very crown she had worked so hard for.
POTUS, too, had ripe opportunities abroad to reassert America's principles. The goodness of America, the shining City on the Hill, the beacon of freedom and democracy, the flawed but mighty defender of liberty. To unfriendly crowds. On their turf. At the risk of losing their adoration. He could have stood his ground like Ms. Prejean. Instead, he blinked and told despots and dictators what they wanted to hear.
It's a sad day in America when a beauty queen has bigger balls than the American President.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A Christian Nation--Part One
During his Magical Mystery Tour this past week, Pres. Obama stopped in Turkey , gave a speech and toured a mosque. News channels always refer to Turkey as a “secular” Islamic nation. I suppose that term is used to distinguish Turkey from “theocratic” Islamic nations, presumably places like, for example, Iran , Saudi Arabia and Sudan. But you can’t really tell because the MSM never seems to discuss the issue.
I point out the “secular” part because Pres. Obama told the Turks that America is “not a Christian nation” but a “nation of citizens” who share common values. The mosque visitation didn’t bother me much since it was the Hagia Sophia, a very famous landmark that was originally constructed as a Christian church. What did bother me was the speech. I’m not sure what Obama meant by “Christian nation” so I started thinking about it since I don’t want to automatically gainsay everything POTUS says simply because I tend to agree with him on virtually nothing.
So, is America a Christian nation?
In order to answer the question, we have to define the term. If by “Christian nation” we intend that America is a theocracy whose people are governed by the interpretation of religious texts, and the laws derived there from, then the answer is decidedly “no”. American is unlike, for example, nations like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria that have “religious courts” where offenses to Sharia are heard and dealt with swiftly, with prejudice and using extreme cruelty.
When most people use the term “Christian nation” they seem to mean one or more things. For example, they often have an understanding of the Christian faith of our nation’s founders. They are aware that the vast majority of Americans describe themselves as “Christians”. And they are usually familiar with religious leaders like Dr. James Dobson, Rev. Jerry Falwell and others who have long publicly supported the Christian heritage of America in discussing current events.
Many who reject these positions claim, for example, that our Founding Fathers were “deists”, not Christians, and point to the absence of Jesus Christ from our founding documents. At the same time, they recite the “separation between church and state” mantra as if it were etched on stone tablets by George Washington himself despite the fact that those words are scarcer than Jesus in our founding documents. Using an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association as the gold standard on the issue is more than a bit disingenuous. But I digress. http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
The truth is that either side can pull selective quotes from founding documents to support their respective positions. However, there are some facts that suggest the supporters of a Christian nation concept have the better arguments.
The Pilgrims organized and came to the New World because they believed their religious beliefs were irreconcilable with the Church of England and British laws mandating Church attendance. In other words, the very first American colonists were acutely aware of religious differences and the need for government to recognize freedom for people with different religious practices. The religious freedoms offered in the New World (initially due in part to the geographical chasm between Europe and America) led to other varied religious groups colonizing or establishing themselves as well (Puritans in New England, Quakers in Pennsylvania , Baptists in the South, etc).
With this background, and about 150 years of colonial development rooted in it, how could these colonies possibly unite under a single religion or creed? They wouldn’t just voluntarily trade the oppressive national church they intentionally left for another. Give the Founding Fathers credit for drafting and approving the First Amendment to ensure the greatest religious freedom for all denominations. A truly united national government simply could not have a national church and our founders recognized that reality.
That was the practical reality created by our early settlers and their freedom to practice their religious beliefs as they saw fit. Though, obviously, condensing 150+ years of colonial history into 2 paragraphs leaves a lot out. My next blog entry will explore some of the specific words our founders used that evidence the strength of Christianity as a cornerstone of our nation’s historical foundation.
I point out the “secular” part because Pres. Obama told the Turks that America is “not a Christian nation” but a “nation of citizens” who share common values. The mosque visitation didn’t bother me much since it was the Hagia Sophia, a very famous landmark that was originally constructed as a Christian church. What did bother me was the speech. I’m not sure what Obama meant by “Christian nation” so I started thinking about it since I don’t want to automatically gainsay everything POTUS says simply because I tend to agree with him on virtually nothing.
So, is America a Christian nation?
In order to answer the question, we have to define the term. If by “Christian nation” we intend that America is a theocracy whose people are governed by the interpretation of religious texts, and the laws derived there from, then the answer is decidedly “no”. American is unlike, for example, nations like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria that have “religious courts” where offenses to Sharia are heard and dealt with swiftly, with prejudice and using extreme cruelty.
When most people use the term “Christian nation” they seem to mean one or more things. For example, they often have an understanding of the Christian faith of our nation’s founders. They are aware that the vast majority of Americans describe themselves as “Christians”. And they are usually familiar with religious leaders like Dr. James Dobson, Rev. Jerry Falwell and others who have long publicly supported the Christian heritage of America in discussing current events.
Many who reject these positions claim, for example, that our Founding Fathers were “deists”, not Christians, and point to the absence of Jesus Christ from our founding documents. At the same time, they recite the “separation between church and state” mantra as if it were etched on stone tablets by George Washington himself despite the fact that those words are scarcer than Jesus in our founding documents. Using an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association as the gold standard on the issue is more than a bit disingenuous. But I digress. http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
The truth is that either side can pull selective quotes from founding documents to support their respective positions. However, there are some facts that suggest the supporters of a Christian nation concept have the better arguments.
The Pilgrims organized and came to the New World because they believed their religious beliefs were irreconcilable with the Church of England and British laws mandating Church attendance. In other words, the very first American colonists were acutely aware of religious differences and the need for government to recognize freedom for people with different religious practices. The religious freedoms offered in the New World (initially due in part to the geographical chasm between Europe and America) led to other varied religious groups colonizing or establishing themselves as well (Puritans in New England, Quakers in Pennsylvania , Baptists in the South, etc).
With this background, and about 150 years of colonial development rooted in it, how could these colonies possibly unite under a single religion or creed? They wouldn’t just voluntarily trade the oppressive national church they intentionally left for another. Give the Founding Fathers credit for drafting and approving the First Amendment to ensure the greatest religious freedom for all denominations. A truly united national government simply could not have a national church and our founders recognized that reality.
That was the practical reality created by our early settlers and their freedom to practice their religious beliefs as they saw fit. Though, obviously, condensing 150+ years of colonial history into 2 paragraphs leaves a lot out. My next blog entry will explore some of the specific words our founders used that evidence the strength of Christianity as a cornerstone of our nation’s historical foundation.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
If We Outlaw Nukes...
A few weeks back, I was watching the History Channel (I think) when I saw an episode about the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima in 1945. The show was atypical in that, while they showed the expected declassified military footage of "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" and nuclear bomb tests complete with mushroom clouds, they were interviewing an older Japanese woman who survived the blast. In 1945, this woman was working in a military bunker and was supposed to have been relieved by a co-worker that morning. The co-worker, who had never before been late to work, had still failed to arrive 15 minutes after her shift was to start.
And then we dropped the bomb.
The woman was taking the interviewer and crew on a tour of the bunker. It turns out this woman was the first to report the blast to the Japanese military high command. Her city had been devastated, her fellow citizens evaporated or certain to die from their injuries or exposure. Her memories were recounted with a matter-of-fact tone, 50 years having doubtlessly softened the impact and seen the resurrection of her city into a large metropolitan center of southwestern Honshu with over 2,000,000 people.
We've all seen the photos and videos of the tremendous power of nuclear blasts and the devastation they cause. Many of us even remember "duck and cover" as a way of protection! We've all heard that the atomic and thermonuclear weapons of today are many times more powerful than Fat Man and Little Boy. And while nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragically killed over 200,000 Japanese, these bombs most likely saved hundreds of thousands more Japanese and American lives that would have been lost in a more protracted Pacific war or US invasion of Japan.
Nevertheless, there are so many reasons why the elimination of nuclear weapons is a great idea. So why I am so concerned that Pres. Obama made that very commitment in Prague this weekend, mere hours after North Korea tested a long-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Alaska or Hawaii? There are 3 reasons that come to mind.
First, the American military force is the envy of the world in large part because of its strength, which nuclear weapons are a component of. However, it is not the weapons themselves but the threat of their use that gives us a power few nations have and of a magnitude none can match. I suspect that threat--and therefore our strength--has diminished since the end of the Cold War since none of our leaders seem to have the balls to use, or threaten to use them. I'm not suggesting that nukes should be anything be a last response when all else has failed. But even a last resort can be a powerful tool provided it is in the hands of someone who knows how to use it judicially. Pres. Obama's comments indicate to me that he is afraid of the weapons and not just because of the destruction they can cause. He's afraid of the position they'll put him in if he is faced with a dire threat for which there is no other option, because he won't be able to pull the trigger. It's not that he will use them injudiciously. It's that he won't use or threaten to use them at all. Everyone knows that, and that weakens America.
Second, I don't trust the leaders of other nations. It's great that Obama can crack Dmitri Medvedev on the back, and give him the thumbs-up at the G20 like fast friends. But do you really trust Medvedev? In one of his worst foreign policy moments, President Bush said he had looked into Vladimir Putin's soul and saw his goodness. Putin heard that and knew he was home free to do just about whatever he pleased. When the G20 champagne wears off, Medvedev, Putin's protege, will feel the same way. Sure, he'll probably agree to reduce Russian nuclear missile stockpiles...at least the ones he has control over and can account for. That's an easy concession for a leader with warheads to spare. But there are still concerns over possible missing Russian suitcase nukes.
You honestly think the Russian leadership will ever agree to complete elimination of nukes? What in that nation's tragic history suggests they will give up that power? They don't trust us, or the Chinese, or North Korea any more than we do. Do you think Chinese Premiere Hu, or Kim Jong-Il, or whoever will lead Pakistan or India will just give up this technology they spent decades trying to develop or acquire? Will Israel ever feel safe enough to give up theirs? And what about those trying to get it? I don't suspect Ahmadinejad is planning on turning off the centrifuges to help achieve Pres. Obama's goal. The nations of the world that have the technology are not as stable, or as committed to peacefully run democracy, as the US. I am not confident that will ever change.
Third, the technology is already out there for the enemies of freedom, liberty and democracy to exploit. It's not easy to get your hands on the materials...yet. But as Iran moves closer to weaponizing nuclear material, we all move closer to the likelihood that Islamic terrorists will get their hands on the material and a method to deliver it. The amount of fissile material available for nuclear weapons is curently closely monitored because the nations who possess it have agreed to disclosures and monitoring by international bodies. When a rogue nation like Iran gets the material, you think we'll have the same ability to track it? I can't think of anything more dangerous than an Islamic extremist, sworn to jihad, in possession of a deployable nuclear weapon.
It is said that if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. If that's true, then what will happen if nukes are "outlawed"? If the sane and semi-sane nations of the world agree to dismantle their nukes and slap high-fives in the name of "peace", the insane, extreme underbelly of civilization will be salivating at their good fortune because they don't want peace unless it comes with your annihilation...or your conversion to their bastardized form of Islam.
I don't like nukes any more than the next guy, but I believe they are here to stay. You can't un-ring the bell. Man has harnessed the power of the atom. If we "eliminate" nuclear weapons, we will only drive them underground and into the hands of evil doers.
Sting sings in "Russians", his anti-nukes, Cold War anthem, "I hope the Russians love their children, too." Fortunately, the Russians did.
Unfortunately, today's Jihadists don't.
And then we dropped the bomb.
The woman was taking the interviewer and crew on a tour of the bunker. It turns out this woman was the first to report the blast to the Japanese military high command. Her city had been devastated, her fellow citizens evaporated or certain to die from their injuries or exposure. Her memories were recounted with a matter-of-fact tone, 50 years having doubtlessly softened the impact and seen the resurrection of her city into a large metropolitan center of southwestern Honshu with over 2,000,000 people.
We've all seen the photos and videos of the tremendous power of nuclear blasts and the devastation they cause. Many of us even remember "duck and cover" as a way of protection! We've all heard that the atomic and thermonuclear weapons of today are many times more powerful than Fat Man and Little Boy. And while nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragically killed over 200,000 Japanese, these bombs most likely saved hundreds of thousands more Japanese and American lives that would have been lost in a more protracted Pacific war or US invasion of Japan.
Nevertheless, there are so many reasons why the elimination of nuclear weapons is a great idea. So why I am so concerned that Pres. Obama made that very commitment in Prague this weekend, mere hours after North Korea tested a long-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Alaska or Hawaii? There are 3 reasons that come to mind.
First, the American military force is the envy of the world in large part because of its strength, which nuclear weapons are a component of. However, it is not the weapons themselves but the threat of their use that gives us a power few nations have and of a magnitude none can match. I suspect that threat--and therefore our strength--has diminished since the end of the Cold War since none of our leaders seem to have the balls to use, or threaten to use them. I'm not suggesting that nukes should be anything be a last response when all else has failed. But even a last resort can be a powerful tool provided it is in the hands of someone who knows how to use it judicially. Pres. Obama's comments indicate to me that he is afraid of the weapons and not just because of the destruction they can cause. He's afraid of the position they'll put him in if he is faced with a dire threat for which there is no other option, because he won't be able to pull the trigger. It's not that he will use them injudiciously. It's that he won't use or threaten to use them at all. Everyone knows that, and that weakens America.
Second, I don't trust the leaders of other nations. It's great that Obama can crack Dmitri Medvedev on the back, and give him the thumbs-up at the G20 like fast friends. But do you really trust Medvedev? In one of his worst foreign policy moments, President Bush said he had looked into Vladimir Putin's soul and saw his goodness. Putin heard that and knew he was home free to do just about whatever he pleased. When the G20 champagne wears off, Medvedev, Putin's protege, will feel the same way. Sure, he'll probably agree to reduce Russian nuclear missile stockpiles...at least the ones he has control over and can account for. That's an easy concession for a leader with warheads to spare. But there are still concerns over possible missing Russian suitcase nukes.
You honestly think the Russian leadership will ever agree to complete elimination of nukes? What in that nation's tragic history suggests they will give up that power? They don't trust us, or the Chinese, or North Korea any more than we do. Do you think Chinese Premiere Hu, or Kim Jong-Il, or whoever will lead Pakistan or India will just give up this technology they spent decades trying to develop or acquire? Will Israel ever feel safe enough to give up theirs? And what about those trying to get it? I don't suspect Ahmadinejad is planning on turning off the centrifuges to help achieve Pres. Obama's goal. The nations of the world that have the technology are not as stable, or as committed to peacefully run democracy, as the US. I am not confident that will ever change.
Third, the technology is already out there for the enemies of freedom, liberty and democracy to exploit. It's not easy to get your hands on the materials...yet. But as Iran moves closer to weaponizing nuclear material, we all move closer to the likelihood that Islamic terrorists will get their hands on the material and a method to deliver it. The amount of fissile material available for nuclear weapons is curently closely monitored because the nations who possess it have agreed to disclosures and monitoring by international bodies. When a rogue nation like Iran gets the material, you think we'll have the same ability to track it? I can't think of anything more dangerous than an Islamic extremist, sworn to jihad, in possession of a deployable nuclear weapon.
It is said that if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. If that's true, then what will happen if nukes are "outlawed"? If the sane and semi-sane nations of the world agree to dismantle their nukes and slap high-fives in the name of "peace", the insane, extreme underbelly of civilization will be salivating at their good fortune because they don't want peace unless it comes with your annihilation...or your conversion to their bastardized form of Islam.
I don't like nukes any more than the next guy, but I believe they are here to stay. You can't un-ring the bell. Man has harnessed the power of the atom. If we "eliminate" nuclear weapons, we will only drive them underground and into the hands of evil doers.
Sting sings in "Russians", his anti-nukes, Cold War anthem, "I hope the Russians love their children, too." Fortunately, the Russians did.
Unfortunately, today's Jihadists don't.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Pot for Patients--A Dishonest Debate
I find the medical marijuana debate fascinating. Last night, the substitute host of Larry King Live on CNN moderated a good-natured debate on medical marijuana between Montel Williams and Steven Baldwin, with Williams pro and Baldwin con. If you were neutral on the issue and watched it, I suspect neither of them would have persuaded you to their position.
Williams, who has struggled with multiple sclerosis for over a decade, ingests marijuana for neurological pain, although he doesn't admit to smoking it. Whenever discussing the issue, he always brings up some program at the University of Mississippi where the US Government has been growing marijuana and dispensing it in "joint" form to a dozen or so people for 25 years. This, coupled with the illegality of marijuana, is a high hypocrisy to Williams but also evidence that such a program can work. He is genuine and sincere given his personal stake in the issue.
Baldwin is a recovering drug addict and former marijuana user who opposes legalizing pot for patients. He relies on his past experiences to argue that marijuana is a "gateway drug" to much harder and addictive stuff. He is concerned that widespread pot availability, even for medical purposes, will make it much more accessible for casual use. He is genuine and sincere given his experiences and long term sobriety.
Williams' argument seems disingenuous. You can't take an arguably successful program with about 10 people, in an extremely controlled environment, and expect to replicate it across a nation of 300,000,000 people and [voila!] everything's solved. On the other hand, if you Google "medical marijuana" and "Steven Baldwin" you'll find hundreds of references to an earlier Larry King debate between the actor and Republican Representative, former presidential candidate, and medical doctor Ron Paul. All the pro-marijuana sites predictably hammer Baldwin for being a boob, a Christian fundamentalist, and for getting taken to the woodshed. In fairness, and meaning no offense to Baldwin, his debate with Dr. Paul was unfair--the equivalent a debate about the interpretation of some clause in the US Constitution between a Federal Circuit Court judge and a celebrity who has been to small claims court a couple of times.
Who's right? Who knows?
Of course, Pres. Obama has been all over the place on the marijuana issue, shifting again most recently to oppose changing our drug laws. What makes me currently an opponent of medical marijuana is not Obama's endless flip-flopping. It's the fact that we don't have honest debates on the issue.
Marijuana might have some medicinal benefit to some people suffering with certain conditions/diseases. But, let's be honest. A lot of Americans simply want to smoke some doobage without getting arrested. Thousands of "medical" marijuana supporters want it approved so that they can take the next step: legalize pot for personal use. And it is this fact that completely clouds the issue. On websites and message boards for pot-heads, it couldn't be clearer that this is the true motivation for many. Hippies and health advocates make strange bedfellows.
Ever been to a "hemp festival"? You see lots of posters and t-shirts with Bob Marley, Che Guavara and the Jamaican flag on them. People set up booths showing all the great industrial uses for hemp, and selling their homemade hemp clothes, indigenous musical instruments, and reggae CDs. Sure, you can make some great things with hemp. And, yes, hemp was grown and used legally in our nation for scores of years. But, honestly, these people simply want to get high. The fact that you can make a purse out of a pot plant is nice, but it's a diversion.
That's how it will always be until we put all the issues on the table. I'm a "small government, low tax, 'originalist' Constitution" type of conservative, so I almost always prefer less regulation to more. Especially at the federal level. But I don't trust the pot-heads either.
The debate should not be over whether marijuana should be legalized for medical use. Rather, the debate should be whether marijuana should be legalized for any and all purposes. The pot-heads, hippies, medical marijuana supporters, and college professors can legitimately square off against the former and recovering addicts, the medical establishment, religious and children's advocates, and general opponents of drugs. We'll hear all sides and make a democratic decision. Regardless of the outcome, people will still study the benefits of pot legally or illegally and, over time, the debate and support may shift.
Until and unless that honest debate happens, I won't be persuaded to support medical marijuana.
That's just the way it is, Dude.
Williams, who has struggled with multiple sclerosis for over a decade, ingests marijuana for neurological pain, although he doesn't admit to smoking it. Whenever discussing the issue, he always brings up some program at the University of Mississippi where the US Government has been growing marijuana and dispensing it in "joint" form to a dozen or so people for 25 years. This, coupled with the illegality of marijuana, is a high hypocrisy to Williams but also evidence that such a program can work. He is genuine and sincere given his personal stake in the issue.
Baldwin is a recovering drug addict and former marijuana user who opposes legalizing pot for patients. He relies on his past experiences to argue that marijuana is a "gateway drug" to much harder and addictive stuff. He is concerned that widespread pot availability, even for medical purposes, will make it much more accessible for casual use. He is genuine and sincere given his experiences and long term sobriety.
Williams' argument seems disingenuous. You can't take an arguably successful program with about 10 people, in an extremely controlled environment, and expect to replicate it across a nation of 300,000,000 people and [voila!] everything's solved. On the other hand, if you Google "medical marijuana" and "Steven Baldwin" you'll find hundreds of references to an earlier Larry King debate between the actor and Republican Representative, former presidential candidate, and medical doctor Ron Paul. All the pro-marijuana sites predictably hammer Baldwin for being a boob, a Christian fundamentalist, and for getting taken to the woodshed. In fairness, and meaning no offense to Baldwin, his debate with Dr. Paul was unfair--the equivalent a debate about the interpretation of some clause in the US Constitution between a Federal Circuit Court judge and a celebrity who has been to small claims court a couple of times.
Who's right? Who knows?
Of course, Pres. Obama has been all over the place on the marijuana issue, shifting again most recently to oppose changing our drug laws. What makes me currently an opponent of medical marijuana is not Obama's endless flip-flopping. It's the fact that we don't have honest debates on the issue.
Marijuana might have some medicinal benefit to some people suffering with certain conditions/diseases. But, let's be honest. A lot of Americans simply want to smoke some doobage without getting arrested. Thousands of "medical" marijuana supporters want it approved so that they can take the next step: legalize pot for personal use. And it is this fact that completely clouds the issue. On websites and message boards for pot-heads, it couldn't be clearer that this is the true motivation for many. Hippies and health advocates make strange bedfellows.
Ever been to a "hemp festival"? You see lots of posters and t-shirts with Bob Marley, Che Guavara and the Jamaican flag on them. People set up booths showing all the great industrial uses for hemp, and selling their homemade hemp clothes, indigenous musical instruments, and reggae CDs. Sure, you can make some great things with hemp. And, yes, hemp was grown and used legally in our nation for scores of years. But, honestly, these people simply want to get high. The fact that you can make a purse out of a pot plant is nice, but it's a diversion.
That's how it will always be until we put all the issues on the table. I'm a "small government, low tax, 'originalist' Constitution" type of conservative, so I almost always prefer less regulation to more. Especially at the federal level. But I don't trust the pot-heads either.
The debate should not be over whether marijuana should be legalized for medical use. Rather, the debate should be whether marijuana should be legalized for any and all purposes. The pot-heads, hippies, medical marijuana supporters, and college professors can legitimately square off against the former and recovering addicts, the medical establishment, religious and children's advocates, and general opponents of drugs. We'll hear all sides and make a democratic decision. Regardless of the outcome, people will still study the benefits of pot legally or illegally and, over time, the debate and support may shift.
Until and unless that honest debate happens, I won't be persuaded to support medical marijuana.
That's just the way it is, Dude.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Vote for Your 3-Year Old in 2010!
In this week's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a University of Colorado, Boulder psychology professor published his findings from a study involving the cognitive development of toddlers. Now, surprisingly, PNAS is not on my "must read" periodicals list. I'm sure it's a fascinating publication, what with studies on "The capillarity of nanometric water menisci confined inside closed-geometry viral cages". I'll bet that's a real page turner.
Anyway, according to an article on livescience.com, the findings in this study suggest that 3-year olds don't live entirely in the present but don't plan for the future either. One doctoral candidate involved in the study said, "[L]et's say it's cold outside and you tell your 3-year-old to go get his jacket out of his bedroom and get ready to go outside. You might expect the child to plan for the future, think 'OK it's cold outside so the jacket will keep me warm.' But what we suggest is that this isn't what goes on in a 3-year-old's brain. Rather, they run outside, discover that it is cold, and then retrieve the memory of where their jacket is, and then they go get it."
In other words, toddlers listen, but they just rush out and do their thing. Once they realize the problem, they call up the past when they need it.
The professor who conducted the study added, "If you just repeat something again and again that requires your young child to prepare for something in advance, that is not likely to be effective.... [D]on't do something that requires them to plan ahead in their mind, but rather try to highlight the conflict that they are going to face. Perhaps you could say something like 'I know you don't want to take your coat now, but when you're standing in the yard shivering later, remember that you can get your coat from your bedroom."
In other words, rather than helping the toddler plan ahead for the event, tell them what the consequences will be for not planning and how to fix the problems once your in the soup.
Does that sound familiar? To me, it sounds like our national politicians of both parties, but particularly the Democratic Party. Before you dismiss that as just a partisan shot, think about it in the context of recent events.
Take the problems with GM. Last fall, in the waning days of the Bush Administration, the Dems in Congress passed loan packages for the Big 3 auto makers. GM and Chrysler begged for, and received, aggregated loans totaling $17.4 billion (that's $17,400,000,000.00) in December. Conservatives howled at the proposal, suggesting it would not work and would either put off inevitable bankruptcies or lead to a government take-over. But we were told by Pres. Bush and Congressional Dems that the loans were critical, an emergency to save Detroit. A scant 3 months later GM has burned through nearly all of its loans and has asked for another $16.6 billion (that's an extra $16,600,000,000.00) essentially just to keep the lights on--something the Dems and Pres. Obama are likely to approve with greater restrictions. Yet still, there is no end in sight to GM's problems.
How about the AIG bonuses. Pres. Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner and others in the administration pushed for billions in bailout cash for AIG. Congressional Dems drafted a bill, published it shortly before the vote, and passed it along party lines. Conservatives expressed concerns about the potential misuse of these funds. No matter. Depending on who you believe, Sen. Dodd, D-CT, or Geithner included in the bailout bill a provision permitting payment of bonuses AIG had agreed to in executive contracts signed February 2008. Naturally, after the bonuses get paid and everyone goes nuts trying to figure out how this could have happened, and how to fix it. Dodd and Geithner point fingers and start scrambling.
Look at Fannie Mae. Republicans in Congress held hearings and expressed grave concerns about the management of the mortgage backer in the context of the credit crisis and toxic loans under Franklin Raines. The problems had been going on for years and were, at least in part, based on the relaxation of loan requirements and perpetuation of subprime mortgages...all sanctioned by Congress. Barney Frank, D-MA had been instrumental in encouraging and approving these practices as a member of the House Financial Services Committee since 1991. Dems like Frank, Maxine Waters, D-CA, and William Clay, D-MO aggressively countered Republicans saying there were no problems at Fannie Mae. Everything was all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Clay predictably went so far as to accuse Republicans of engaging in a "political lynching" of Raines. Because those Republicans are RAAAAAAAAACIST, of course! Last fall, the Feds took over Fannie Mae.
Do you see the pattern? Just like toddlers, Dems go rushing outside on a winter's day to take on the world, only to realize once they get there that they forgot their coats. The difference between toddlers and Dems, however, is that the toddler can remember where his coat is because he heard his parents. Dems weren't listening when they were told what the solutions were so, instead of going back inside to get their coats, they go rushing around the neighborhood banging on everyone else's doors asking if anyone has a spare coat.
Admittedly, these problems didn't occur overnight, and some Republicans provided assists or turned a blind eye. But once the economy tanked, and we started turning on the lights, Obama and the Dems have persistently said we must act now by passing legislation without delay. So they draft the bills, pass them out hours before the vote to ensure no one has actually read them, and push them through.
Now they're all outside sans coats, banging on doors. The problem is, we are chained to their wrists. And though we know where the coats are, they still won't listen to us. Maybe we should lower the age requirement to serve in Congress to 3. At least then if our representatives run outside without thinking, they'll be smart enough to run back in and bundle up.
Anyway, according to an article on livescience.com, the findings in this study suggest that 3-year olds don't live entirely in the present but don't plan for the future either. One doctoral candidate involved in the study said, "[L]et's say it's cold outside and you tell your 3-year-old to go get his jacket out of his bedroom and get ready to go outside. You might expect the child to plan for the future, think 'OK it's cold outside so the jacket will keep me warm.' But what we suggest is that this isn't what goes on in a 3-year-old's brain. Rather, they run outside, discover that it is cold, and then retrieve the memory of where their jacket is, and then they go get it."
In other words, toddlers listen, but they just rush out and do their thing. Once they realize the problem, they call up the past when they need it.
The professor who conducted the study added, "If you just repeat something again and again that requires your young child to prepare for something in advance, that is not likely to be effective.... [D]on't do something that requires them to plan ahead in their mind, but rather try to highlight the conflict that they are going to face. Perhaps you could say something like 'I know you don't want to take your coat now, but when you're standing in the yard shivering later, remember that you can get your coat from your bedroom."
In other words, rather than helping the toddler plan ahead for the event, tell them what the consequences will be for not planning and how to fix the problems once your in the soup.
Does that sound familiar? To me, it sounds like our national politicians of both parties, but particularly the Democratic Party. Before you dismiss that as just a partisan shot, think about it in the context of recent events.
Take the problems with GM. Last fall, in the waning days of the Bush Administration, the Dems in Congress passed loan packages for the Big 3 auto makers. GM and Chrysler begged for, and received, aggregated loans totaling $17.4 billion (that's $17,400,000,000.00) in December. Conservatives howled at the proposal, suggesting it would not work and would either put off inevitable bankruptcies or lead to a government take-over. But we were told by Pres. Bush and Congressional Dems that the loans were critical, an emergency to save Detroit. A scant 3 months later GM has burned through nearly all of its loans and has asked for another $16.6 billion (that's an extra $16,600,000,000.00) essentially just to keep the lights on--something the Dems and Pres. Obama are likely to approve with greater restrictions. Yet still, there is no end in sight to GM's problems.
How about the AIG bonuses. Pres. Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner and others in the administration pushed for billions in bailout cash for AIG. Congressional Dems drafted a bill, published it shortly before the vote, and passed it along party lines. Conservatives expressed concerns about the potential misuse of these funds. No matter. Depending on who you believe, Sen. Dodd, D-CT, or Geithner included in the bailout bill a provision permitting payment of bonuses AIG had agreed to in executive contracts signed February 2008. Naturally, after the bonuses get paid and everyone goes nuts trying to figure out how this could have happened, and how to fix it. Dodd and Geithner point fingers and start scrambling.
Look at Fannie Mae. Republicans in Congress held hearings and expressed grave concerns about the management of the mortgage backer in the context of the credit crisis and toxic loans under Franklin Raines. The problems had been going on for years and were, at least in part, based on the relaxation of loan requirements and perpetuation of subprime mortgages...all sanctioned by Congress. Barney Frank, D-MA had been instrumental in encouraging and approving these practices as a member of the House Financial Services Committee since 1991. Dems like Frank, Maxine Waters, D-CA, and William Clay, D-MO aggressively countered Republicans saying there were no problems at Fannie Mae. Everything was all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Clay predictably went so far as to accuse Republicans of engaging in a "political lynching" of Raines. Because those Republicans are RAAAAAAAAACIST, of course! Last fall, the Feds took over Fannie Mae.
Do you see the pattern? Just like toddlers, Dems go rushing outside on a winter's day to take on the world, only to realize once they get there that they forgot their coats. The difference between toddlers and Dems, however, is that the toddler can remember where his coat is because he heard his parents. Dems weren't listening when they were told what the solutions were so, instead of going back inside to get their coats, they go rushing around the neighborhood banging on everyone else's doors asking if anyone has a spare coat.
Admittedly, these problems didn't occur overnight, and some Republicans provided assists or turned a blind eye. But once the economy tanked, and we started turning on the lights, Obama and the Dems have persistently said we must act now by passing legislation without delay. So they draft the bills, pass them out hours before the vote to ensure no one has actually read them, and push them through.
Now they're all outside sans coats, banging on doors. The problem is, we are chained to their wrists. And though we know where the coats are, they still won't listen to us. Maybe we should lower the age requirement to serve in Congress to 3. At least then if our representatives run outside without thinking, they'll be smart enough to run back in and bundle up.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Euphemisms Suck
Pres. Obama will be making the most headlines tomorrow--and tonight on line--for his second prime-time press conference. Lots of people will report or blog on his comments and performance. Personally, I thought his effort was another warmed over campaign speech made more topical only because he is the POTUS and actually has to address the issues.
Two other things happened earlier today that are much more significant than Obama's "uh, uh, um" responses to press questions.
First, according to David Reidel of the Office of Security Review in the OMB, we are no longer to use the term "Global War on Terror". Instead, the Obama Adminstration prefers the term "Overseas Contingency Operation." Second, in her first testimony on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano never mentioned the word "terrorism". She decided to refer to "man-caused disasters", justifying the new term by as "perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur." German periodical Der Spiegel reported this last week but our papers largely picked up on the story today.
When I hear the phrase Global War on Terror, I'm pretty sure it is intended to mean that we are not going to sit idly by waiting for the next attack. We will take the fight to them wherever in the world they are because they can threaten us or our interests in scores of places.
By contrast, I don't know what Overseas Contingency Operation is, other than a head-scratchingly vague, wimpy euphemism. Let's break it down. "Overseas" means "over there", far away, as though this "global war" will only be fought in other places. We already know that's not true. Remember 9/11? "Contingency" means a "possible event". It's nice to think we can prepare for every possible "contingency" that can occur "overseas" but probably not realistic unless we are willing to allocate sufficient resources. Feeling confident that the Obama Administration will spend enough of the trillions in new budget spending to do that?
Then, there's "operation". Is that what you call an armed struggle against an enemy whose goal is to kill you simply because of who you are?
I suppose the purpose of the change is, in Secretary Napolitano's words, to "move away from the politics of fear". Using the term "war" is not "the politics of fear". War is hell, and though I have never experienced combat, I'll bet its greater hell when it's perpetrated on your home turf. We should have a healthy fear of our enemy, not because we can't defeat it or because they have greater or more destructive weapons, or the more justifiable position. And that's not to say we should be paranoid or overly restrictive. But failing to appreciate the danger of an enemy leads to a passivity. Passivity exposes weakness and creates and fosters vulnerability. I want our brave men and women to perform "operations" against the enemy but, make no mistake, this is war.
As for "man caused disasters", excuse me Secretary Napolitano, but that change is more than a "nuance". Disasters can be "caused" by an endless variety of acts, some intentional and deliberate, some reckless or willfull, some negligent or accidental. Heck, environmental extremists have called global warming a man-made disaster.
Terrorism, on the other hand, is not accidental or negligent, neither is it reckless or willfull. It is the intentional, deliberate, calculated use of violence or threats of violence to attain the practitioner's objective. The only time terrorism is accidental is when the bomb-maker slips.
Equating "terrorism" with mere recklessness or accidents hands the enemy another tool to use against us. See, the enemy doesn't respect PC crap; it respects force, domination and control. It uses those tactics in state governance and family relations. Suggesting that their murderous acts are anything but intentional terror actually encourages more of the same. You think they'll stop trying to blow up our troops and us if we downplay their actions? Compare Man X who drives his car recklessly, crosses the center-line and kills a driver in a head-on collision, with Man Y who goes to that driver's house with a loaded gun, intending to kill the driver, and shoots the driver dead. Both men have taken a life but would anyone deny that the Man Y's act of intentional, premeditated murder is the more heinous act and more deserving of greater punishment? If Y doesn't get punished more severely, he and others like him will less be deterred from doing it again. And again.
No, we change our language because we don't want to offend anyone. We'll hurt the feelings of "good Muslims" if we point out that the "bad Muslims" have bastardized their faith using oppression and violence. We should just talk to our enemy without using loaded terms and get him to understand our position--while ignoring his singular goal, i.e. to kill us--and then we'll reach some sort of "peace". If we believe those things, we're wrong.
Euphemisms suck. War is war. Terrorists are terrorists. Call things what they are or risk losing our very liberty and freedom. That's why we're fighting, yes, a war against, yes, terrorists.
Two other things happened earlier today that are much more significant than Obama's "uh, uh, um" responses to press questions.
First, according to David Reidel of the Office of Security Review in the OMB, we are no longer to use the term "Global War on Terror". Instead, the Obama Adminstration prefers the term "Overseas Contingency Operation." Second, in her first testimony on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano never mentioned the word "terrorism". She decided to refer to "man-caused disasters", justifying the new term by as "perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur." German periodical Der Spiegel reported this last week but our papers largely picked up on the story today.
When I hear the phrase Global War on Terror, I'm pretty sure it is intended to mean that we are not going to sit idly by waiting for the next attack. We will take the fight to them wherever in the world they are because they can threaten us or our interests in scores of places.
By contrast, I don't know what Overseas Contingency Operation is, other than a head-scratchingly vague, wimpy euphemism. Let's break it down. "Overseas" means "over there", far away, as though this "global war" will only be fought in other places. We already know that's not true. Remember 9/11? "Contingency" means a "possible event". It's nice to think we can prepare for every possible "contingency" that can occur "overseas" but probably not realistic unless we are willing to allocate sufficient resources. Feeling confident that the Obama Administration will spend enough of the trillions in new budget spending to do that?
Then, there's "operation". Is that what you call an armed struggle against an enemy whose goal is to kill you simply because of who you are?
I suppose the purpose of the change is, in Secretary Napolitano's words, to "move away from the politics of fear". Using the term "war" is not "the politics of fear". War is hell, and though I have never experienced combat, I'll bet its greater hell when it's perpetrated on your home turf. We should have a healthy fear of our enemy, not because we can't defeat it or because they have greater or more destructive weapons, or the more justifiable position. And that's not to say we should be paranoid or overly restrictive. But failing to appreciate the danger of an enemy leads to a passivity. Passivity exposes weakness and creates and fosters vulnerability. I want our brave men and women to perform "operations" against the enemy but, make no mistake, this is war.
As for "man caused disasters", excuse me Secretary Napolitano, but that change is more than a "nuance". Disasters can be "caused" by an endless variety of acts, some intentional and deliberate, some reckless or willfull, some negligent or accidental. Heck, environmental extremists have called global warming a man-made disaster.
Terrorism, on the other hand, is not accidental or negligent, neither is it reckless or willfull. It is the intentional, deliberate, calculated use of violence or threats of violence to attain the practitioner's objective. The only time terrorism is accidental is when the bomb-maker slips.
Equating "terrorism" with mere recklessness or accidents hands the enemy another tool to use against us. See, the enemy doesn't respect PC crap; it respects force, domination and control. It uses those tactics in state governance and family relations. Suggesting that their murderous acts are anything but intentional terror actually encourages more of the same. You think they'll stop trying to blow up our troops and us if we downplay their actions? Compare Man X who drives his car recklessly, crosses the center-line and kills a driver in a head-on collision, with Man Y who goes to that driver's house with a loaded gun, intending to kill the driver, and shoots the driver dead. Both men have taken a life but would anyone deny that the Man Y's act of intentional, premeditated murder is the more heinous act and more deserving of greater punishment? If Y doesn't get punished more severely, he and others like him will less be deterred from doing it again. And again.
No, we change our language because we don't want to offend anyone. We'll hurt the feelings of "good Muslims" if we point out that the "bad Muslims" have bastardized their faith using oppression and violence. We should just talk to our enemy without using loaded terms and get him to understand our position--while ignoring his singular goal, i.e. to kill us--and then we'll reach some sort of "peace". If we believe those things, we're wrong.
Euphemisms suck. War is war. Terrorists are terrorists. Call things what they are or risk losing our very liberty and freedom. That's why we're fighting, yes, a war against, yes, terrorists.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Quick Hit--That Evil Bush
I had my problems with George W. Bush during his Presidency, but always thought he was a good, smart man. Not the most articulate president, but neither "evil" or "stupid". It always bothered me that many people had (and still have) this visceral hatred of W. We all can recall the countless instances of left-wing kooks manifesting their anger into irrational criticisms. Bush is a monkey, a puppet to Cheney's puppeteer, idiot, dumb, stupid, Hitler, etc.
Can we finally put the "Evil Bush" hysteria to rest now? He is exhibiting precisely the type and level of class we should expect from a former president...and someone who puts country over politics. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize the Obama Administration when it stumbles, which seems to happen regularly. But a former president should respect his successors and keep his opinions to himself. We don't have a parliamentary or multi-party democracy where a two-term leader might return to the office (see Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu). Certainly W should get credit for being far more gracious, kind and respectful than, say, liberal darling wacko Jimmy Carter, who took every opportunity to slam W on issues from Iraq, to Israel and Gaza, to keeping too many secrets, to the faith-based initiative, to W's extremist views, etc.
W stands head and shoulders above Carter for class and respect after his presidency. You liberal moonbats could apologize to him for your vitriol, but he's probably already forgiven you.
Can we finally put the "Evil Bush" hysteria to rest now? He is exhibiting precisely the type and level of class we should expect from a former president...and someone who puts country over politics. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize the Obama Administration when it stumbles, which seems to happen regularly. But a former president should respect his successors and keep his opinions to himself. We don't have a parliamentary or multi-party democracy where a two-term leader might return to the office (see Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu). Certainly W should get credit for being far more gracious, kind and respectful than, say, liberal darling wacko Jimmy Carter, who took every opportunity to slam W on issues from Iraq, to Israel and Gaza, to keeping too many secrets, to the faith-based initiative, to W's extremist views, etc.
W stands head and shoulders above Carter for class and respect after his presidency. You liberal moonbats could apologize to him for your vitriol, but he's probably already forgiven you.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Feigned Disgust at AIG
Corporate executives are ultimately responsible for only one thing: pleasing their shareholders. There are moral obligations, too, of course. And businessmen who pursue profits with everything else be damned typically reap what they sow. But shareholders have the final say in executive pay because they can replace the executives.
In the case of AIG, we now are the shareholders. The American taxpayers own nearly 80% of AIG. We have pumped nearly $180 billion (that's $180,000,000,000.00) into AIG to bail it out of the poor decisions it, through its executives, made. That means we have the right to be outraged at the $165 million (that's $165,000,000.00) in "retention" bonuses AIG/Our Company recently paid its executives. Our tax dollars that we generously gave our battered and beleaguered company are being used in part to pay poorly performing, failing executives outlandish bonuses. Calling it an outrage is a gross understatement.
There are several people, however, who have tried to get out in front of this protest parade. They express disgust and deep anger at these developments. But, instead of letting them lead our parade, we should trample them under foot for their roles in making it all happen. Here are just a few of them.
First and foremost is the Shareholder-in-Chief Barack Obama who yesterday lambasted AIG and expressed shock and anger. Candidate Obama, while waffling on whether to support the AIG bailout in September 2008, unequivocally stated that "It must not bail out the shareholders or management of AIG." Fast forward 6 months and, surprise!, that's exactly what is happening. He can blame the Bush Administration all he wants for bequeathing all the world's problems to him, but the fact is AIG management is getting bailed out on Obama's watch. Meanwhile, Obama is proposing a budget with a projected deficit of $1.75 trillion (that's $1,750,000,000,000.00), or about more than 10,000 times the amount the AIG executives got. Who's wasting more of your money? By the way, still no word on whether the Shareholder-in-Chief--the second highest recipient of campaign contributions from AIG in 2008--will return any of the more than $100,000 he received last year.
Second is Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT. Dodd is a government-employed, duly elected welfare queen, having already, for example, gotten a sweetheart mortgage from troubled Countrywide that you and I couldn't get. Recently we learned that Dodd's amendment to the $787 billion "stimulus" package exempted from a restriction on executive pay the very AIG bonuses he roundly criticizes. Could the fact that Dodd was just ahead of Obama in AIG 2008 campaign contributions have anything to do with it? Naaaah. It was just a co-inkydink. Or maybe leprechauns clandestinely inserted the exemption in after Dodd put forth the amendment.
Third on our list is Sen. John McCain, R-AZ. At the time Candidate McCain cut off his campaigning to return to DC and fix the financial crisis, I thought it was a gutsy gimmick and applauded the move. Then, of course, he decided to support the $85 billion AIG boondoggle bailout (that's $85,000,000,000.00) and the $25 billion automaker bailout (hattip: Michelle Malkin), and lost any remaining "maverick" luster.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA leads the list of also-rans but I simply don't have enough space to cover his involvement in this debacle.
Now we have Obama claiming he'll use "every legal avenue" to get the bonus money back. New York AG Andrew Cuomo is also looking at the situation. Have these guys--both allegely accomplished lawyers--ever heard of contracts? AIG may be contractually obligated to pay these bonuses. You don't think the AIG employees who were to get the bonuses wouldn't sue AIG in a New York minute if they didn't get paid? Oh, the Shareholder-in-Chief and his outraged pals will try to "undo" the contracts now, and they might eventually succeed. But you mean to tell me these clowns didn't think to put restrictions on bailout funds when they were debating and proposing them? Someone should have sat down with whoever was running AIG and said, "Look, we'll give you the money but we're building in provisions to ensure you don't squander it on executive bonuses, spa trips, and other such stuff. If that's not acceptable, then you get no cash."
And some in Congress (including Dodd) are proposing to tax the snot out of those bonuses with at least one congressman saying they should be taxed at 100%. While we're throwing out contract law, why not toss the Constitution too. Ex post facto laws? Nobody really knows what that means anyway, and people are so mad at the AIG executives that nobody will care if they get screwed.
Politicians feigning disgust and outrage is nothing new. It's just so obviously self-serving, hypocritical, and smarmy, especially in these difficult times. Obama's "change" mantra doesn't echo as loudly anymore. He sounds more like Captain Renault in Casablanca: "Shocked! Shocked!" to find out these shenanigans have been going on right under his nose.
I don't know who is more disgusting: the AIG executives who got bonused with our bailout money, or the politicians who took campaign contributions from AIG, eagerly approved their bailout money and set up the mechanisms to be misused. A pox on all of their houses...especially the one Dodd got that sweetheart deal on.
In the case of AIG, we now are the shareholders. The American taxpayers own nearly 80% of AIG. We have pumped nearly $180 billion (that's $180,000,000,000.00) into AIG to bail it out of the poor decisions it, through its executives, made. That means we have the right to be outraged at the $165 million (that's $165,000,000.00) in "retention" bonuses AIG/Our Company recently paid its executives. Our tax dollars that we generously gave our battered and beleaguered company are being used in part to pay poorly performing, failing executives outlandish bonuses. Calling it an outrage is a gross understatement.
There are several people, however, who have tried to get out in front of this protest parade. They express disgust and deep anger at these developments. But, instead of letting them lead our parade, we should trample them under foot for their roles in making it all happen. Here are just a few of them.
First and foremost is the Shareholder-in-Chief Barack Obama who yesterday lambasted AIG and expressed shock and anger. Candidate Obama, while waffling on whether to support the AIG bailout in September 2008, unequivocally stated that "It must not bail out the shareholders or management of AIG." Fast forward 6 months and, surprise!, that's exactly what is happening. He can blame the Bush Administration all he wants for bequeathing all the world's problems to him, but the fact is AIG management is getting bailed out on Obama's watch. Meanwhile, Obama is proposing a budget with a projected deficit of $1.75 trillion (that's $1,750,000,000,000.00), or about more than 10,000 times the amount the AIG executives got. Who's wasting more of your money? By the way, still no word on whether the Shareholder-in-Chief--the second highest recipient of campaign contributions from AIG in 2008--will return any of the more than $100,000 he received last year.
Second is Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT. Dodd is a government-employed, duly elected welfare queen, having already, for example, gotten a sweetheart mortgage from troubled Countrywide that you and I couldn't get. Recently we learned that Dodd's amendment to the $787 billion "stimulus" package exempted from a restriction on executive pay the very AIG bonuses he roundly criticizes. Could the fact that Dodd was just ahead of Obama in AIG 2008 campaign contributions have anything to do with it? Naaaah. It was just a co-inkydink. Or maybe leprechauns clandestinely inserted the exemption in after Dodd put forth the amendment.
Third on our list is Sen. John McCain, R-AZ. At the time Candidate McCain cut off his campaigning to return to DC and fix the financial crisis, I thought it was a gutsy gimmick and applauded the move. Then, of course, he decided to support the $85 billion AIG boondoggle bailout (that's $85,000,000,000.00) and the $25 billion automaker bailout (hattip: Michelle Malkin), and lost any remaining "maverick" luster.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA leads the list of also-rans but I simply don't have enough space to cover his involvement in this debacle.
Now we have Obama claiming he'll use "every legal avenue" to get the bonus money back. New York AG Andrew Cuomo is also looking at the situation. Have these guys--both allegely accomplished lawyers--ever heard of contracts? AIG may be contractually obligated to pay these bonuses. You don't think the AIG employees who were to get the bonuses wouldn't sue AIG in a New York minute if they didn't get paid? Oh, the Shareholder-in-Chief and his outraged pals will try to "undo" the contracts now, and they might eventually succeed. But you mean to tell me these clowns didn't think to put restrictions on bailout funds when they were debating and proposing them? Someone should have sat down with whoever was running AIG and said, "Look, we'll give you the money but we're building in provisions to ensure you don't squander it on executive bonuses, spa trips, and other such stuff. If that's not acceptable, then you get no cash."
And some in Congress (including Dodd) are proposing to tax the snot out of those bonuses with at least one congressman saying they should be taxed at 100%. While we're throwing out contract law, why not toss the Constitution too. Ex post facto laws? Nobody really knows what that means anyway, and people are so mad at the AIG executives that nobody will care if they get screwed.
Politicians feigning disgust and outrage is nothing new. It's just so obviously self-serving, hypocritical, and smarmy, especially in these difficult times. Obama's "change" mantra doesn't echo as loudly anymore. He sounds more like Captain Renault in Casablanca: "Shocked! Shocked!" to find out these shenanigans have been going on right under his nose.
I don't know who is more disgusting: the AIG executives who got bonused with our bailout money, or the politicians who took campaign contributions from AIG, eagerly approved their bailout money and set up the mechanisms to be misused. A pox on all of their houses...especially the one Dodd got that sweetheart deal on.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Amateur Hour on the World Stage
Long before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, she was revered by many Democrats and the MSM as "the smartest woman in the world". This despite her distinct lack of uniquely significant accomplishment. Oh she has done some things that are unusual for a woman of her age. She graduated from Yale Law School when most law schools had few women students. She served as Congressional legal counsel, and became the first female partner of a (then) well-respected law firm. Those are accomplishments and women who serve in such capacities now stand on her shoulders to some extent.
But let's be real. Hillary's public popularity (or notoriety) are directly attributable to her marriage to Bill. That's not intended as an insult; it's just the truth. No one would know or revere Hillary if she hadn't hitched her wagon to her husband. Frankly, there is nothing wrong (or new) with a person trading a bit on a loved one's success.
Measuring her intelligence with reference to these accomplishments (or how she got where she is) would be strange since she finally has her own position. No, I don't count carpetbagging to get her Senate seat. Thanks to Pres. Obama, she is on the world stage, now, as Secretary of State, unhitched from her husband, free to display her intelligence in diplomacy, foreign policy and influence world affairs.
Unfortunately, a quick survey of Hillary's performance in Act I, and that of the Obama Administration, shows that this is Amateur Hour. Hillary and Barack are acting on Broadway while mis-delivering lines in a style more akin to a Little Rock dinner theater.
Scene 1: Meeting with her Chinese counterpart. Enter Hillary, hat in hand, begging the Chinese government to keep buying American debt. In exchange, she chooses not to linger on those pesky human rights issues. Shortly after the meeting, Chinese warships challenge US Naval vessels in international waters, suggesting China is no longer bedazzled by Hillary, if it ever was.
Scene 2: Meeting in Israel. Hillary touches the "third rail" of the Mideast peace process by declaraing the establishment of a Palestinian state is "inescapable", while expressing the desire to normalize relations with world terror leader Iran and its surrogate Syria--both sworn enemies of Israel. Israeli officials are not amused. Hamas officials--perpetually unamused--express anger at Hillary's failure to criticize Israel, but she still gives them a check for nearly $1 billion.
Scene 3: Meeting with her Russian counterpart. Enter Hillary with a gift in hand. Hillary presents a button to Foreign Minister Lavrov and, while taking an indirect swipe at the previous administration, tells him its a "reset button" to "reset" our relationship. The button was supposed to say "perezagruzka", which means "reset" but instead it said "peregruzka", which means "overcharged".
Scene 4: Brussels and the EU. Hillary claims she has "never understood multiparty democracy" and claimed that "our own democracy...has been around a lot longer than European democracy." Apparently, she either forgot Greece was in the EU or never studied Greek history. She also refers to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana as "High Representative Solano", and European Commission External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner as "Benito." The MSM excuses her missteps as symptoms of fatigue.
Now, it goes without saying that the MSM would never have let George Bush, Condi Rice or Don Rumsfeld get away with such gaffes. It's expected from those dolts. But Hillary? She's too smart for that. She must have been tired.
Admittedly, Hillary is probably taking orders from Pres. Obama when she discusses policy positions. Clearly the Obama Administration has staked out positions in the mushy middle, which is just what we'd expect from loyal adherents of political correctness. Don't come on too strong, don't offend anyone, keep standards and expectations low, and never truly take a forceful stand. But, as Secretary of State, Hillary has a say in these positions...or she's entirely feckless. America must support her friends and gain compliance or concessions from her enemies, and defeat them if necessary. Staking out the mushy middle is a sure way to lose the upper hand. For example, in the Mideast, taking the mushy middle in an effort to secure "peace" risks alienating good friend Israel while never truly getting anything meaningful out of the PLO/Syria/Iran, in large part because Israel's enemies won't let peace and Israel coexist.
Luckily for Hillary, she is not on the hook for the insulting treatment of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. When the leader of your greatest friend and ally pays his first official state visit, you should welcome and treat him as such. Pres. Obama did not see fit to hold a joint press conference and barely had time to meet with Brown. Obama did, however, have a couple of toys from the White House gift shop for Brown's kids and a box of DVDs. Do you think he was smart enough to give him DVDs that will play on European systems? Doubt it. It's unclear whether Blockbuster will waive the late fees if Brown doesn't return them on time. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way back to 10 Downing, Gordo.
Unlike dinner theater, you only get one performance on the world stage. You can't show up for the next night's show with a clean slate and a new audience. For America's sake, and that of the free world and emerging democracies and capitalist nations around the world, we can only hope the performance will improve as Act II begins.
But let's be real. Hillary's public popularity (or notoriety) are directly attributable to her marriage to Bill. That's not intended as an insult; it's just the truth. No one would know or revere Hillary if she hadn't hitched her wagon to her husband. Frankly, there is nothing wrong (or new) with a person trading a bit on a loved one's success.
Measuring her intelligence with reference to these accomplishments (or how she got where she is) would be strange since she finally has her own position. No, I don't count carpetbagging to get her Senate seat. Thanks to Pres. Obama, she is on the world stage, now, as Secretary of State, unhitched from her husband, free to display her intelligence in diplomacy, foreign policy and influence world affairs.
Unfortunately, a quick survey of Hillary's performance in Act I, and that of the Obama Administration, shows that this is Amateur Hour. Hillary and Barack are acting on Broadway while mis-delivering lines in a style more akin to a Little Rock dinner theater.
Scene 1: Meeting with her Chinese counterpart. Enter Hillary, hat in hand, begging the Chinese government to keep buying American debt. In exchange, she chooses not to linger on those pesky human rights issues. Shortly after the meeting, Chinese warships challenge US Naval vessels in international waters, suggesting China is no longer bedazzled by Hillary, if it ever was.
Scene 2: Meeting in Israel. Hillary touches the "third rail" of the Mideast peace process by declaraing the establishment of a Palestinian state is "inescapable", while expressing the desire to normalize relations with world terror leader Iran and its surrogate Syria--both sworn enemies of Israel. Israeli officials are not amused. Hamas officials--perpetually unamused--express anger at Hillary's failure to criticize Israel, but she still gives them a check for nearly $1 billion.
Scene 3: Meeting with her Russian counterpart. Enter Hillary with a gift in hand. Hillary presents a button to Foreign Minister Lavrov and, while taking an indirect swipe at the previous administration, tells him its a "reset button" to "reset" our relationship. The button was supposed to say "perezagruzka", which means "reset" but instead it said "peregruzka", which means "overcharged".
Scene 4: Brussels and the EU. Hillary claims she has "never understood multiparty democracy" and claimed that "our own democracy...has been around a lot longer than European democracy." Apparently, she either forgot Greece was in the EU or never studied Greek history. She also refers to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana as "High Representative Solano", and European Commission External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner as "Benito." The MSM excuses her missteps as symptoms of fatigue.
Now, it goes without saying that the MSM would never have let George Bush, Condi Rice or Don Rumsfeld get away with such gaffes. It's expected from those dolts. But Hillary? She's too smart for that. She must have been tired.
Admittedly, Hillary is probably taking orders from Pres. Obama when she discusses policy positions. Clearly the Obama Administration has staked out positions in the mushy middle, which is just what we'd expect from loyal adherents of political correctness. Don't come on too strong, don't offend anyone, keep standards and expectations low, and never truly take a forceful stand. But, as Secretary of State, Hillary has a say in these positions...or she's entirely feckless. America must support her friends and gain compliance or concessions from her enemies, and defeat them if necessary. Staking out the mushy middle is a sure way to lose the upper hand. For example, in the Mideast, taking the mushy middle in an effort to secure "peace" risks alienating good friend Israel while never truly getting anything meaningful out of the PLO/Syria/Iran, in large part because Israel's enemies won't let peace and Israel coexist.
Luckily for Hillary, she is not on the hook for the insulting treatment of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. When the leader of your greatest friend and ally pays his first official state visit, you should welcome and treat him as such. Pres. Obama did not see fit to hold a joint press conference and barely had time to meet with Brown. Obama did, however, have a couple of toys from the White House gift shop for Brown's kids and a box of DVDs. Do you think he was smart enough to give him DVDs that will play on European systems? Doubt it. It's unclear whether Blockbuster will waive the late fees if Brown doesn't return them on time. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way back to 10 Downing, Gordo.
Unlike dinner theater, you only get one performance on the world stage. You can't show up for the next night's show with a clean slate and a new audience. For America's sake, and that of the free world and emerging democracies and capitalist nations around the world, we can only hope the performance will improve as Act II begins.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Roe v. Wade Has Got To Go
I sparked a minor kerfuffle on my Facebook profile when I changed my status on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to suggest the case should be overturned. Some agreed and some disagreed, and that's just fine. I posted my status in part to stimulate that debate but primarily to express my view that Roe is bad law based on flawed precedent and an inappropriate expansion of the Constitution. The events of the last few days have only underscored how harmful and frightening a precedent Roe is.
What Facebook people quickly moved into was the question of whether abortion is good or bad. While I am pro-life and believe abortion should be heavily restricted, the legality of abortion is really a question for another day. It is the established constitutionality of Roe that is so odious and the subject of this post.
First, I believe Roe is not the problem but a symptom of a larger problematic legal pattern. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion in Roe owes a debt to previous cases where the Court began referring to a "right to privacy". Don't bother pulling out your Constitution to find those words because they aren't in there. Rather, Justice John Marshall Harlan dipped his toe in the pool when he wrote in his 1961 dissent in Poe v. Ullman that a Connecticut's law banning the sale of contraceptives was an "invasion of privacy".
When the Court reconsidered the same law in Griswold v. Connecticut a few years later, this time the Court struck it down. Justice William O. Douglas--FDR appointee and author of the Griswold decision--dove right in the pool and found something in the Constitution that the Founding Fathers forgot to include: a "right to privacy". What is a right to privacy? Your guess is as good as mine.
What's worse is how he unearthed this long-unknown constitutional nugget. In striking down the Connecticut law and discovering the "right to privacy", Justice Douglas wrote that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." Huh? Not sure what "emanations" and "penumbras" are? I didn't know what penumbras were until my first year of law school. And I always thought emanations were associated with bad smells. Turns out that essentially penumbras are shadows, and emanations are emissions.
Confused yet? In other words, the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says because the specific rights detailed therein cast broad, general shadows that cover a panoply of other rights limited only by the imaginations of enterprising lawyers and legacy-seeking Justices. Put another way, many unspecified (and unknown) rights emit from the specific enumerated rights. Think of a family tree with the "privacy patriarch" at the top and scores of generational offspring.
Naturally, Justice Douglas' emanations and penumbras have elevated all manner of behavior to the status of constitutional "rights". Roe v. Wade is the most controversial example. But take Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law criminalizing sodomy and [surprise!] found that all adults have a constitutional right to engage in such activities. The people of Texas apparently believed there should be a law criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults...or at least should let their archaic and exceedingly rarely enforced law remain on the books. Personally, I think such a law is dumb. But that is worlds away from believing sodomy should be promoted to the level of a constitutional right. Our jurisprudence is now littered with decisions like Roe and Lawrence...and there are many more to come. Remember Prop. 8 in California?
Which brings us to two recent events. First, late Friday afternoon, Pres. Barack Obama signed an executive order reversing the Bush Administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information. This has been a political hot potato for about 25 years so why the rush? Apparently Obama believes this issue to be of such importance that he couldn't wait any longer than his third day at work to take action on it. Can someone explain to me, if we are in the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression", why is our President telling us he's going to send millions of our money overseas for abortions?
Second, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco, CA) declared in an interview on ABC Sunday that she supported spending millions on contraceptives as part of the economic stimulus package because it will "reduce costs" for state and local governments [tip of the hat to the Drudge Report for the story]. And who will be recipients of this aid? Well, logically, it would be poor and minorities who can't afford contraception. That doesn't sound very Democratic to me. Perhaps we should start calling Pres. Obama and Speaker Pelosi the Eugenicists in Chief.
The bottom line is this: Roe v. Wade is bad law, poorly decided and based on impermissible broadening of the Constitution beyond its language. It is also directly responsible for Obama's policy shift and Pelosi's bizarre economic analysis.
Either the Constitution means what it says, or it means nothing. Apparently we have chosen the latter. As a result, we can expect our President and his fellow Democrats to continue genuflecting to abortion rights groups, the ACLU and other leftist extremists. Griswold and Roe have massive penumbras.
What Facebook people quickly moved into was the question of whether abortion is good or bad. While I am pro-life and believe abortion should be heavily restricted, the legality of abortion is really a question for another day. It is the established constitutionality of Roe that is so odious and the subject of this post.
First, I believe Roe is not the problem but a symptom of a larger problematic legal pattern. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion in Roe owes a debt to previous cases where the Court began referring to a "right to privacy". Don't bother pulling out your Constitution to find those words because they aren't in there. Rather, Justice John Marshall Harlan dipped his toe in the pool when he wrote in his 1961 dissent in Poe v. Ullman that a Connecticut's law banning the sale of contraceptives was an "invasion of privacy".
When the Court reconsidered the same law in Griswold v. Connecticut a few years later, this time the Court struck it down. Justice William O. Douglas--FDR appointee and author of the Griswold decision--dove right in the pool and found something in the Constitution that the Founding Fathers forgot to include: a "right to privacy". What is a right to privacy? Your guess is as good as mine.
What's worse is how he unearthed this long-unknown constitutional nugget. In striking down the Connecticut law and discovering the "right to privacy", Justice Douglas wrote that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." Huh? Not sure what "emanations" and "penumbras" are? I didn't know what penumbras were until my first year of law school. And I always thought emanations were associated with bad smells. Turns out that essentially penumbras are shadows, and emanations are emissions.
Confused yet? In other words, the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says because the specific rights detailed therein cast broad, general shadows that cover a panoply of other rights limited only by the imaginations of enterprising lawyers and legacy-seeking Justices. Put another way, many unspecified (and unknown) rights emit from the specific enumerated rights. Think of a family tree with the "privacy patriarch" at the top and scores of generational offspring.
Naturally, Justice Douglas' emanations and penumbras have elevated all manner of behavior to the status of constitutional "rights". Roe v. Wade is the most controversial example. But take Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law criminalizing sodomy and [surprise!] found that all adults have a constitutional right to engage in such activities. The people of Texas apparently believed there should be a law criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults...or at least should let their archaic and exceedingly rarely enforced law remain on the books. Personally, I think such a law is dumb. But that is worlds away from believing sodomy should be promoted to the level of a constitutional right. Our jurisprudence is now littered with decisions like Roe and Lawrence...and there are many more to come. Remember Prop. 8 in California?
Which brings us to two recent events. First, late Friday afternoon, Pres. Barack Obama signed an executive order reversing the Bush Administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information. This has been a political hot potato for about 25 years so why the rush? Apparently Obama believes this issue to be of such importance that he couldn't wait any longer than his third day at work to take action on it. Can someone explain to me, if we are in the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression", why is our President telling us he's going to send millions of our money overseas for abortions?
Second, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco, CA) declared in an interview on ABC Sunday that she supported spending millions on contraceptives as part of the economic stimulus package because it will "reduce costs" for state and local governments [tip of the hat to the Drudge Report for the story]. And who will be recipients of this aid? Well, logically, it would be poor and minorities who can't afford contraception. That doesn't sound very Democratic to me. Perhaps we should start calling Pres. Obama and Speaker Pelosi the Eugenicists in Chief.
The bottom line is this: Roe v. Wade is bad law, poorly decided and based on impermissible broadening of the Constitution beyond its language. It is also directly responsible for Obama's policy shift and Pelosi's bizarre economic analysis.
Either the Constitution means what it says, or it means nothing. Apparently we have chosen the latter. As a result, we can expect our President and his fellow Democrats to continue genuflecting to abortion rights groups, the ACLU and other leftist extremists. Griswold and Roe have massive penumbras.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
