My computer has contracted one of those viruses that mask themselves as a security alert and are a major pain in the ass to remove. The virus disables all other anti-virus software and make the computer inoperable until such time as it is completely removed.
Let me put my current frame of mind in terms that anyone can understand. Were I to have the person or persons responsible for this kind of computer virus in front of me now, and I were handed a firearm and given the opportunity to execute those individuals, I would not hesitate for a second. No remorse, no guilt. That kind of random vandalism is every bit as malicious and hateful as child abuse or drug dealing or terrorism, in my opinion. I would gladly pull that trigger until all those responsible were dead or every round of ammunition available to me was expended... which ever came first.
In a world were so much of our society is based on-line and is conducted electronically, this kind of malicious activity should be prosecuted as nothing less than TERRORISM, with no regard to intent or context of action. If someone is creating these sorts of programs KNOWING they do nothing but interrupt routine operations, then they are committing a crime by their actions and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law... just as you would for someone robbing a bank or hijacking a plane or bus. It should be prosecuted at least as vigorously as crimes involving the trafficking of illegal drugs to unknowing children.
Anyway, rant over... but I WOULD pull that trigger, I swear it. I'd pull it and smile.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
A lead from the British ...
Here is what I would like to see.
Prior to Woodrow Wilson, whom moved it to a radio broadcast, the State of the Union was submitted in writing to congress. I advocate we return to that format and instead use the national, prime time hour or so to host a "Question Time With The President", much the same way the Brits have question and answer time with their PM. This recent Q & A with the House GOP was a model on how this can be conducted. I saw many clips, including the Paul Ryan exchange, and I agree with Titus ... this is a useful exercise for the Republic. It clearly can be done in a civilized manner, so if Obama fancies himself a president of precedents let him institutionalize this format as a replacement for the pomp & circumstance surrounding a televised SoTU address which is nothing more than 3 minutes worth of information jam packed into 70 (after all, a written SoTU would satisfy the Constitutional requirement while the Q & A would do more to further the public's knowledge of where our leaders stand).
So I agree, I liked it. It cut through pundits and editorials and we as a viewing public gained as much from what questions the president didn't answer as the one in which he did. In fact, now that I think about it, lets make it a monthly occurrence ... I can't see a downside to that.
Prior to Woodrow Wilson, whom moved it to a radio broadcast, the State of the Union was submitted in writing to congress. I advocate we return to that format and instead use the national, prime time hour or so to host a "Question Time With The President", much the same way the Brits have question and answer time with their PM. This recent Q & A with the House GOP was a model on how this can be conducted. I saw many clips, including the Paul Ryan exchange, and I agree with Titus ... this is a useful exercise for the Republic. It clearly can be done in a civilized manner, so if Obama fancies himself a president of precedents let him institutionalize this format as a replacement for the pomp & circumstance surrounding a televised SoTU address which is nothing more than 3 minutes worth of information jam packed into 70 (after all, a written SoTU would satisfy the Constitutional requirement while the Q & A would do more to further the public's knowledge of where our leaders stand).
So I agree, I liked it. It cut through pundits and editorials and we as a viewing public gained as much from what questions the president didn't answer as the one in which he did. In fact, now that I think about it, lets make it a monthly occurrence ... I can't see a downside to that.
Its amazing what some people will buy...
The Washington Post is running an editorial tomorrow (found HERE) that actually presents the case that the 111th Congress has been the most successful and productive Congress in 40 years... and the column is so popular with the editorial staff at the Post that they put it online a full day early.
With an approval rating of less than 24% and a confidences estimate even lower, the 111th Congress has, in my opinion, brought the US to a new level in bureaucratic partisan politics. Yes, they have put their super-majority to good use and passed much of what was on their legislative agenda for the last 6 months, but where is the evidence that the deficit they have compounded (by a factor of 270%, even by their own estimations) has benefited the country at all? Interest rates are still high, banks still aren't loaning money in volumes that will promote growth and economic expansion, unemployment is still rising across the nation, and the nation is still facing a near-crisis in regards to infrastructure and domestic industrial means. What have we gained?
Unemployment benefits have been extended! Great! That is good news for me, since I am still unemployed myself... but an additional six months of benefits does nothing to put me back to work, and gets me no closer to a job NOW, does it?
$70 billion was spent on green energy development and "smart-grid" electrical technologies so far, and not one penny of that investment is evident in the manner or means by which we continue to produce and distribute power in this country... NOT ONE PENNY'S WORTH! That is some successful legislating, yes sir! To the best of my knowledge, that money didn't slow unemployment, it didn't promote business growth, and it CERTAINLY hasn't reduced the cost of energy in the country, has it?
$7 billion was spent on further development of broadband Internet access across the nation... $7 billion dollars that has moved the estimated completion of "universal Internet access" ahead so that now we can expect that coverage to be complete by 2021 instead of 2030. Fantastic! So kids NOW can look forward to mobile Internet access that is coast-to-coast by the time they are 21 years old rather than 30 years old... how many jobs has that advancement generated?
Unbelievable.
With an approval rating of less than 24% and a confidences estimate even lower, the 111th Congress has, in my opinion, brought the US to a new level in bureaucratic partisan politics. Yes, they have put their super-majority to good use and passed much of what was on their legislative agenda for the last 6 months, but where is the evidence that the deficit they have compounded (by a factor of 270%, even by their own estimations) has benefited the country at all? Interest rates are still high, banks still aren't loaning money in volumes that will promote growth and economic expansion, unemployment is still rising across the nation, and the nation is still facing a near-crisis in regards to infrastructure and domestic industrial means. What have we gained?
Unemployment benefits have been extended! Great! That is good news for me, since I am still unemployed myself... but an additional six months of benefits does nothing to put me back to work, and gets me no closer to a job NOW, does it?
$70 billion was spent on green energy development and "smart-grid" electrical technologies so far, and not one penny of that investment is evident in the manner or means by which we continue to produce and distribute power in this country... NOT ONE PENNY'S WORTH! That is some successful legislating, yes sir! To the best of my knowledge, that money didn't slow unemployment, it didn't promote business growth, and it CERTAINLY hasn't reduced the cost of energy in the country, has it?
$7 billion was spent on further development of broadband Internet access across the nation... $7 billion dollars that has moved the estimated completion of "universal Internet access" ahead so that now we can expect that coverage to be complete by 2021 instead of 2030. Fantastic! So kids NOW can look forward to mobile Internet access that is coast-to-coast by the time they are 21 years old rather than 30 years old... how many jobs has that advancement generated?
Unbelievable.
Call Obama what you want...
... but he isn't stupid, is he?
On the heels of his State of the Union speech, he takes the GOP invitation to come to the caucus retreat in Baltimore, MD and do a Q&A meeting with the Republican leaders of the House. He gives a 19 minute speech, and follows it with a long and uninterrupted "dialogue" (his words, not mine)... and all of it broadcast on C-Span Network. You can watch the whole thing on YouTube, should you care to do so. I did...
The meeting was telling, to say the least. First of all, it gives a clear view of WHY Obama uses a teleprompter so much. He isn't any better of a speaker "off-the-cuff" than Bush was. It is only when he is pushed by the GOP members that he puts aside the fluff and gets to the heart of the matter in question. I mention this not because I think it is a character flaw or that it is a mark against the man... that is simply silly to think. I mention this because I have a sneaking suspicion that this is something that Obama and his staff could use to their benefit later on. He IS capable of clear and unambiguous statements when it comes to his policy ideals, and when pushed, he will give it. If the policy in question proves sound, this can be used to show he stuck to his guns and WAS RIGHT. This is only one-half of the coin, I know... but in today's political climate, just being right once could be enough to swing popular opinion back towards Obama's initial agenda.
He squared off against some tough questions, not the least of which came from some up-and-coming GOP "rock stars". Paul Ryan (R-WI) hit him with a tough budgetary question as a ranking member of the Budgetary Committee... and Obama was forced to defer the meat of his answer to another date. One of the toughest questions came from Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) about the failure of both Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration to operate according to the promised "change" in how Washington was going to work in a more bipartisan manner. He stated quite clearly that he didn't feel he or any of his House Republican members were being "obstructionist"... but that they were routinely labeled as such by Democrats, when THEY (Dems) were the obstructionist factor in policy planning and implementation over the last year. Obama did take some responsibility for these failings, and deferred some blame to the GOP too.
These are the kinds of tough questions that are going to make or break the Obama White House over the next year... and I applaud Obama for having the hutzpah to do this meeting. I don't think it will happen too many more times, unless the Dems can make sure that the President is a little more prepared for the questions, but it might... it just might.
More importantly, though, I think this meeting gives credibility to the "town hall" movement that so many Democrats and liberal pundits have been dismissing across the nation. This was a "Congressional town hall meeting" and it shows what good can come from these sorts of meetings. I'd LOVE to see Senators and Governors forced by such precedents to have to attend and participate in these sorts of meetings, and even if these meetings don't end up gaining the ends I would personally want to see achieved, just knowing a debate occurred would make me feel a whole lot better about the effort. THIS is a good way to get the conservative message out there to the general public that normally refuses to listen to typical conservative outlets or speakers... and it is an opportunity for Obama and the Dems to actually defend their positions, should they choose to do so.
Now, before I close, I don't want anyone to think I LIKE what Obama said (ahem... RYAN). He did far too much of the now nearly ritual "It's not my fault" blame deferral, and kept talking about the "mess" he walked into. However, this is easily countered when he is talking to freshman Representatives and Senators who can also say exactly the same thing, and call for answers as to how the problems are going to be FIXED, rather than who casued them. I'm simply saying that this is a GOOD forum for clear and open debate, and that the American public can gain plain insight into the political machinations of "life on the Hill" through such forums.
This kind of debate and discussion should be a focus for the conservative movement, meaning we should call for more of this from all corners of the Government, and that more efforts to expand the "town hall" movement should be made in every state.
On the heels of his State of the Union speech, he takes the GOP invitation to come to the caucus retreat in Baltimore, MD and do a Q&A meeting with the Republican leaders of the House. He gives a 19 minute speech, and follows it with a long and uninterrupted "dialogue" (his words, not mine)... and all of it broadcast on C-Span Network. You can watch the whole thing on YouTube, should you care to do so. I did...
The meeting was telling, to say the least. First of all, it gives a clear view of WHY Obama uses a teleprompter so much. He isn't any better of a speaker "off-the-cuff" than Bush was. It is only when he is pushed by the GOP members that he puts aside the fluff and gets to the heart of the matter in question. I mention this not because I think it is a character flaw or that it is a mark against the man... that is simply silly to think. I mention this because I have a sneaking suspicion that this is something that Obama and his staff could use to their benefit later on. He IS capable of clear and unambiguous statements when it comes to his policy ideals, and when pushed, he will give it. If the policy in question proves sound, this can be used to show he stuck to his guns and WAS RIGHT. This is only one-half of the coin, I know... but in today's political climate, just being right once could be enough to swing popular opinion back towards Obama's initial agenda.
He squared off against some tough questions, not the least of which came from some up-and-coming GOP "rock stars". Paul Ryan (R-WI) hit him with a tough budgetary question as a ranking member of the Budgetary Committee... and Obama was forced to defer the meat of his answer to another date. One of the toughest questions came from Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) about the failure of both Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration to operate according to the promised "change" in how Washington was going to work in a more bipartisan manner. He stated quite clearly that he didn't feel he or any of his House Republican members were being "obstructionist"... but that they were routinely labeled as such by Democrats, when THEY (Dems) were the obstructionist factor in policy planning and implementation over the last year. Obama did take some responsibility for these failings, and deferred some blame to the GOP too.
These are the kinds of tough questions that are going to make or break the Obama White House over the next year... and I applaud Obama for having the hutzpah to do this meeting. I don't think it will happen too many more times, unless the Dems can make sure that the President is a little more prepared for the questions, but it might... it just might.
More importantly, though, I think this meeting gives credibility to the "town hall" movement that so many Democrats and liberal pundits have been dismissing across the nation. This was a "Congressional town hall meeting" and it shows what good can come from these sorts of meetings. I'd LOVE to see Senators and Governors forced by such precedents to have to attend and participate in these sorts of meetings, and even if these meetings don't end up gaining the ends I would personally want to see achieved, just knowing a debate occurred would make me feel a whole lot better about the effort. THIS is a good way to get the conservative message out there to the general public that normally refuses to listen to typical conservative outlets or speakers... and it is an opportunity for Obama and the Dems to actually defend their positions, should they choose to do so.
Now, before I close, I don't want anyone to think I LIKE what Obama said (ahem... RYAN). He did far too much of the now nearly ritual "It's not my fault" blame deferral, and kept talking about the "mess" he walked into. However, this is easily countered when he is talking to freshman Representatives and Senators who can also say exactly the same thing, and call for answers as to how the problems are going to be FIXED, rather than who casued them. I'm simply saying that this is a GOOD forum for clear and open debate, and that the American public can gain plain insight into the political machinations of "life on the Hill" through such forums.
This kind of debate and discussion should be a focus for the conservative movement, meaning we should call for more of this from all corners of the Government, and that more efforts to expand the "town hall" movement should be made in every state.
Friday, January 29, 2010
J D Salinger
I was surprised at how bad I felt when I read that Salinger was dead at 91 years of age. I wasn't a huge fan of "Catcher in the Rye" but I'm the first to admit that the man hit a home run with his first book, and I agree that it was a defining work in the "genre" of teenage coming-of-age books.
His life, to me, seemed filled with a longing he couldn't satisfy. His relationships with women were unsuccessful and he always seemed to be trying to find some new and fulfilling religious path to happiness... without ever doing so. More sad than that, though, was that he simply was never left alone by the "pseudo-intellectual" world that thought him some mad genius with a hidden knowledge of secret wisdom that would explain his literary success.
Holden Caulfield is an iconic literary figure... he will live through the ages, no doubt. He is one of those fictional characters that, once you have "met" him, you never really forget him. I always wondered how much of J D was in Holden, and upon reading several biographical articles, it seems even Salinger admitted that the book was very "autobiographical".
Anyway... rest in peace, Mr. Salinger. You stormed Utah Beach, you fought at the Bulge, and you wrote one of the most enduring classics in all of American literature... you've earned your peace at last.
His life, to me, seemed filled with a longing he couldn't satisfy. His relationships with women were unsuccessful and he always seemed to be trying to find some new and fulfilling religious path to happiness... without ever doing so. More sad than that, though, was that he simply was never left alone by the "pseudo-intellectual" world that thought him some mad genius with a hidden knowledge of secret wisdom that would explain his literary success.
Holden Caulfield is an iconic literary figure... he will live through the ages, no doubt. He is one of those fictional characters that, once you have "met" him, you never really forget him. I always wondered how much of J D was in Holden, and upon reading several biographical articles, it seems even Salinger admitted that the book was very "autobiographical".
Anyway... rest in peace, Mr. Salinger. You stormed Utah Beach, you fought at the Bulge, and you wrote one of the most enduring classics in all of American literature... you've earned your peace at last.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Well ... ALF was on.
Kidding. Yes, of course I watched. I vowed not to, Titus is correct but given it was replayed multiple times I couldn't avoid it when flipping through the channels near bed (although I caught it out of order between 2 airings). And not so coincidentally I was struck by many of the same things you were ...
First, the spending freeze is ludicrous. It is the proverbial drop in the bucket in the era of Obama. A few billion (15 if remember correctly from an online article) a year, within trillions of red ink being thrown around? Please, huh. How about not passing a trillion dollar health package if you're so worried about deficits? I mean this is maddening. In addition he called for a "Jobs Bill." Put aside the fact that government does not create jobs (no matter what you call the bill), this is tantamount to a SECOND stimulus package. Again, its going to be near another $800 billion spent. Because the first one worked so well, right? Like I said, ludicrous. The idea that THIS president is going to speak to fiscal responsibility, with a straight face, may be a tribute to his acting chops but does nothing for our national debt.
Second. I have no problem with calling out the Supreme Court, that's fine, under normal circumstances. But to do it in a SoTU address when the members are prevented from responding is the actions of a little man with little respect for decorum. HE did the equivalent of shouting, "you lie!" this time. The Supreme Court members are sitting RIGHT THERE, up front, and to their face, with no ability to respond or refute he calls them out. Unbelievable - this is a COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. And to simply state you disagree with them would have been one thing, but to cite a specific ruling they decided fewer than 10 days ago and state that as such they have damaged our Republic is outrageous. Alito was left shaking his head, as Titus pointed out.
Third. Energy and other machinations ... Basically his plan is to allow "some" offshore drilling and nuclear power plant construction, BUT ONLY in conjunction with a "comprehensive cap and trade" program, as he put it. Exactly how does that work? Allow the drilling but make it so expensive that no body does? This is mania. As I mentioned in a text message recently I watched a clip of the President on CBS. In it he flatly admitted that "I'd rather be a good one term president then a mediocre two term president." Now for an entire year people have shook their head when I explained that he isn't in this to be just another president. That he's not playing for a second term, he is a committed ideologue. During the campaign no 2 phrases sent a cold chill down my spine more than, "We're going to fundamentally transform the nation", and "We've tried it their way." See, you have to believe there is a fundamental problem with the nation as Constituted if you are seeking to "fundamentally transform" it. And while most people assumed "their way" referred to George Bush and the Republicans, I was convinced he meant George Washington and the Republic. I posted in this very blog the audio of his describing the Constitution as "fundamentally flawed." Now he as all but admitted in the CBS clip that I am right in my opinion, and last night he stepped on the accelerator.
Fourth. The most telling aspect to me, in terms of where this president finds himself 1 year in, is when he discussed lobbyists. He vowed, reiterating a campaign promise, that NO lobbyists have been allowed to hold cabinet positions, chair departments, etc as part of his efforts to "close the credibility gap", as he put it. In translation he simply means lobbyists have none of the "top jobs" in his administration. This is a flat lie. You can read the entire list of prominent lobbyists within his administration HERE, which include the deputy SecDef, the AG, the chief of staff to the Treasury Secretary, and the list goes on and on. What's worse is they didn't simply "slip by." He issued an executive order banning lobbyists from consideration when he was staffing his administration. So how did they get in you ask? He issued another executive document - waivers, signed by his own hand. So why do I find this the most telling? It was the reaction of the chamber. They didn't exactly "boo", but rather it was a sort of group chuckle, a quasi grumbling laugh if you will - on both sides of the aisle (literally & figuratively). It was symbolic to me. He was telling a bald face lie and he knew it. Yet he fully expected to get away with it. And that's where he is at now - he is charting a domestic and foreign policy course that has his own Party looking at each other as if to say, "is he serious?" It was a "The Emperor Has No Clothes" moment. And the only thing worse than being hated as a leader is not being taken seriously. And he is rapidly descending into rhetoric so out of touch with what's going on, so out of touch with the mood of the nation and the direction and leadership they want to see, that 365 days in he is rendering himself the quintessential lame duck, and I think he is oblivious to it.
In summary I simply do not know how he expects to get away with the massive gap between his rhetoric and his actions. Between where he wants to take the nation and where the nation is willing to go. Between who we are as a people and who is ideology tells us we should be. My prediction is these gaps will only increase until he is turned out under the same mantra in which he was installed - the desire for change.
First, the spending freeze is ludicrous. It is the proverbial drop in the bucket in the era of Obama. A few billion (15 if remember correctly from an online article) a year, within trillions of red ink being thrown around? Please, huh. How about not passing a trillion dollar health package if you're so worried about deficits? I mean this is maddening. In addition he called for a "Jobs Bill." Put aside the fact that government does not create jobs (no matter what you call the bill), this is tantamount to a SECOND stimulus package. Again, its going to be near another $800 billion spent. Because the first one worked so well, right? Like I said, ludicrous. The idea that THIS president is going to speak to fiscal responsibility, with a straight face, may be a tribute to his acting chops but does nothing for our national debt.
Second. I have no problem with calling out the Supreme Court, that's fine, under normal circumstances. But to do it in a SoTU address when the members are prevented from responding is the actions of a little man with little respect for decorum. HE did the equivalent of shouting, "you lie!" this time. The Supreme Court members are sitting RIGHT THERE, up front, and to their face, with no ability to respond or refute he calls them out. Unbelievable - this is a COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. And to simply state you disagree with them would have been one thing, but to cite a specific ruling they decided fewer than 10 days ago and state that as such they have damaged our Republic is outrageous. Alito was left shaking his head, as Titus pointed out.
Third. Energy and other machinations ... Basically his plan is to allow "some" offshore drilling and nuclear power plant construction, BUT ONLY in conjunction with a "comprehensive cap and trade" program, as he put it. Exactly how does that work? Allow the drilling but make it so expensive that no body does? This is mania. As I mentioned in a text message recently I watched a clip of the President on CBS. In it he flatly admitted that "I'd rather be a good one term president then a mediocre two term president." Now for an entire year people have shook their head when I explained that he isn't in this to be just another president. That he's not playing for a second term, he is a committed ideologue. During the campaign no 2 phrases sent a cold chill down my spine more than, "We're going to fundamentally transform the nation", and "We've tried it their way." See, you have to believe there is a fundamental problem with the nation as Constituted if you are seeking to "fundamentally transform" it. And while most people assumed "their way" referred to George Bush and the Republicans, I was convinced he meant George Washington and the Republic. I posted in this very blog the audio of his describing the Constitution as "fundamentally flawed." Now he as all but admitted in the CBS clip that I am right in my opinion, and last night he stepped on the accelerator.
Fourth. The most telling aspect to me, in terms of where this president finds himself 1 year in, is when he discussed lobbyists. He vowed, reiterating a campaign promise, that NO lobbyists have been allowed to hold cabinet positions, chair departments, etc as part of his efforts to "close the credibility gap", as he put it. In translation he simply means lobbyists have none of the "top jobs" in his administration. This is a flat lie. You can read the entire list of prominent lobbyists within his administration HERE, which include the deputy SecDef, the AG, the chief of staff to the Treasury Secretary, and the list goes on and on. What's worse is they didn't simply "slip by." He issued an executive order banning lobbyists from consideration when he was staffing his administration. So how did they get in you ask? He issued another executive document - waivers, signed by his own hand. So why do I find this the most telling? It was the reaction of the chamber. They didn't exactly "boo", but rather it was a sort of group chuckle, a quasi grumbling laugh if you will - on both sides of the aisle (literally & figuratively). It was symbolic to me. He was telling a bald face lie and he knew it. Yet he fully expected to get away with it. And that's where he is at now - he is charting a domestic and foreign policy course that has his own Party looking at each other as if to say, "is he serious?" It was a "The Emperor Has No Clothes" moment. And the only thing worse than being hated as a leader is not being taken seriously. And he is rapidly descending into rhetoric so out of touch with what's going on, so out of touch with the mood of the nation and the direction and leadership they want to see, that 365 days in he is rendering himself the quintessential lame duck, and I think he is oblivious to it.
In summary I simply do not know how he expects to get away with the massive gap between his rhetoric and his actions. Between where he wants to take the nation and where the nation is willing to go. Between who we are as a people and who is ideology tells us we should be. My prediction is these gaps will only increase until he is turned out under the same mantra in which he was installed - the desire for change.
Can't believe I'm the first...
... to comment on the State of the Union Address here at the Bund.
I got a text from Ryan explaining that he refused to watch the speech because Obama was irrelevant and that the GOP would sweep back into control come November. I'm not sure that two Governors and one freshman Senator are indicative of the end of the Democrat's control of American government, though... so perhaps his position is a bit premature. We'll see...
What I do know is that Ryan missed a hell of a show. Some surprises, much more of the same old crap, and some telling examples of where the Democrats see themselves right now in American politics.
Obama's address ran about 70 minutes, and I can tell you that the first 20 minutes of it was almost completely "This isn't my fault" dribble. An entire litany of all the things that the "previous" Administration did wrong and left for Obama when he came into office. That was his first mistake, in my opinion... starting off with another excuse as to why the state of the nation is Bush's fault and not his. We listened to his (undoubtedly) unsupportable numbers pointing to the multi-billion dollar surplus of 1999-2000 and the trillion dollar deficit of 2008. He pointed to the cause as being two wars that weren't being paid for, a far-too expensive prescription drug plan, the de-regulation of Wall Street and "Corporate America", and the huge tax breaks for the rich and powerful "less-than-one-percent" of Americans that pulled the strings of the "previous administrations".
Nothing he said struck me as particularly impressive or "new". I was initially very surprised at the three-year spending freeze he promised to implement, but that surprise was dampened a bit when he explained why it wouldn't go into effect until 2011, and that the $906 billion dollar deficit that we are running right now is the NORM for the rest of this term. He certainly wasn't "tough" on Iran or North Korea, and he didn't mention any specific terror threats at all.
I won't re-hash the entire speech... if you heard, you heard it. If you didn't, it doesn't matter. Obama had a chance to use this speech, more than any other he has given, to show that he really is aware of the public's desire for real change and that he is ready to respond... but he didn't take that chance. He pandered to the Dems and liberals by promising to remove all US forces from Iraq by the end of August (more on this later). He pandered to special interests by vowing to open the military to all comers, regardless of sexual orientation. He pandered to the GOP and the military by promising to focus attention on veteran's benefits. He pandered to foreign powers by promising that American foreign policy would never again be "unilateral" and that he would always seek the advice and council (I took this to mean "permission") of such bodies as the UN, NATO and the EU before making broad and sweeping moves in foreign policy. More of the same, as far as I am concerned.
I will touch on what I think was different about this speech now, though... (in no particular order, mind you)
I never saw Harry Reid more than once after the speech started. The face I did see more than any other was a very junior Senator who was seated right behind the Joint Chiefs and had more face time than any other Senator in the room... Al Franken. Next in "face time" would have been Leahy (D-VT) (Sorry, Jambo... I said Illinois last night), and he was NOT happy with the announcement of the spending freeze at all. I believe he offered the only "boo" to be heard the entire speech (surprising, given the GOPs history of booing rather loudly during Clinton's SotU Addresses). Is this coincidence, or is this indicative of a change in how (and WHO) the DNC wants the party to be associated with in the public's eye? Reid is "lame duck" no question... but an "old guard" Dem like Leahy and the upstart from Minnesota as the focal points of the DNC representation? Perhaps Leahy is the obvious visual replacement for Teddy... and perhaps Franken is the freshest face in the bunch... but neither is very photogenic and both are troublesome names in their own rights. Something to think about...
Another thing I noticed... when did the Joint Chiefs get so "stacked" with Navy personnel? I didn't see one Marine uniform there, and only one Army. Did Obama start from scratch with the JCoS? I'll have to look into that.
I'm also trying to recall when the last time a sitting President of the United States ever took such a blatant shot at the Supreme Court... and I think we have to go all the way back to FDR. He called the recent over-turning of the McCain-Feingold Act as "wrong" and called on Congress to enact legislation that would "right that wrong" to thunderous applause from the Left. This "slap in the face" of one of the THREE main branches of our Government prompted the typically Stoic Supreme Court bench to actually REACT! Sam Alito actually said (you could clearly read his lips) "No, that's not true" while he shook his head... and Ginsberg (one of the most liberal Justices in history, in my opinion) raised her head high and shook it in the negative as well!!!
Add to this the fact that the point Obama was making was basically that the American public is INCAPABLE of casting an election choice outside of what the TV, radio and newspaper adds tell them is FACT, and I think that we see where Obama and the DNC put their opinion of the American electorate's capacity to make a "good choice". Why are the dollars spent by corporations or "special interests" a factor if the platform of the candidate is sound? Why are the "opinions" voiced in adds a factor if the message and background of the person running for election are without reproach?
This was an "eye opening" speech NOT because of what he said, but because of how he said it and the manner in which it was received. I also thought it was telling that at the end, ALL the GOP members walked out immediately while the liberals hung around like groupies waiting for autographs in the aisles. Where is the dignity of the Chamber? This isn't "backstage" at an Obama show, for Pete sake... it is one of the most historic rooms in all the world, and these people are making it look like the back door to Madison Square Gardens after a Rob Zombie show.
Yes, a very telling speech, to be sure.
I got a text from Ryan explaining that he refused to watch the speech because Obama was irrelevant and that the GOP would sweep back into control come November. I'm not sure that two Governors and one freshman Senator are indicative of the end of the Democrat's control of American government, though... so perhaps his position is a bit premature. We'll see...
What I do know is that Ryan missed a hell of a show. Some surprises, much more of the same old crap, and some telling examples of where the Democrats see themselves right now in American politics.
Obama's address ran about 70 minutes, and I can tell you that the first 20 minutes of it was almost completely "This isn't my fault" dribble. An entire litany of all the things that the "previous" Administration did wrong and left for Obama when he came into office. That was his first mistake, in my opinion... starting off with another excuse as to why the state of the nation is Bush's fault and not his. We listened to his (undoubtedly) unsupportable numbers pointing to the multi-billion dollar surplus of 1999-2000 and the trillion dollar deficit of 2008. He pointed to the cause as being two wars that weren't being paid for, a far-too expensive prescription drug plan, the de-regulation of Wall Street and "Corporate America", and the huge tax breaks for the rich and powerful "less-than-one-percent" of Americans that pulled the strings of the "previous administrations".
Nothing he said struck me as particularly impressive or "new". I was initially very surprised at the three-year spending freeze he promised to implement, but that surprise was dampened a bit when he explained why it wouldn't go into effect until 2011, and that the $906 billion dollar deficit that we are running right now is the NORM for the rest of this term. He certainly wasn't "tough" on Iran or North Korea, and he didn't mention any specific terror threats at all.
I won't re-hash the entire speech... if you heard, you heard it. If you didn't, it doesn't matter. Obama had a chance to use this speech, more than any other he has given, to show that he really is aware of the public's desire for real change and that he is ready to respond... but he didn't take that chance. He pandered to the Dems and liberals by promising to remove all US forces from Iraq by the end of August (more on this later). He pandered to special interests by vowing to open the military to all comers, regardless of sexual orientation. He pandered to the GOP and the military by promising to focus attention on veteran's benefits. He pandered to foreign powers by promising that American foreign policy would never again be "unilateral" and that he would always seek the advice and council (I took this to mean "permission") of such bodies as the UN, NATO and the EU before making broad and sweeping moves in foreign policy. More of the same, as far as I am concerned.
I will touch on what I think was different about this speech now, though... (in no particular order, mind you)
I never saw Harry Reid more than once after the speech started. The face I did see more than any other was a very junior Senator who was seated right behind the Joint Chiefs and had more face time than any other Senator in the room... Al Franken. Next in "face time" would have been Leahy (D-VT) (Sorry, Jambo... I said Illinois last night), and he was NOT happy with the announcement of the spending freeze at all. I believe he offered the only "boo" to be heard the entire speech (surprising, given the GOPs history of booing rather loudly during Clinton's SotU Addresses). Is this coincidence, or is this indicative of a change in how (and WHO) the DNC wants the party to be associated with in the public's eye? Reid is "lame duck" no question... but an "old guard" Dem like Leahy and the upstart from Minnesota as the focal points of the DNC representation? Perhaps Leahy is the obvious visual replacement for Teddy... and perhaps Franken is the freshest face in the bunch... but neither is very photogenic and both are troublesome names in their own rights. Something to think about...
Another thing I noticed... when did the Joint Chiefs get so "stacked" with Navy personnel? I didn't see one Marine uniform there, and only one Army. Did Obama start from scratch with the JCoS? I'll have to look into that.
I'm also trying to recall when the last time a sitting President of the United States ever took such a blatant shot at the Supreme Court... and I think we have to go all the way back to FDR. He called the recent over-turning of the McCain-Feingold Act as "wrong" and called on Congress to enact legislation that would "right that wrong" to thunderous applause from the Left. This "slap in the face" of one of the THREE main branches of our Government prompted the typically Stoic Supreme Court bench to actually REACT! Sam Alito actually said (you could clearly read his lips) "No, that's not true" while he shook his head... and Ginsberg (one of the most liberal Justices in history, in my opinion) raised her head high and shook it in the negative as well!!!
Add to this the fact that the point Obama was making was basically that the American public is INCAPABLE of casting an election choice outside of what the TV, radio and newspaper adds tell them is FACT, and I think that we see where Obama and the DNC put their opinion of the American electorate's capacity to make a "good choice". Why are the dollars spent by corporations or "special interests" a factor if the platform of the candidate is sound? Why are the "opinions" voiced in adds a factor if the message and background of the person running for election are without reproach?
This was an "eye opening" speech NOT because of what he said, but because of how he said it and the manner in which it was received. I also thought it was telling that at the end, ALL the GOP members walked out immediately while the liberals hung around like groupies waiting for autographs in the aisles. Where is the dignity of the Chamber? This isn't "backstage" at an Obama show, for Pete sake... it is one of the most historic rooms in all the world, and these people are making it look like the back door to Madison Square Gardens after a Rob Zombie show.
Yes, a very telling speech, to be sure.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
In rare form ...
Couldn't pass this up ... and this is no CGI cut and paste job, its real footage of Obama in that classroom.
John Stewart
John Stewart
Monday, January 25, 2010
Poking a breathing hole in the duct tape ...
(click on the picture to enlarge)I thought this cartoon only appropriate ... the president railed, and I mean directly attacked, the recent Supreme Court Decision on campaign finance law. It entirely freed the ability of corporations (and unions although they escaped his ayre) to directly fund political ads for or against a candidate for office. This while his administration has been nearly co opted as a subsidiary of both GE & Goldman Sachs (just google that affiliation with the White House and witness the reams of research from reliable sources).
I have long been a fierce critic of McCain-Fiengold, also affected in this decision, and one of the most offensive, if not flat out Sovietesque, laws within McCain-Feingold was the ban on "negative advertising" within 30 days of the election date. A ridiculous and obvious affront to free speech. It was done under the guise that a candidate wouldn't be afforded the time to respond to distortions or lies, an obnoxious assertion to posit. The entire bill was quickly dubbed "The Incumbent Protection Act." No wonder it had bipartisan support.
Now ... apparently in 2007 a group attempted to get around the 30 day requirement and the caps on corporate donations by producing an unflattering "documentary" on Hillary Clinton (i.e. "it's not an ad, its a film"). The FCC quickly pounced and court cases ensued, which was the basis for the recent decision. From The Wall Street Journal Online, and Fox News, respectively:
"The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated in a 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, wanted to promote the film ahead of the Democratic primaries, but the election commission called it an "electioneering communication" subject to McCain-Feingold restrictions ... The ruling, which overturned two precedents, underscored the impact of former President George W. Bush's two appointments to the court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the five-justice majority that struck down not only a provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act limiting corporate-funded political ads immediately before federal elections, but also federal laws dating to 1947, and state laws that were older still. Those earlier laws restricted corporations from directly funding political activity from their general treasuries ..."
"In a stunning reversal of the nation’s federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.
Siding with filmmakers of “Hillary: The Movie,” who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is “no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures.”
“There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”
Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
“The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided,” Stevens wrote for the others.
“In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it,” he added.
The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come."
Allow me to summarize my reaction - the idea that my freedom of speech, as an individual, is suddenly suspended upon my free association with another individual - be it via a corporation or union - is asinine in the extreme. To advocate that these groups are, "not a part of society", seems oddly child like in its' notion. What are they then? Boogeymen? Trolls? Minotaurs? The idea that a Justice of the Supreme Court would advocate such a dissent is jaw dropping to me.
Furthermore to curtail the most vital of speech - political speech - in the days and hours when it is most likely to have an impact, such as McCain-Feingold did with its' "30 days out" rule,is an unapologetic violation of our 1st Amendment right. Do I "like" the idea of GE influencing the administration on "green policy", or union's using Joe-six pack's dues to fund an ass of a left wing candidate? Certainly not. But nor do I "like" the burning of the American flag, in fact I find the act both reprehensible and offensive. But the answer to hateful, false or dishonest speech is not censorship - the answer is MORE speech. I would advocate a simple campaign finance law, one page, one paragraph: Any individual or group may contribute as much money, without limit, to any candidate they wish with the requirement of full, real time, disclosure of its' source and amount. Take all the money you'd like from any one (or group) you'd like and allow the voters to judge you as a part of that donation. I simply don't want to give a "little" of my own 1st Amendment rights away in order to satisfy my dislike of groups in whom I oppose; and one would hope that by the time a justice reaches a seat on Supreme Court of the United States he or she would be able to grasp such a basic point.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
An addendum...
Perhaps "most historically accurate" film was too much. Upon further review and a slight bit of reading, it seems that some liberties were taken with the actual timeline of the film's story... but the manner in which the combat is portrayed and the period effects used in the production seem (to my uneducated eye, anyway) to be first-rate.
Still, this is one good film. The next installment is due out this year, to be called The Great Khan (in Mongolian, "Genghis Khan"). I can't wait!
See how much competition the Russians are giving the US today? This film has all the earmarks of a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster... but it is directed and produced by a Russian film company in China and Mongolia... not Burbank, CA.
Some critics have said the movie is revisionist... but we aren't talking about an historical figure that we know volumes of details about, are we? To make flattering or humanist films about Stalin or Hitler to try and put a "human face" to the evil is, in my eyes, revisionist. To try and show how a man like Temudjin (the real name of the Genghis Khan) came to be in light of the 800 years and nearly zero consistency between sources is something else entirely. Temudjin is shown as a man with a family, who loves his wife and children, but who sees a course of action in a violent society that demands greater violence to be achieved. At the climactic battle scene at the end, the director shows that Temudjin planned out an entirely new means to fight a cavalry charge against his Mongol enemies, which included the death of a portion of his own forces to a blanket artillery attack. He does this in a cold and calculating manner, not to indicate that he loved death and destruction, but that he knew what would win the day, and did what needed to be done.
I have a sneaking suspicion that much of the critical comments that point out the "revisionist" nature of the film are going to come from the same people that decry the "glorification" of violence and combat in such films as Band of Brothers and Blackhawk Down. Warfare is violent, by its very nature, and Temudjin created an empire that lasted for 200 years and covered more square miles than any other empire in human history, stretching from Europe and the Baltic all the way to the modern Vietnam... and he did this by uniting a society that was as tribal and nomadic in nature as can be defined today, with warriors and leaders that were illiterate and "barbarian" by every Western definition of the words.
This is a defining bit of film-making here, boys... I'm telling you.
Still, this is one good film. The next installment is due out this year, to be called The Great Khan (in Mongolian, "Genghis Khan"). I can't wait!
See how much competition the Russians are giving the US today? This film has all the earmarks of a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster... but it is directed and produced by a Russian film company in China and Mongolia... not Burbank, CA.
Some critics have said the movie is revisionist... but we aren't talking about an historical figure that we know volumes of details about, are we? To make flattering or humanist films about Stalin or Hitler to try and put a "human face" to the evil is, in my eyes, revisionist. To try and show how a man like Temudjin (the real name of the Genghis Khan) came to be in light of the 800 years and nearly zero consistency between sources is something else entirely. Temudjin is shown as a man with a family, who loves his wife and children, but who sees a course of action in a violent society that demands greater violence to be achieved. At the climactic battle scene at the end, the director shows that Temudjin planned out an entirely new means to fight a cavalry charge against his Mongol enemies, which included the death of a portion of his own forces to a blanket artillery attack. He does this in a cold and calculating manner, not to indicate that he loved death and destruction, but that he knew what would win the day, and did what needed to be done.
I have a sneaking suspicion that much of the critical comments that point out the "revisionist" nature of the film are going to come from the same people that decry the "glorification" of violence and combat in such films as Band of Brothers and Blackhawk Down. Warfare is violent, by its very nature, and Temudjin created an empire that lasted for 200 years and covered more square miles than any other empire in human history, stretching from Europe and the Baltic all the way to the modern Vietnam... and he did this by uniting a society that was as tribal and nomadic in nature as can be defined today, with warriors and leaders that were illiterate and "barbarian" by every Western definition of the words.
This is a defining bit of film-making here, boys... I'm telling you.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
You guys HAVE to see this movie...
My GOD... this is the best historical movie I've ever seen made, period. Better than Gladiator, better than 13th Warrior, better than A Bridge Too Far.
Mongol simply is MUST SEE for anyone reading this blog. Unbelievable.
And the best part?
This two-hour monster is only the first of THREE movies! Sweet!
Mongol simply is MUST SEE for anyone reading this blog. Unbelievable.
And the best part?
This two-hour monster is only the first of THREE movies! Sweet!
Here's a fun fact...
The US Federal Government is now the largest employer of union labor in the nation.
That's right, with the shrinking economy and the millions of people out of work, the union membership in the public sector continues to grow, while union employers in the private sector keep cutting jobs.
This isn't something that can be blamed on the economy exclusively, either. According to a WSJ article union private-sector employers see profits fall far faster than non-union employers. The US auto industry (Ford, Chrysler, GM) has seen 76,000 union jobs lost, while Toyota and Honda have added more than 64,000 NEW non-union jobs just between the two of them.
The article mentioned and linked above gives this fact as evidence that the AFL-CIO is working to change the focus on union interests across the board by championing such policies from the Feds as higher taxes and expanded governmental size and control to ensure dues and revenue increases to the unions. Past focus on such things as workers rights and a share of the profits from the employer is mute in a scenario where the government is the employer... because there is no competition for government employment, is there?
When is the last time that anyone heard of the US Postal Service cutting back staff because the cost of operation demanded it? In the 220 year history of the service, when has the operation of the USPS ever been a "performanced based" system, where the top performers are the top earners? The answer is NEVER. When operational costs go UP, so does the cost of a postage stamp, thus passing the cost of operation away from the USPS (and thus, the Feds) and into the pockets of the consumer. The highest earners in the USPS system are those employees that have been in the system the longest (tenure and seniority) and never on who is the most efficient or proficient at the job.
THAT is the root of the failing of the union system today... in my opinion. Unions today do not have the "worker's" best interest at heart, and are only working to perpetuate their own power and influence.
That's right, with the shrinking economy and the millions of people out of work, the union membership in the public sector continues to grow, while union employers in the private sector keep cutting jobs.
This isn't something that can be blamed on the economy exclusively, either. According to a WSJ article union private-sector employers see profits fall far faster than non-union employers. The US auto industry (Ford, Chrysler, GM) has seen 76,000 union jobs lost, while Toyota and Honda have added more than 64,000 NEW non-union jobs just between the two of them.
The article mentioned and linked above gives this fact as evidence that the AFL-CIO is working to change the focus on union interests across the board by championing such policies from the Feds as higher taxes and expanded governmental size and control to ensure dues and revenue increases to the unions. Past focus on such things as workers rights and a share of the profits from the employer is mute in a scenario where the government is the employer... because there is no competition for government employment, is there?
When is the last time that anyone heard of the US Postal Service cutting back staff because the cost of operation demanded it? In the 220 year history of the service, when has the operation of the USPS ever been a "performanced based" system, where the top performers are the top earners? The answer is NEVER. When operational costs go UP, so does the cost of a postage stamp, thus passing the cost of operation away from the USPS (and thus, the Feds) and into the pockets of the consumer. The highest earners in the USPS system are those employees that have been in the system the longest (tenure and seniority) and never on who is the most efficient or proficient at the job.
THAT is the root of the failing of the union system today... in my opinion. Unions today do not have the "worker's" best interest at heart, and are only working to perpetuate their own power and influence.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Happy Anniversary!
Today marks the one year anniversary of when our "dear leader" promised us that the terrorist detention facility within the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, "GTMO" or "GITMO", for short (not an actual acronym, just short speak for "Guantanamo") would be closed.
Good work Barry!
You've managed to piss off exactly everyone with an opinion on the situation - you've left it open for some terrorists, and their military tribunals; while transferring some out, to stand trial in civilian court. So it's sorta-quasi-open-closed-decommissioned-actively in use ... much like the stimulus money; your health care initiative; TARP; unemployment policy; Iranian policy; the economy in general; the auto industry; and who could forget, a crowd favorite - your 38 czars.
At least we can be comforted with the unambiguous, beyond a shadow of a doubt, iron clad Presidential guarantee that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly, and the 2016 Summer Olympics will be held somewhere, anywhere, that is NOT the United States of America.
Just a smashing first year my good man ... smashing.
Good work Barry!
You've managed to piss off exactly everyone with an opinion on the situation - you've left it open for some terrorists, and their military tribunals; while transferring some out, to stand trial in civilian court. So it's sorta-quasi-open-closed-decommissioned-actively in use ... much like the stimulus money; your health care initiative; TARP; unemployment policy; Iranian policy; the economy in general; the auto industry; and who could forget, a crowd favorite - your 38 czars.
At least we can be comforted with the unambiguous, beyond a shadow of a doubt, iron clad Presidential guarantee that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly, and the 2016 Summer Olympics will be held somewhere, anywhere, that is NOT the United States of America.
Just a smashing first year my good man ... smashing.
Here's a tickle...
I'm usually very hesitant about linking to these sorts of sites and videos, but I will be damned if this isn't pretty darn funny. WATCH THIS. I could have put the imbedded image for the video up, but I hesitate because I still worry that an association will be made between our little group and the more infamous group that used the same moniker back in the '30s... so the link will have to do.
It IS funny... hehe.
It IS funny... hehe.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Ryan has me thinking with that last post...
... and no, I'm not thinking about $2 hookers.
In mid-1993, the GOP "promised" to bring ten bills to the House floor for honest and open "consideration, debate, and vote". These ten proposed bills became known as the Contract with America, and many believe that it was this Contract that vaulted the GOP into majority status in both Houses of Congress for the first time in 50 years.
Less than half of the promised ten bills passed into law, either through Presidential veto or a failure to pass Senate approval... but the bills were presented from the House of Representatives for debate and vote, as promised by the GOP. So, the Contract was delivered and fulfilled as promised, I guess.
Some of Ryan's "Contract" is the same as the '94 version... the "Fiscal Responsibility Act" proposed amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget unless a 2/3 majority in BOTH Houses sanctioned the spending. This never got off the Senate floor. The bill also included the only "line-item veto" ever enjoyed by a President, but that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998. I was a huge fan of the Balanced Budget Act of '97, but that was repealed by George Bush within the first 6 months of his Administration. This Act proposed a required balanced budget (through reconciliation of revenue-spending) by 2002, but achieved it by Sept of 1999... reducing government spending each year it was in effect. I am convinced that this is single greatest coup the Dems have counted on the GOP in the last 50 years... fighting the passage of this bill tooth-and-nail, but because Clinton didn't veto it, they can now "claim" the title of Fiscally Responsible Government that Al Gore used so much in the 2000 campaign. Gotta give credit where it's due... tip your hat, tip your hat.
That aside, some of Ryan's other "Contract" points also reflect the '94 version:
Tax reduction. New per-child tax credits (while cutting massive amounts out of welfare spending on single-parent households), repeal of the marriage penalty tax, and large middle-income tax relief and reduction meant the average American paid $875 less in taxes each year. Couple that with the fact that the deficit was GONE by 1999 and the proof of the "Laffer curve" is suddenly seen in the pudding.
(NOTE: The man credited with the original idea of the Laffer curve, Arthur Laffer, refused to take credit for it. He said the idea originated in the writings of one John Maynard Keynes... a name that is anathema to Ryan. Further proof that Keynesian economics is NOT synonymous with institutionalized government "tax-and-spend" policy, but that is another thread... please)
Health Care Reform. Massive restructuring of the Medicare and Medicaid programs contained in the original Contract were never fully implemented to the satisfaction of the GOP members, but enough confusion was created to necessitate the later reforms of the Bush Administrations that drew so much criticisms from the GOP, specifically his signing of the prescription drug coverage legislation after 2006. This is a good example of "too little, too late" I think, on the part of the GOP. I really am in favor of a more "Ryan-esque" approach where private insurance is de-regulated and competition is increased exponentially.
Ryan's post didn't make me think that a new "Contract" is the way to go... there are too many negatives associated with the term, Newt Gingrich large among them... but the idea is sound. Spelling out in clear and certain terms EXACTLY what the goals and agenda of a new Congress will be, and where the GOP plans on going, coupled with their actually following that plan, and we could really SEE a change in the dynamic in Washington DC. This is what the Dems seem completely incapable of doing... so the conservative candidates in '10 and '12 MUST do it instead. No sugar coating, no flip-flopping, just straight clear explanations of what is going to be expected from each candidate... and WHY. The public may not care so much about the HOW (electing Obama is proof of that), but the WHY can be a huge plus in our favor.
I think many people see a "reasonable" argument for conservative values as one that is devoid of emotion or compassion, but it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, it SHOULDN'T be that way. We just have to find a conservative candidate that can present the "reason" in a "compassionate" manner.
In mid-1993, the GOP "promised" to bring ten bills to the House floor for honest and open "consideration, debate, and vote". These ten proposed bills became known as the Contract with America, and many believe that it was this Contract that vaulted the GOP into majority status in both Houses of Congress for the first time in 50 years.
Less than half of the promised ten bills passed into law, either through Presidential veto or a failure to pass Senate approval... but the bills were presented from the House of Representatives for debate and vote, as promised by the GOP. So, the Contract was delivered and fulfilled as promised, I guess.
Some of Ryan's "Contract" is the same as the '94 version... the "Fiscal Responsibility Act" proposed amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget unless a 2/3 majority in BOTH Houses sanctioned the spending. This never got off the Senate floor. The bill also included the only "line-item veto" ever enjoyed by a President, but that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998. I was a huge fan of the Balanced Budget Act of '97, but that was repealed by George Bush within the first 6 months of his Administration. This Act proposed a required balanced budget (through reconciliation of revenue-spending) by 2002, but achieved it by Sept of 1999... reducing government spending each year it was in effect. I am convinced that this is single greatest coup the Dems have counted on the GOP in the last 50 years... fighting the passage of this bill tooth-and-nail, but because Clinton didn't veto it, they can now "claim" the title of Fiscally Responsible Government that Al Gore used so much in the 2000 campaign. Gotta give credit where it's due... tip your hat, tip your hat.
That aside, some of Ryan's other "Contract" points also reflect the '94 version:
Tax reduction. New per-child tax credits (while cutting massive amounts out of welfare spending on single-parent households), repeal of the marriage penalty tax, and large middle-income tax relief and reduction meant the average American paid $875 less in taxes each year. Couple that with the fact that the deficit was GONE by 1999 and the proof of the "Laffer curve" is suddenly seen in the pudding.
(NOTE: The man credited with the original idea of the Laffer curve, Arthur Laffer, refused to take credit for it. He said the idea originated in the writings of one John Maynard Keynes... a name that is anathema to Ryan. Further proof that Keynesian economics is NOT synonymous with institutionalized government "tax-and-spend" policy, but that is another thread... please)
Health Care Reform. Massive restructuring of the Medicare and Medicaid programs contained in the original Contract were never fully implemented to the satisfaction of the GOP members, but enough confusion was created to necessitate the later reforms of the Bush Administrations that drew so much criticisms from the GOP, specifically his signing of the prescription drug coverage legislation after 2006. This is a good example of "too little, too late" I think, on the part of the GOP. I really am in favor of a more "Ryan-esque" approach where private insurance is de-regulated and competition is increased exponentially.
Ryan's post didn't make me think that a new "Contract" is the way to go... there are too many negatives associated with the term, Newt Gingrich large among them... but the idea is sound. Spelling out in clear and certain terms EXACTLY what the goals and agenda of a new Congress will be, and where the GOP plans on going, coupled with their actually following that plan, and we could really SEE a change in the dynamic in Washington DC. This is what the Dems seem completely incapable of doing... so the conservative candidates in '10 and '12 MUST do it instead. No sugar coating, no flip-flopping, just straight clear explanations of what is going to be expected from each candidate... and WHY. The public may not care so much about the HOW (electing Obama is proof of that), but the WHY can be a huge plus in our favor.
I think many people see a "reasonable" argument for conservative values as one that is devoid of emotion or compassion, but it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, it SHOULDN'T be that way. We just have to find a conservative candidate that can present the "reason" in a "compassionate" manner.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
What's the difference between a $2 hooker and Nancy Pelosi?
At least with the hooker you know up front what the broad is going to cost you.
But I digress ... I was thinking, what would be my "Contract With America?" Perhaps you have a version you'd like to propose. Here's mine, in a nutshell ...
1.) A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, whose only exception would be a formal declaration of war. You get a "twofer" here. This eviscerates the source of power for those with a left wing / neo-socialist agenda, and if we are ever attacked in the future the response will carry with it the full power of a formal declaration. Fiscally this would be accompanied by an immediate across the board government spending freeze, including all unused TARP funds and stimulus package money.
2.) Taxes - suspend the capital gains tax for 2 years; revoke Zarbaines-Oxly; signigicantly reduce the corporate tax rate (ours is the 2nd highest in the first world); and institute a basket of tax incentive goodies for starting a new business. Then you'll see an employment explosion.
3.) Implement victory strategies in place of "exit strategies" in Afghanistan (and Iraq).
4.) Energy: domestic fossil feul recovery (oil -off and on shore, natural gas, oil shale); nuclear power plant construction; refinery construction - all by the private sector, incentivized by government in an unprecedented way.
5.) Health Insurance deregulation. Allow all 1,300 insurance companies in this country to compete in all 50 states. Currently a state as densely populated as New York only enjoys a choice between 6 companies. Naturally accompanied with this would be portability. In addition, tort reform - caps on malpractice insurance. These two, in my estimation, would go along way towards making insurance affordable for those making too much to get government help, but too little to buy a private policy. Part and parcel with bringing down state health care costs that fund the poor and children (medicaid / SCHIPS), would be securing the Southern boarder. You do that for these South West border states and you'll see rapid closure of budget holes on several fronts, not the least of which is health care.
Now I could go on and on - term limits, gay marriage, privatization of social security, an utter rejection of the farce of man induced global warming, etc etc (although that last is inherint in my proposed energy policy). But I think keeping it to roughly 5 issues, issues that cause bipartisan outrage, is a winning formula.
But I digress ... I was thinking, what would be my "Contract With America?" Perhaps you have a version you'd like to propose. Here's mine, in a nutshell ...
1.) A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, whose only exception would be a formal declaration of war. You get a "twofer" here. This eviscerates the source of power for those with a left wing / neo-socialist agenda, and if we are ever attacked in the future the response will carry with it the full power of a formal declaration. Fiscally this would be accompanied by an immediate across the board government spending freeze, including all unused TARP funds and stimulus package money.
2.) Taxes - suspend the capital gains tax for 2 years; revoke Zarbaines-Oxly; signigicantly reduce the corporate tax rate (ours is the 2nd highest in the first world); and institute a basket of tax incentive goodies for starting a new business. Then you'll see an employment explosion.
3.) Implement victory strategies in place of "exit strategies" in Afghanistan (and Iraq).
4.) Energy: domestic fossil feul recovery (oil -off and on shore, natural gas, oil shale); nuclear power plant construction; refinery construction - all by the private sector, incentivized by government in an unprecedented way.
5.) Health Insurance deregulation. Allow all 1,300 insurance companies in this country to compete in all 50 states. Currently a state as densely populated as New York only enjoys a choice between 6 companies. Naturally accompanied with this would be portability. In addition, tort reform - caps on malpractice insurance. These two, in my estimation, would go along way towards making insurance affordable for those making too much to get government help, but too little to buy a private policy. Part and parcel with bringing down state health care costs that fund the poor and children (medicaid / SCHIPS), would be securing the Southern boarder. You do that for these South West border states and you'll see rapid closure of budget holes on several fronts, not the least of which is health care.
Now I could go on and on - term limits, gay marriage, privatization of social security, an utter rejection of the farce of man induced global warming, etc etc (although that last is inherint in my proposed energy policy). But I think keeping it to roughly 5 issues, issues that cause bipartisan outrage, is a winning formula.
What a difference a year makes ...
... this time last year the Democrat Party was at the zenith of its' power, and while we here know these things are cyclical and their power reign would eventually come to a close, I don't think any of us anticipated it taking only 1 year of top down neo-socialist proposals to cause this scathing free fall in popularity. They're quaking in their boots from coast to coast, the anger, the energy, is palpable. I agree solidly with your post (although defending New Deal as "not Obama-economics" seems to me a stretch). This is the perfect time for a new "Contract With America."
I will add that in addition to the folks being fed up with the "effects" of these tax and spend policies as much if not more than the problems they were designed to address, is a general feeling manifested on 2 fronts: 1.) a general sense that the Administration is living in suspended reality - you can't look people in the face and say spending a trillion dollars on health care is budget neutral, or worse, will save us money. People know a "fast one" is being pulled, and that ain't the "hope and change" they voted for. 2.) the Party leaders have made no bones about not caring if polls show Americans are 2 to 1 against their proposals. People feel marginalized by their Representatives. In other words they have caused people to feel as if they have no say whatsoever in the direction their nation is heading. In response we went to town hall meetings. So they stopped hosting them. Then we held tea parties. And they tried to slander them. So now, we have shown up at the polls ... and they are paying the price for their arrogance.
Young, articulate aspiring public servants that both address these emotions pulsating through the electorate AND offer a new "contract" with America will find themselves winning in a walk this November.
(and one correction - "This trend will continue, obviously... history guarantees it. The incumbent President's party always looses seats in Congress during the midterms (at least for the first term)." Not entirely true. There has been one exception. In 2002 - & I believe in 2004 as well, although that wasn't a midterm - the incumbent president actually picked up seats. Clearly this was a result of 9/11 and affording Bush the mandate to go after our enemies, but it occurred nonetheless and I wanted to make note.)
I will add that in addition to the folks being fed up with the "effects" of these tax and spend policies as much if not more than the problems they were designed to address, is a general feeling manifested on 2 fronts: 1.) a general sense that the Administration is living in suspended reality - you can't look people in the face and say spending a trillion dollars on health care is budget neutral, or worse, will save us money. People know a "fast one" is being pulled, and that ain't the "hope and change" they voted for. 2.) the Party leaders have made no bones about not caring if polls show Americans are 2 to 1 against their proposals. People feel marginalized by their Representatives. In other words they have caused people to feel as if they have no say whatsoever in the direction their nation is heading. In response we went to town hall meetings. So they stopped hosting them. Then we held tea parties. And they tried to slander them. So now, we have shown up at the polls ... and they are paying the price for their arrogance.
Young, articulate aspiring public servants that both address these emotions pulsating through the electorate AND offer a new "contract" with America will find themselves winning in a walk this November.
(and one correction - "This trend will continue, obviously... history guarantees it. The incumbent President's party always looses seats in Congress during the midterms (at least for the first term)." Not entirely true. There has been one exception. In 2002 - & I believe in 2004 as well, although that wasn't a midterm - the incumbent president actually picked up seats. Clearly this was a result of 9/11 and affording Bush the mandate to go after our enemies, but it occurred nonetheless and I wanted to make note.)
Here's an example of what I mean...
New York Governor David Patterson, Democrat, has submitted his Executive Budget proposal to the New York legislature: $134 billion, with $6 billion in spending CUTS and $1 billion in new TAXES to offset a $7.4 billion deficit. Nearly every facet of the NY State government sharing in those cuts (not HIS office, mind you... but everyone else) and every single New Yorker that goes to a gym/health spa/hair salon/barber facing as much as a 4% hike in costs, along with anyone buying a non-diet soda (18% tax increase), anyone drinking a malt-liquor beverage (6% increase), anyone watching cable or satellite TV (4% increase), anyone buying clothes or shoes that cost less than $500, outside of a two-week sales "holiday" (6% increase), anyone driving a personal vehicle of any kind will see an increase in licensing and usage fees of as much as 18% annually, and a 4% increase to the taxi-car rental tax state-wide.
Patterson is up for re-election this year, as is a large number of his Party "comrades" in the New York legislature, so I wonder how he thinks this kind of "tax and cut" policy is going to sit with a state that was fiscally-viable as recently as 2006 under Republican Governor George Pataki?
Not well, I'd bet.
Patterson is up for re-election this year, as is a large number of his Party "comrades" in the New York legislature, so I wonder how he thinks this kind of "tax and cut" policy is going to sit with a state that was fiscally-viable as recently as 2006 under Republican Governor George Pataki?
Not well, I'd bet.
What Brown's victory means...
Scott Brown wins because he grabbed the momentum of the race and never let go. He seems to have impressed voters (based on the "man-on-the-street" interviews that are all over Youtube) most by sticking to the issues and not wavering in his message. He knew he had the "conservative" vote, and focused on selling himself to moderates and "blue dogs" as someone who had ANSWERS to what was not working.
Rational alternatives are the answer. We can stand up and scream from the mountain-tops that Obama-care is a waste of time and money, but without offering a functioning, viable alternative, where is the gain for the conservative position? I am the first to agree that Obama-care is bad, but as someone that is currently without any sort of health insurance (and so is my wife), I'm also in favor of implementing a plan that allows me an alternative means to gain that coverage during times when I am not covered by an employer health plan. I admit that some alternative ideas have been put forward, but very few and they haven't been pushed hard enough by the conservative-side of Congress as real alternatives.
Obama has surpassed even FDR on "welfare spending" to re-boot our economy. Without rehashing the "New Deal" argument again, FDR and his administrations spent billions to put people to work and prop-up a failing economy through massive government work programs... but Obama and the Pelosi-Reid show are simply handing the money out to banks, auto manufacturers, businesses, insurance companies, and failing government agencies with nearly no over-sight and no plans to recoup the costs in the future besides increased taxes that can ONLY be passed on to the consumer/tax payer.
The dissatisfaction with the current Administration and this Congress is real, and it is growing. It would be easy to simply jump on the "Obama is bad" band wagon... but there is no long-term gain in that act. Real solutions, real debate, and real leadership need to be developed NOW so that come 2012, a real candidate can be run against the liberal agenda in this country. Brown is indicative of why this is so VERY IMPORTANT right now for the conservative movement.
His youth, his charm, his good-looks all helped... image matters, I know. Still, I think his meteoric rise in the polls and his win at the booths comes from his clear, rational opposition to the current liberal agenda. Ryan mentioned the Dems losses in Virginia and New Jersey as well, but I wanted to point out something that we don't hear very much from the big pundits.
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, New Hampshire, and even some "bastion states" like New York and California, are beginning to show signs that the people are growing tired of the effects coming from Democratic policy far faster than they are growing tired of the problems the policies themselves are trying to fix. Living where I do, I know many many New Jersey "natives" that have moved to PA to get away from the 142 NEW taxes that have been instituted in that state over the last 18 months, on top of the amazing amount of taxes that were already in place. Add to that the nearly bi-annual budget short falls that NJ sees each and every fiscal year (the last nearly bankrupting the state), and you see why people want "change".
This trend will continue, obviously... history guarantees it. The incumbent President's party always looses seats in Congress during the midterms (at least for the first term). The priority for conservatives (and moderates, frankly) needs to be hands-on, in-your-face debate with the liberal side of Congress and rational, easy-to-understand solutions to real or perceived problems. Whether those problems are health care coverage or tax relief, simply raging against Obama-Pelosi-Reid because their solutions are WRONG isn't enough anymore. Opposition politics are the status quo in a system such as ours, so it is expected and thus loses some of its impact when it is the ONLY alternative point of view.Rational alternatives are the answer. We can stand up and scream from the mountain-tops that Obama-care is a waste of time and money, but without offering a functioning, viable alternative, where is the gain for the conservative position? I am the first to agree that Obama-care is bad, but as someone that is currently without any sort of health insurance (and so is my wife), I'm also in favor of implementing a plan that allows me an alternative means to gain that coverage during times when I am not covered by an employer health plan. I admit that some alternative ideas have been put forward, but very few and they haven't been pushed hard enough by the conservative-side of Congress as real alternatives.
Obama has surpassed even FDR on "welfare spending" to re-boot our economy. Without rehashing the "New Deal" argument again, FDR and his administrations spent billions to put people to work and prop-up a failing economy through massive government work programs... but Obama and the Pelosi-Reid show are simply handing the money out to banks, auto manufacturers, businesses, insurance companies, and failing government agencies with nearly no over-sight and no plans to recoup the costs in the future besides increased taxes that can ONLY be passed on to the consumer/tax payer.
The dissatisfaction with the current Administration and this Congress is real, and it is growing. It would be easy to simply jump on the "Obama is bad" band wagon... but there is no long-term gain in that act. Real solutions, real debate, and real leadership need to be developed NOW so that come 2012, a real candidate can be run against the liberal agenda in this country. Brown is indicative of why this is so VERY IMPORTANT right now for the conservative movement.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Hehehe
Cost of a US Senate race ... 15 million dollars.
Cost of Air Force One making an unscheduled stop at Logan Airport ... 12,000 dollars.
Listening to a GOP crowd chant "yes we can - yes we can" when Scott Brown says "we can do better then Obama-Care" ... PRICELESS.
Cost of Air Force One making an unscheduled stop at Logan Airport ... 12,000 dollars.
Listening to a GOP crowd chant "yes we can - yes we can" when Scott Brown says "we can do better then Obama-Care" ... PRICELESS.
The second shot heard round the world ...
The seat held by a Kennedy or Kennedy "associate" for nearly 6 decades has gone to a Republican. Now as Titus aptly pointed out, Brown is no "F.Ryan-Conservative." However, given the depth of government interventionism and the totality of the sweeping neo-socialist policies being proposed by the administration, he doesn't have to be. Even a "moderate" Republican, a middle of the roader, or just a clear thinking traditional Democrat would oppose Obama-Care. In fact they do - every poll I've seen is 2 to 1 against. And an AP poll released just yesterday has only 39% of Americans answering "yes" to the question: Would you reelect Barak Obama if the election were held today? That's a lot of "non-conservatives" joining us in opposition. And that was borne out tonight for that's precisely who swept Brown into office - Democrats and Independents. Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in MA 3 to 1. He doesn't win this without them - meaning the current unpopularity of the Obama, Reid, Pelosi agenda has gone bipartisan.
You will see the rats abandoning the sinking ship now. The law of self preservation is officially in effect. Obama has lost New Jersey, Virginia and now Massachusetts, the latter two he campaigned for personally. Obama-care, cap and trade, Copenhagen Treaties, new taxes, card check (not to mention the stimulus package and bailouts) - in the first year he went after them all at once ... and now will get none.
People get it - the answer to a recession isn't socialized medicine. My faith in the common sense of my fellow Americans, tested in 08', has been restored ... and just wait til' November (he said rubbing his hands and grinning like the Cheshire Cat).
You will see the rats abandoning the sinking ship now. The law of self preservation is officially in effect. Obama has lost New Jersey, Virginia and now Massachusetts, the latter two he campaigned for personally. Obama-care, cap and trade, Copenhagen Treaties, new taxes, card check (not to mention the stimulus package and bailouts) - in the first year he went after them all at once ... and now will get none.
People get it - the answer to a recession isn't socialized medicine. My faith in the common sense of my fellow Americans, tested in 08', has been restored ... and just wait til' November (he said rubbing his hands and grinning like the Cheshire Cat).
I got some time now...
Ryan sends a text about the Coakley-Brown race in MA and that Brown is going to win the first GOP Senate seat in that state since 1953, when Henry Cabot Lodge lost his re-election bid.
Now, don't get me wrong. I like Brown, and I think he'll win today... he has all the momentum right now, and the press is making much more of his run for office then they are Coakley's. History shows us that the "up-and-coming" candidate wins 79% of the time when the press is giving him favorable coverage (as was the case with Teddy back in 1962, by the way, when he ran against Henry Cabot Lodge's son and won a very close race, I believe, because of all the hype with his brother being President).
I have reservations, though... not about Brown, but about Ryan's support of Brown. Mark my words, because Brown is an avowed "moderate" when it comes to social justice issues, Ryan will be cursing the day he got elected within one year. Still, it will remove the 60-seat majority and the filibuster-proof control of the Senate that the Dems now have, and it is going to put a huge damper on the health care bill passage that so many of these Dems are banking on.
I just wish he wasn't a Calvinist... seems like all the conservative candidates from MA are either Mormons or Calvinists. Where did all the good Catholics go?
Now, don't get me wrong. I like Brown, and I think he'll win today... he has all the momentum right now, and the press is making much more of his run for office then they are Coakley's. History shows us that the "up-and-coming" candidate wins 79% of the time when the press is giving him favorable coverage (as was the case with Teddy back in 1962, by the way, when he ran against Henry Cabot Lodge's son and won a very close race, I believe, because of all the hype with his brother being President).
I have reservations, though... not about Brown, but about Ryan's support of Brown. Mark my words, because Brown is an avowed "moderate" when it comes to social justice issues, Ryan will be cursing the day he got elected within one year. Still, it will remove the 60-seat majority and the filibuster-proof control of the Senate that the Dems now have, and it is going to put a huge damper on the health care bill passage that so many of these Dems are banking on.
I just wish he wasn't a Calvinist... seems like all the conservative candidates from MA are either Mormons or Calvinists. Where did all the good Catholics go?
You're right...
I was simply presenting the facts as I had learned them, and I wasn't trying to show you up with facts almost no one knows. Just more proof that there is something new to be learned each and every day, about topics that we'd have thought were completely investigated and totally closed.
Can't linger... have much work to do. More later...
Can't linger... have much work to do. More later...
You think Tokyo Rose wore a thong?
Now see ... that's not fair. You know good and well Jambo & I are sitting here thinking "Midway" as the turning point, and here you are with some top secret, off the map nugget of information ... hehe.
Let's see ... I will also attempt to avoid the obvious, or shall we say the patent academic answer that Midway was the turning point. Bearing in mind of course that no matter how clever we think we are in formulating an original and defensible answer to the question, the truth remains that the "standard" or traditional answer may still stand as the best.
Admiral Hara Tadaichi described December 7th, 1941 this way ... "We won a great tactical victory at Pearl Harbor and thereby lost the war." While the attack was a complete surprise, it turned out to be largely unnecessary. Unknown to Yamamoto the U.S. Navy had decided as far back as 1935 to not engage across the Pacific towards the Philippines in response to a belligerent Japan and any "foreign" war it started.
Furthermore, the U.S. adopted "Plan Dog" in 1940 as a contingency to the European War involving the US. It was set on keeping the Japanese out of the Eastern Pacific and away from the shipping lanes to Australia all while the U.S. devoted itself to defeating Germany. The point being, the Japanese lost the war when they decided upon "Operation Z", Pearl Harbor. Now, as to the turning point in their war against the US, once it began: I would argue that their inability to destroy the carrier fleet on the Day of Infamy was what enabled us to recover in a time span otherwise unthinkable if we had lost them. Carrier construction was (hell, it still is) "time consuming" to say the least - imagine how we even arrive at a Midway in June of 42' if we start the war with zero carriers in December of 41.'
Now ... I think your point was quite original, kudos. And I am not a fan of answering these questions as "they lost before they started", but my carrier point aside, if members of the Japanese Imperial Hierarchy believe in retrospect that the attack on Pearl was an insurmountable mistake, well ... who am I to argue?
Let's see ... I will also attempt to avoid the obvious, or shall we say the patent academic answer that Midway was the turning point. Bearing in mind of course that no matter how clever we think we are in formulating an original and defensible answer to the question, the truth remains that the "standard" or traditional answer may still stand as the best.
Admiral Hara Tadaichi described December 7th, 1941 this way ... "We won a great tactical victory at Pearl Harbor and thereby lost the war." While the attack was a complete surprise, it turned out to be largely unnecessary. Unknown to Yamamoto the U.S. Navy had decided as far back as 1935 to not engage across the Pacific towards the Philippines in response to a belligerent Japan and any "foreign" war it started.
Furthermore, the U.S. adopted "Plan Dog" in 1940 as a contingency to the European War involving the US. It was set on keeping the Japanese out of the Eastern Pacific and away from the shipping lanes to Australia all while the U.S. devoted itself to defeating Germany. The point being, the Japanese lost the war when they decided upon "Operation Z", Pearl Harbor. Now, as to the turning point in their war against the US, once it began: I would argue that their inability to destroy the carrier fleet on the Day of Infamy was what enabled us to recover in a time span otherwise unthinkable if we had lost them. Carrier construction was (hell, it still is) "time consuming" to say the least - imagine how we even arrive at a Midway in June of 42' if we start the war with zero carriers in December of 41.'
Now ... I think your point was quite original, kudos. And I am not a fan of answering these questions as "they lost before they started", but my carrier point aside, if members of the Japanese Imperial Hierarchy believe in retrospect that the attack on Pearl was an insurmountable mistake, well ... who am I to argue?
Monday, January 18, 2010
I may not be able to rasie a barn ...
... but as Jambo text me, "We are a Conservative Think Tank", so I'll raise a salient point instead.
I was certain that multiple Constitutional issues would be raised were a health care bill REQUIRING an individual to purchase health insurance passed into law. In fact multiple briefs are prepped (I have heard) and are set to be filed the moment Obama signs the bill. And in that vein I recently learned that in both the House & Senate version of "Obama-care" there is an "Amish Exception." The Amish will be allowed to opt out based on the freedom of religious practice. So that got me thinking ... the SCOTUS has held that "religion", and the practice thereof, can be interpreted as "personal beliefs." And as such could I not then file a "Conscientious Observer" exception to opt out were this thing to become the law of the land? If this is an acceptable objection to claim when abstaining from combat then surely it would suffice / hold up in court to avoid forced enrollment & participation in government health care.
Just a thought ...
*(& I'll be on the Japanese question in short order)*
I was certain that multiple Constitutional issues would be raised were a health care bill REQUIRING an individual to purchase health insurance passed into law. In fact multiple briefs are prepped (I have heard) and are set to be filed the moment Obama signs the bill. And in that vein I recently learned that in both the House & Senate version of "Obama-care" there is an "Amish Exception." The Amish will be allowed to opt out based on the freedom of religious practice. So that got me thinking ... the SCOTUS has held that "religion", and the practice thereof, can be interpreted as "personal beliefs." And as such could I not then file a "Conscientious Observer" exception to opt out were this thing to become the law of the land? If this is an acceptable objection to claim when abstaining from combat then surely it would suffice / hold up in court to avoid forced enrollment & participation in government health care.
Just a thought ...
*(& I'll be on the Japanese question in short order)*
Something new for an old game...
Since we had the "What if?" game recently concerning when, exactly, the war in Europe turned against the Nazis, I thought I'd throw one out there from the other side of the world.
When, exactly, did the war in the Pacific begin to go against the Japanese?
Think on this before you answer, though...
I recently read a fascinating book about the SECOND Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and since I didn't know it ever happened, I am going to safely assume none of you did either. It seems that on 4 March 1942, the Japanese mounted ANOTHER bombing attack of the Naval base at Pearl. It seems they recognized their previous mistakes of A) not destroying the carrier fleet and B) not doing enough damage to the facilities themselves (i.e. airfields, dry docks, mooring areas, rail and road interdiction points, etc). So, they sent two flights of medium bombers from their secret fueling station at French Frigate Shoals (almost exactly half-way between Midway and Oahu islands) with four 880 lbs bombs each and the intention of destroying or disrupting salvage and repair operations at the facility.
Unfortunately for the Japs, they over-shot the harbor in some early fog. One flight dropped its bombs on Honolulu proper (causing some fires and window damage, but no casualties), while the second flight dropped its loads on the side of Mount Tantalus, doing no harm whatsoever.
This "charlie foxtrot" (to coin an old Gurski term... hehe) did only one thing, definitively... it told the US Navy EXACTLY where they Japs were staging and refueling their reconnaissance flights that were telling them what was going into and OUT OF the harbor at Pearl. In short, they couldn't spy on the Pacific Navy anymore... and THAT is when I think the war turned against the Japs.
When, exactly, did the war in the Pacific begin to go against the Japanese?
Think on this before you answer, though...
I recently read a fascinating book about the SECOND Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and since I didn't know it ever happened, I am going to safely assume none of you did either. It seems that on 4 March 1942, the Japanese mounted ANOTHER bombing attack of the Naval base at Pearl. It seems they recognized their previous mistakes of A) not destroying the carrier fleet and B) not doing enough damage to the facilities themselves (i.e. airfields, dry docks, mooring areas, rail and road interdiction points, etc). So, they sent two flights of medium bombers from their secret fueling station at French Frigate Shoals (almost exactly half-way between Midway and Oahu islands) with four 880 lbs bombs each and the intention of destroying or disrupting salvage and repair operations at the facility.
Unfortunately for the Japs, they over-shot the harbor in some early fog. One flight dropped its bombs on Honolulu proper (causing some fires and window damage, but no casualties), while the second flight dropped its loads on the side of Mount Tantalus, doing no harm whatsoever.
This "charlie foxtrot" (to coin an old Gurski term... hehe) did only one thing, definitively... it told the US Navy EXACTLY where they Japs were staging and refueling their reconnaissance flights that were telling them what was going into and OUT OF the harbor at Pearl. In short, they couldn't spy on the Pacific Navy anymore... and THAT is when I think the war turned against the Japs.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Too good to leave a "comment"...
Here's Baddboy's post that he couldn't get on the main page:
***
Damn thing won't let me post again so I'll comment here.
My entire adult life has been dedicated in whole or in part to assisting people in need whether that be injured, ill or in some way oppressed. This hasn't been just by the nature of what I do occupationally but I'm sure it's a by-product.
My first hurricane was hurricane Elena in 1985 and that image burned in my head of neighbors and friends without roofs, my family not having a generator and most of the area at the time not having the financial resources we had after Katrina has driven me in some way to try and make a difference.
In 1992 after I got out of the military the first time Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida and Sourthern Louisiana with a force that this country hadn't seen in almost 30 years but due to the increase in population in the coastal areas and shotty construction techniques so many more people had to suffer. I was on a very well equipped and financed Rescue Squad in Maryland at the time and got permission to take one of our Heavy rescue vehicles and 4 personnel to Morgan City Louisiana to assist the fire department in any way we could. We carried our own food, water and peronal gear for a weeks stay. That experience has had me thinking for many years.
Government Agencies are too large, cumbersame and full of red tape to be able to move with any speed or efficiency. Large NGO's are also built with alot of red tape and usually don't have the resources for immediate needs that can be in place in less than 24 hrs post incident.
I have been running an idea through my head since 1992 to put together a light, fast well equipped and financed organization that has the capability to move into an area in less than 24 hrs practically anywhere in the world, assess needs and start delivering whatever necessary assistance inside of 48 hrs. I know is sounds like a pipedream and maybe it is but this incident in Haiti i guess is the straw that broke the camels back so I will be putting pen to paper here in the next couple of days to start soliciting financial assistance to start putting this group together.
I am not a business or finance type person. I am an operations management type so if any of you are interested in helping me put togehter the right package to send for sponsorship don't be shy. Jambo knows how to get hold of me and from you guys I'll take a phone call 24 hrs a day.
***
***
Damn thing won't let me post again so I'll comment here.
My entire adult life has been dedicated in whole or in part to assisting people in need whether that be injured, ill or in some way oppressed. This hasn't been just by the nature of what I do occupationally but I'm sure it's a by-product.
My first hurricane was hurricane Elena in 1985 and that image burned in my head of neighbors and friends without roofs, my family not having a generator and most of the area at the time not having the financial resources we had after Katrina has driven me in some way to try and make a difference.
In 1992 after I got out of the military the first time Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida and Sourthern Louisiana with a force that this country hadn't seen in almost 30 years but due to the increase in population in the coastal areas and shotty construction techniques so many more people had to suffer. I was on a very well equipped and financed Rescue Squad in Maryland at the time and got permission to take one of our Heavy rescue vehicles and 4 personnel to Morgan City Louisiana to assist the fire department in any way we could. We carried our own food, water and peronal gear for a weeks stay. That experience has had me thinking for many years.
Government Agencies are too large, cumbersame and full of red tape to be able to move with any speed or efficiency. Large NGO's are also built with alot of red tape and usually don't have the resources for immediate needs that can be in place in less than 24 hrs post incident.
I have been running an idea through my head since 1992 to put together a light, fast well equipped and financed organization that has the capability to move into an area in less than 24 hrs practically anywhere in the world, assess needs and start delivering whatever necessary assistance inside of 48 hrs. I know is sounds like a pipedream and maybe it is but this incident in Haiti i guess is the straw that broke the camels back so I will be putting pen to paper here in the next couple of days to start soliciting financial assistance to start putting this group together.
I am not a business or finance type person. I am an operations management type so if any of you are interested in helping me put togehter the right package to send for sponsorship don't be shy. Jambo knows how to get hold of me and from you guys I'll take a phone call 24 hrs a day.
***
Speaking from first-hand personal experience, I can tell you that the fastest response to those in need after Katrina (at least where I was in Jackson County) came not from the National Guard, or FEMA, or Red Cross... it came from small, private agencies and groups organized at a local level, even if that locality was more than a thousand miles away, which many were. Pennsylvania State Police guarding the entrance to my subdivision, church groups from Indiana and Ohio set up our first POD at the Moose Lodge parking lot within 48 hours of the storm, volunteer tree removal experts from Colorado and Texas running chain saws the very next day.
So, I think that Baddboy's idea is spot-on. Immediate, experienced, efficient assistance after an earthquake, tornado, hurricane, fire, flood... can make a world of difference to the people effected. If there is anything I can do to assist, just ask. In fact, I encourage you to use this forum to brainstorm and look for new ideas or solutions to issues that are bound to present themselves as your project moves on.
Well done, my friend!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Further reflections...
I just got back from making another pharmacy run for the child, and was listening to the news from Haiti and pondering the lessons I had personally learned from my own post-disaster experiences.
Of the four permanent members of the Bund, I hope we all have learned the importance of being able to "survive" for the first week after a disaster without assistance (in as much as we can, that is). Sufficient water, fuel and basic supplies to sustain moderately comfortable conditions without power or utilities is an absolute requirement, even in this ultra-modern age of instantaneous results. The images from Haiti that are the most devastating are those of people within the limits of a city of nearly half a million souls, and nearly all of them living in "sub-standard" or less-than-ideal circumstances... urban poor, in other words.
The continuing tragedy, however, is going to come from those living in impoverished rural areas when public services such as electricity, fuel and water are no longer working because of the devastation to the infrastructure combined with the lack of actual governmental or emergency services that even a nation as poor as Haiti has come to depend on. Free clinics stretched beyond the breaking point, roads that are impassable, bridges that have already or will fail, water conduits and aqueducts that cannot carry water, and entire water supplies contaminated beyond the ability to use safely. In the case of Haiti specifically, imagine how quickly the removal of dead bodies and even spoiled food is going to become a critical issue to avoid further complications from disease and cross contamination.
Prior to August 28, 2005, I was the sort of person that didn't put a lot of weight in the arguments that many "survival" enthusiasts made about preparing for the worst, even if it never happened... but Katrina fixed that. So, as I was driving and listening, I began pondering what I would be forced to do if a similar situation happened here in NEPA as that in Haiti (God forbid!) or on the Gulf Coast in '05... if a child was sick, there was no hopping into the car and driving to the pharmacy, there was no phoning for doctors or ambulances, and there was little to no hope of anyone getting to you at all for the first 72 hours WHATEVER the emergency.
I hope everyone here, and anyone reading this, takes the message to heart: Have what you need ON HAND for at least a week's worth of needs, stored in a manner that will keep it as safe and available as possible. We have no fewer than 25 gallons of water stored in 5-gallon bottles (and a means of dispensing it without power) at all times. We have alternative means of cooking in case we are without electricity for any amount of time. We have many (but perhaps not all) of the medicines and prescriptions we routinely need on hand and stored in case we cannot simply drive and get them. We have an impressive amount of food suited for long term storage (canned, dried, evaporated, etc) as well as many staples in low-bulk form (bags of beans, rice, and oats stored in a nice, DRY place). We even have the means to shelter ourselves should the "old homestead" become uninhabitable... camping gear and tents enough for all of us and lots of open ground to set them up on. Dual-fuel heaters and lamps, very utilitarian cookware (good old fashioned cast iron... there is nothing finer for durability) and a home located very close to two artesian water sources so that our potential water supply is indefinite.
I hope I don't sound too much the "paranoid militia-type" because I really am not that sort of a hard-corps survivalist... but this is simple common sense and it is something I hope we ALL learned from our mutual experiences after the hurricane.
How much death and suffering could have been or could be avoided had even a percentage of the people in Haiti had the above mentioned supplies on hand prior to the earthquake?
Of the four permanent members of the Bund, I hope we all have learned the importance of being able to "survive" for the first week after a disaster without assistance (in as much as we can, that is). Sufficient water, fuel and basic supplies to sustain moderately comfortable conditions without power or utilities is an absolute requirement, even in this ultra-modern age of instantaneous results. The images from Haiti that are the most devastating are those of people within the limits of a city of nearly half a million souls, and nearly all of them living in "sub-standard" or less-than-ideal circumstances... urban poor, in other words.
The continuing tragedy, however, is going to come from those living in impoverished rural areas when public services such as electricity, fuel and water are no longer working because of the devastation to the infrastructure combined with the lack of actual governmental or emergency services that even a nation as poor as Haiti has come to depend on. Free clinics stretched beyond the breaking point, roads that are impassable, bridges that have already or will fail, water conduits and aqueducts that cannot carry water, and entire water supplies contaminated beyond the ability to use safely. In the case of Haiti specifically, imagine how quickly the removal of dead bodies and even spoiled food is going to become a critical issue to avoid further complications from disease and cross contamination.
Prior to August 28, 2005, I was the sort of person that didn't put a lot of weight in the arguments that many "survival" enthusiasts made about preparing for the worst, even if it never happened... but Katrina fixed that. So, as I was driving and listening, I began pondering what I would be forced to do if a similar situation happened here in NEPA as that in Haiti (God forbid!) or on the Gulf Coast in '05... if a child was sick, there was no hopping into the car and driving to the pharmacy, there was no phoning for doctors or ambulances, and there was little to no hope of anyone getting to you at all for the first 72 hours WHATEVER the emergency.
I hope everyone here, and anyone reading this, takes the message to heart: Have what you need ON HAND for at least a week's worth of needs, stored in a manner that will keep it as safe and available as possible. We have no fewer than 25 gallons of water stored in 5-gallon bottles (and a means of dispensing it without power) at all times. We have alternative means of cooking in case we are without electricity for any amount of time. We have many (but perhaps not all) of the medicines and prescriptions we routinely need on hand and stored in case we cannot simply drive and get them. We have an impressive amount of food suited for long term storage (canned, dried, evaporated, etc) as well as many staples in low-bulk form (bags of beans, rice, and oats stored in a nice, DRY place). We even have the means to shelter ourselves should the "old homestead" become uninhabitable... camping gear and tents enough for all of us and lots of open ground to set them up on. Dual-fuel heaters and lamps, very utilitarian cookware (good old fashioned cast iron... there is nothing finer for durability) and a home located very close to two artesian water sources so that our potential water supply is indefinite.
I hope I don't sound too much the "paranoid militia-type" because I really am not that sort of a hard-corps survivalist... but this is simple common sense and it is something I hope we ALL learned from our mutual experiences after the hurricane.
How much death and suffering could have been or could be avoided had even a percentage of the people in Haiti had the above mentioned supplies on hand prior to the earthquake?
Catching up...
Well... Jake is still running a fever, and he wet my bed twice last night after his IV at the Dr.'s office. I don't think that child has had his temp under 100 degrees for the last 6 days, and I KNOW he hasn't had four hours of uninterupted sleep in that time, either... because neither Liz or I have had that much sleep ourselves. Because he wakes up frequently and is so unbelievably miserable, he is constantly calling out for "Mommy" (understandable... who doesn't want their Mommy when they are sick?) so she tries to sleep with him in the big bed, while I take the couch. However, she isn't sleeping in the big bed, and I'm not either on the couch.
We've seen two "physicisan's assistants" and two Doctors... and he is still looking at a solid week of steady fever, real dehydration, and text-book symptoms of sleep deprivation. The latest diagnosis was for tonsilitis (that after a call of upper respritory infection), and there is no question that his throat is the root of the problem, but the antibiotics are not having the desired impact on the problem, and we continue to battle the symptoms rather than the disease. The latest symptom to surface is a nose so full of sticky lime-green snot that the child simply cannot breathe during the night, and snores himself awake every 35 to 45 minutes.
So, that catches everyone up on our miserable existance over the last several days... let me get caught up here.
To answer Ryan's question on polygamy:
I have every bit the reservations and moral issues with polygamy that I have with gay marriage, because I feel it demeans the "natural" state of marriage (religious, spiritual or biological... take your pick). However, as Ryan pointed out, it is very difficult for me to ignore the fact that I am convinced that mandating morality via the Federal government in areas not clearly enumerated by the Constitution whether it is a same sex issue or multiple partner issue... as long as the parties involved are voluntarily seeking the arrangement and are old enough to make the decision themselves. So, the short version is YES, I feel that without a Constitutional amendment defining marriage explicitly and exclusively as "one man-one woman" polygamy is as legitimate a choice for people to make as a same-sex union would be and that the Feds don't need to be mandating against them based on the moral position of a select few among the population.
On Mr. Ejercito's comments:
Well said, sir. A very valid point, especially on the failures of the government to recognize the fundamental rights of women to vote, own land, make contracts, etc. from its very inception. We aren't alone in that, nor do I think it is the problem today that it was even 50 years ago... but it is a valid point.
My only additional comment would be that, while I agree that women have the same rights and freedoms as men in the country, there are fundamental, undeniable differences inherent in our nature that makes absolute "equality" impossible. A seperation of facilities necessitated by biological function (bathrooms, showers, even plumbing) means that true "unisex" status in government agencies are next to impossible to have. Mean average and statistical realities tell us that not all women area capable of fullfilling the roles and jobs of all men, and vice versa, so that broad, general "equality" (especially forced equality by means of regulation and legislation) are far more prone to fail then they are to succeed.
Male sailors on an aircraft carrier making a 6-month cruise will never need gynaecological facilities, but the female members of the crew do, and thus the logistics of the cruise (and the Navy as a whole) are forced to change. Now, I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS A BAD THING! I'm simply stating an obvious fact to make my point that true "equality" of purpose between the two sexes is impossible to achieve, in any society, at any level.
Again, it was an excellent observation, Mr. Ejercito. We have so few intelligent contributions to the Bund from outside our very limited numbers, so I hope you will continue to visit and share your thoughts and comments.
On Haiti:
Tragedy on this scale is terrible to see... but I was shocked at how effected I was by looking at the slide show that Ryan linked. That leaden-feeling in the very bottom of my bowels that I remember so well from the days immediately after Katrina came back to me with mind-numbing speed! I wasn't surrounded by thousands of dead bodies, but I think the devestation and destruction that I was surrounded by was just as real, and I know the feeling of helplessness and of having nowhere to turn for assistance was very much the same for me as it is right now for those Haitians wondering where they are going to get water, food, shelter, underwear, diapers, any means of communication with extended family, etc, etc, etc.
Liz and I have already made our contributions to the relief effort and will continue to keep those people in our prayers and say or rosaries for the children. I think everyone should do the same...
We've seen two "physicisan's assistants" and two Doctors... and he is still looking at a solid week of steady fever, real dehydration, and text-book symptoms of sleep deprivation. The latest diagnosis was for tonsilitis (that after a call of upper respritory infection), and there is no question that his throat is the root of the problem, but the antibiotics are not having the desired impact on the problem, and we continue to battle the symptoms rather than the disease. The latest symptom to surface is a nose so full of sticky lime-green snot that the child simply cannot breathe during the night, and snores himself awake every 35 to 45 minutes.
So, that catches everyone up on our miserable existance over the last several days... let me get caught up here.
To answer Ryan's question on polygamy:
I have every bit the reservations and moral issues with polygamy that I have with gay marriage, because I feel it demeans the "natural" state of marriage (religious, spiritual or biological... take your pick). However, as Ryan pointed out, it is very difficult for me to ignore the fact that I am convinced that mandating morality via the Federal government in areas not clearly enumerated by the Constitution whether it is a same sex issue or multiple partner issue... as long as the parties involved are voluntarily seeking the arrangement and are old enough to make the decision themselves. So, the short version is YES, I feel that without a Constitutional amendment defining marriage explicitly and exclusively as "one man-one woman" polygamy is as legitimate a choice for people to make as a same-sex union would be and that the Feds don't need to be mandating against them based on the moral position of a select few among the population.
On Mr. Ejercito's comments:
Well said, sir. A very valid point, especially on the failures of the government to recognize the fundamental rights of women to vote, own land, make contracts, etc. from its very inception. We aren't alone in that, nor do I think it is the problem today that it was even 50 years ago... but it is a valid point.
My only additional comment would be that, while I agree that women have the same rights and freedoms as men in the country, there are fundamental, undeniable differences inherent in our nature that makes absolute "equality" impossible. A seperation of facilities necessitated by biological function (bathrooms, showers, even plumbing) means that true "unisex" status in government agencies are next to impossible to have. Mean average and statistical realities tell us that not all women area capable of fullfilling the roles and jobs of all men, and vice versa, so that broad, general "equality" (especially forced equality by means of regulation and legislation) are far more prone to fail then they are to succeed.
Male sailors on an aircraft carrier making a 6-month cruise will never need gynaecological facilities, but the female members of the crew do, and thus the logistics of the cruise (and the Navy as a whole) are forced to change. Now, I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS A BAD THING! I'm simply stating an obvious fact to make my point that true "equality" of purpose between the two sexes is impossible to achieve, in any society, at any level.
Again, it was an excellent observation, Mr. Ejercito. We have so few intelligent contributions to the Bund from outside our very limited numbers, so I hope you will continue to visit and share your thoughts and comments.
On Haiti:
Tragedy on this scale is terrible to see... but I was shocked at how effected I was by looking at the slide show that Ryan linked. That leaden-feeling in the very bottom of my bowels that I remember so well from the days immediately after Katrina came back to me with mind-numbing speed! I wasn't surrounded by thousands of dead bodies, but I think the devestation and destruction that I was surrounded by was just as real, and I know the feeling of helplessness and of having nowhere to turn for assistance was very much the same for me as it is right now for those Haitians wondering where they are going to get water, food, shelter, underwear, diapers, any means of communication with extended family, etc, etc, etc.
Liz and I have already made our contributions to the relief effort and will continue to keep those people in our prayers and say or rosaries for the children. I think everyone should do the same...
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Haiti
As I'm sure you're all aware a 7.4 earthquake rocked Haiti today. This is their "White House." You can view a slide show of the devastation here. I warn you though, the first picture alone is enough to send a cold shiver up your spine. Dead line the street, the capital is reportedly nearly destroyed, it is utter chaos.
And in an unfortunate note I heard, although have yet to confirm, the Arch Bishop of Haiti is among the casualties, along with his church. Our prayers go out to them all.
Obama has assembled a massive relief effort including our armed forces, without hesitation nor equivocation (as well he should). The US will by far have the most "relief" vested in this rescue and recovery in both men and material. He gave a forceful speech on the subject (again I say, as well he should) and the full weight of the federal government has been applied.
Now besides the obvious humanitarian reasons for mentioning this story, I want to make a small observation if I may. Not to be crass, but I think this is a valid notation ... I wish that the President of the United States responded so forcefully, so directly and requisited as much attention and resources to confronting our enemies as he does in responding to a natural disaster. For they are just as real.
Our prayers go out to the dead, wounded, the families that survive them and those brave souls risking life and limb to aide the innocent ... in Haiti, Afghanistan and Iraq.
An intelligent comment:
A few posts ago a gentleman presented a comment which I just today published. Given it was well articulated and he took thet trouble to both visit our site and weigh in on the current debate, I thought the decent thing to do (given my delay in its being published) was present it in post format.
****
Michael Ejercito said...
'As I said before, "separate but equal" has been determined to be un-Constitutional, so rather than re-inventing the wheel, let's discuss how to fix the wheels we have so that no one is left off the cart.'
There is a slight misconception there.
Constitutional case law has always held gender discrimination to a lower level of scrutiny than racial discrimination.
The Fourteenth Amendment was insufficient to strike down laws restricting voting on the basis of sex ( Minor v. Happersett ); it took the Nineteenth Amendment for the United States Constitution to forbid voting restrictions on the basis of sex.
Men, but not women, are required to register for Selective Service. Public schools are permitted to offer separate extracurricular programs for boys and girls, provided that the programs are equal.
****
I should note here that I am awaiting Titus's confirmation of my summary post below so as to close this thread (read: get on it cheetoh).
****
Michael Ejercito said...
'As I said before, "separate but equal" has been determined to be un-Constitutional, so rather than re-inventing the wheel, let's discuss how to fix the wheels we have so that no one is left off the cart.'
There is a slight misconception there.
Constitutional case law has always held gender discrimination to a lower level of scrutiny than racial discrimination.
The Fourteenth Amendment was insufficient to strike down laws restricting voting on the basis of sex ( Minor v. Happersett ); it took the Nineteenth Amendment for the United States Constitution to forbid voting restrictions on the basis of sex.
Men, but not women, are required to register for Selective Service. Public schools are permitted to offer separate extracurricular programs for boys and girls, provided that the programs are equal.
****
I should note here that I am awaiting Titus's confirmation of my summary post below so as to close this thread (read: get on it cheetoh).
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
At least we're getting somewhere ...
This is my question then - do you feel that Reynolds v United States is as discriminatory as The Defense of Marriage Act? I realize of course that one is legislation and another a Supreme Court Decision, but the point is neither are Constitutional Amendments. And that seems to be the sticking point for you here. Anything short of a Constitutional Amendment (regarding the definition of marriage) you consider out of the government's purview or mandate to enforce based on anti discrimination law (circa 1964, etc).
"You are right and I shouldn't have lumped polygamy in with the child marriages or other abusive cases... there is nothing to say that three (or more) perfectly rational adults couldn't decide that they all want to live happily ever after as man and many wives (or vice versa). I'm not the one that determined that such an arrangement is un-Constitutional... the US Supreme Court did when it upheld numerous polygamy case decisions over the course of the last 200+ years . . . I'm not suggesting that this isn't a situation that could be challenged, because I am certain that this sort of case was every bit as biased as Dred Scott v. Sandford was, but I am saying that the determination stands until such time as the Court rules otherwise.
I agree that it stands until another Supreme Court rules otherwise, but my question is that given what you have written above, to maintain a consistency with your gay marriage argument, do you contend then that polygamists are every bit as "discriminated" against via that ruling and the various state laws as gay couples are via the Defense of Marriage Act and the various state laws? Do they have the same beef in other words (man, there's a ton of bad pun opportunities were I a less than mature individual .... hehe)?
You divorced it from child marriages and injured third parties, and properly so, I get that. You also seem to be answering my question "yes", but I want to be crystal clear here - until such time as a Constitutional Amendment is passed is it your position that both gay couples and polygamists (involving consenting adults) are being discriminated against by our federal and state governments, because short of such a Constitutional Amendment the government, in your opinion, hasn't the authority to regulate morality to this degree?
Now if your answer is essentially "yes", then fine. You have a wholly consistent argument - marriage between consenting adults, regardless of gender or number in party, should not be regulated by the federal government until such time as they have the clear Constitutional authority to do so via the amendment process. I can live with that. I utterly disagree of course, and I know you oppose it as a personal lifestyle choice being a practicing Catholic, I just wanted to be sure - your position is that consenting adults ought to be (meaning the laws & rulings while in need of being respected are "unjust" as current) allowed to practice polygamy and same sex marriage until such time as an amendment gives the government the right to regulate marriage as between one man and one woman. Is that correct?
"You are right and I shouldn't have lumped polygamy in with the child marriages or other abusive cases... there is nothing to say that three (or more) perfectly rational adults couldn't decide that they all want to live happily ever after as man and many wives (or vice versa). I'm not the one that determined that such an arrangement is un-Constitutional... the US Supreme Court did when it upheld numerous polygamy case decisions over the course of the last 200+ years . . . I'm not suggesting that this isn't a situation that could be challenged, because I am certain that this sort of case was every bit as biased as Dred Scott v. Sandford was, but I am saying that the determination stands until such time as the Court rules otherwise.
I agree that it stands until another Supreme Court rules otherwise, but my question is that given what you have written above, to maintain a consistency with your gay marriage argument, do you contend then that polygamists are every bit as "discriminated" against via that ruling and the various state laws as gay couples are via the Defense of Marriage Act and the various state laws? Do they have the same beef in other words (man, there's a ton of bad pun opportunities were I a less than mature individual .... hehe)?
You divorced it from child marriages and injured third parties, and properly so, I get that. You also seem to be answering my question "yes", but I want to be crystal clear here - until such time as a Constitutional Amendment is passed is it your position that both gay couples and polygamists (involving consenting adults) are being discriminated against by our federal and state governments, because short of such a Constitutional Amendment the government, in your opinion, hasn't the authority to regulate morality to this degree?
Now if your answer is essentially "yes", then fine. You have a wholly consistent argument - marriage between consenting adults, regardless of gender or number in party, should not be regulated by the federal government until such time as they have the clear Constitutional authority to do so via the amendment process. I can live with that. I utterly disagree of course, and I know you oppose it as a personal lifestyle choice being a practicing Catholic, I just wanted to be sure - your position is that consenting adults ought to be (meaning the laws & rulings while in need of being respected are "unjust" as current) allowed to practice polygamy and same sex marriage until such time as an amendment gives the government the right to regulate marriage as between one man and one woman. Is that correct?
For clarity's sake ...
... let me put the thrust of my "trespassing" post this way.
You wrote:
"I feel it is perfectly justifiable to keep suicide on the books as "illegal" because I simply cannot imagine any person in their full mental and emotional capacity capable of killing themselves. Depression, anxiety, chemical addiction... all are factors in nearly every case and thus negate the argument that it is a decision made by a rational individual capable of understanding right and wrong . . . Multiple marriages, child marriages, and any obviously abusive associations that you wish to hold up as examples of the "evil" associated with a deviant lifestyle are also regulated by the government... because they are harmful to individuals that are either not part of the decision making process involved or are incapable of making the decisions themselves."
Of course it is possible for an advocate of polygamy or a chronically pain ridden patient contemplating assistant suicide, or even a scientist whom wants to clone himself (a nontraditional form of conception if you will), to have both complete control of their mental faculties and in no way "endanger" an innocent fellow human being in the course of their actions. Thus they do not "need" the government to "make decisions for them." Your posturing is erroneous in its' generalizing assumptions, and perhaps a little ignorant in its' stereotyping. The reasons you listed are not the reasons these acts are illegal. Being in your "full emotional capacity" is the not the standard for judging the legality of a given act (otherwise the three of us would have been prohibited from marrying our ex wives).
The reason we maintain those acts as illegal is because it offends our collective sense of morality. Our sense of right and wrong. We deny as "rights" these acts to consenting, of age adults whom are not hurting anyone else in their actions because the vast majority of Americans have judged it immoral, and antithetical to the functioning of a healthy society as we understand one. Thus we consent to our government the right to enforce, or "regulate", that morality by law. And this is the exact argument I, and a majority of Americans, have made for opposing the legality of gay marriage - it not only offends our sense of morality and right and wrong, but it is also antithetical to the functioning of a healthy society, as we understand one.
Now you can disagree with that contention on gay marriage, that's fine. But you can NOT disagree with it yet maintain your support of the government's right, via our consent, to regulate polygamy, chronic illness suicide, or self induced cloning. The two positions are irreconcilable. When it comes to the actions of consenting, fully sane adults whose actions harm no one else you either believe in the governments authority (again, via our consent) to enforce those actions as illegal based on our collective national moral sensibilities, or you do not.
You wrote:
"I feel it is perfectly justifiable to keep suicide on the books as "illegal" because I simply cannot imagine any person in their full mental and emotional capacity capable of killing themselves. Depression, anxiety, chemical addiction... all are factors in nearly every case and thus negate the argument that it is a decision made by a rational individual capable of understanding right and wrong . . . Multiple marriages, child marriages, and any obviously abusive associations that you wish to hold up as examples of the "evil" associated with a deviant lifestyle are also regulated by the government... because they are harmful to individuals that are either not part of the decision making process involved or are incapable of making the decisions themselves."
Of course it is possible for an advocate of polygamy or a chronically pain ridden patient contemplating assistant suicide, or even a scientist whom wants to clone himself (a nontraditional form of conception if you will), to have both complete control of their mental faculties and in no way "endanger" an innocent fellow human being in the course of their actions. Thus they do not "need" the government to "make decisions for them." Your posturing is erroneous in its' generalizing assumptions, and perhaps a little ignorant in its' stereotyping. The reasons you listed are not the reasons these acts are illegal. Being in your "full emotional capacity" is the not the standard for judging the legality of a given act (otherwise the three of us would have been prohibited from marrying our ex wives).
The reason we maintain those acts as illegal is because it offends our collective sense of morality. Our sense of right and wrong. We deny as "rights" these acts to consenting, of age adults whom are not hurting anyone else in their actions because the vast majority of Americans have judged it immoral, and antithetical to the functioning of a healthy society as we understand one. Thus we consent to our government the right to enforce, or "regulate", that morality by law. And this is the exact argument I, and a majority of Americans, have made for opposing the legality of gay marriage - it not only offends our sense of morality and right and wrong, but it is also antithetical to the functioning of a healthy society, as we understand one.
Now you can disagree with that contention on gay marriage, that's fine. But you can NOT disagree with it yet maintain your support of the government's right, via our consent, to regulate polygamy, chronic illness suicide, or self induced cloning. The two positions are irreconcilable. When it comes to the actions of consenting, fully sane adults whose actions harm no one else you either believe in the governments authority (again, via our consent) to enforce those actions as illegal based on our collective national moral sensibilities, or you do not.
Where does the "Libertarian" label come from?
Your fixation on the "regulating morality" tag is problematic. If, because I feel that there are individual choices and "liberties" that are outside of the government's authority to dictate to me, or anyone else, I am a "Libertarian" then so be it. I have certainly heard worse labels used to describe me from you, that's for sure.
I am not arguing that the government hasn't the authority to regulate "moral" choices to a degree... I don't know anyone that does, short of a full-blown anarchist (and I don't know any of those). I am fully in favor of government protecting everyone's right to practice their religious beliefs as they best see fit... but that doesn't mean some cult of Kali can abduct children off the street so they can be sacrificed to a god of death, because that violates the rights of the children being sacrificed. I am fully in favor of government protecting everyone's right to acquire goods and wealth that they value and need... but if the means by which it is acquired is the forcible and violent theft of someone else's goods and wealth, then the rights of those being robbed and stolen from need to be protected as well.
When one individual or group's actions infringe on another's rights and privileges, then it is the responsibility of government to intercede on behalf of the latter. This sort of definition of our Constitutional system makes me a Libertarian, and not a Democrat or Republican? Aren't you a card-carrying Republican that routinely espouses the virtues of smaller, less intrusive government control and regulation? How is this different?
Okay, well... that aside, let's address your latest points:
it is ERRONEOUS in the extreme for you summarily judge all individuals attempting suicide as unable to make sane judgments, thus their right to death is justifiably denied them. What about those with a chronic, debilitating, painful illness? Could they not be in full control of their mental faculties?
As you clearly say in the quote above, NO, they cannot be summarily determined to have "full control of their mental faculties" because the illness you are describing in your example is "chronic" (constant; long-term; without end) and "debilitating" (to make weak or feeble; to reduce beyond normal capacity). I can sympathize with such cases, even empathize with them, but I am confident that modern medicine has the means to alleviate many of the symptoms and side effects to such conditions... not the least of which is pain medication and physical therapy.
This is a moot point to argue anyway... illegal or not, no punitive action can be taken against a successful suicide, and any unsuccessful suicides are treated as "developmentally challenged" (i.e. "potentially crazy") persons anyway, without exception. The illegality of the act is to deter people from "assisting" or "promoting" suicide where it isn't (or shouldn't be) a viable option.
We are talking about 3 consenting adults that don't want to bother anyone, just want to live their life, pay their taxes, worship their God and raise their kids. Are you telling me that if you wish to engage in this that BY DEFINITION you are mentally deficient to the point of being "incapable of making decisions?"
You are right and I shouldn't have lumped polygamy in with the child marriages or other abusive cases... there is nothing to say that three (or more) perfectly rational adults couldn't decide that they all want to live happily ever after as man and many wives (or vice versa). I'm not the one that determined that such an arrangement is un-Constitutional... the US Supreme Court did when it upheld numerous polygamy case decisions over the course of the last 200+ years, most notably Reynolds v. United States, where it was determined that the polygamist state of marriage violated the rights of the various wives and their dependant children. This was a powerful enough decision by the SCOTUS that even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints adopted the anti-polygamist position it promoted, despite the divinely-revealed truth passed on by Joseph Smith that polygamy was "God's Law". I'm not suggesting that this isn't a situation that could be challenged, because I am certain that this sort of case was every bit as biased as Dred Scott v. Sandford was, but I am saying that the determination stands until such time as the Court rules otherwise. Furthermore, the laws against polygamy are STATE laws, and regulation and enforcement of the laws is left (almost) exclusively to the individual States, which is something I think we can both agree is a good thing.
And as such you STILL have not explained why it is "okay" for the government to "discriminate" against 3 consenting adults that are NOT set on injuring a third, or under age party and NOT "insane", or "emotionally disabled."
I think I have done my best with the above. The SCOTUS determined the practice to be un-Constitutional, and that determination has remained unchanged or challenged since 1878. A marriage amendment defining marriage as "one man-one woman" will settle the question just as quickly as it will the gay marriage issue.
To sum up (and I think it's time to get back on track here):
In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which made "one man-one woman" Federal law. My point was that the SCOTUS, in my opinion, is poised to shoot this legislation down based on the 1,138 special privileges that Act entitles to married couples, but denies to all "other" couples. If the conservative movement wants to continue to work towards defending traditional marriage, then it must find a way to eliminate or greatly reduce those "special privileges" so that the "other couples" don't have a Constitutional axe to grind anymore. All I have EVER maintained through this whole thread was that I DO FEEL that the status quo is discriminating against those individuals choosing to practice a same-sex relationship by denying them the same level of opportunity based on nothing more than their sexual orientation, which is clearly prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is my stated, clear opinion. I offer it as an explanation for the position I have taken in regards to gay marriage, but NOT as proof positive that anyone else is WRONG.
I can't be any clearer than that.
I am not arguing that the government hasn't the authority to regulate "moral" choices to a degree... I don't know anyone that does, short of a full-blown anarchist (and I don't know any of those). I am fully in favor of government protecting everyone's right to practice their religious beliefs as they best see fit... but that doesn't mean some cult of Kali can abduct children off the street so they can be sacrificed to a god of death, because that violates the rights of the children being sacrificed. I am fully in favor of government protecting everyone's right to acquire goods and wealth that they value and need... but if the means by which it is acquired is the forcible and violent theft of someone else's goods and wealth, then the rights of those being robbed and stolen from need to be protected as well.
When one individual or group's actions infringe on another's rights and privileges, then it is the responsibility of government to intercede on behalf of the latter. This sort of definition of our Constitutional system makes me a Libertarian, and not a Democrat or Republican? Aren't you a card-carrying Republican that routinely espouses the virtues of smaller, less intrusive government control and regulation? How is this different?
Okay, well... that aside, let's address your latest points:
it is ERRONEOUS in the extreme for you summarily judge all individuals attempting suicide as unable to make sane judgments, thus their right to death is justifiably denied them. What about those with a chronic, debilitating, painful illness? Could they not be in full control of their mental faculties?
As you clearly say in the quote above, NO, they cannot be summarily determined to have "full control of their mental faculties" because the illness you are describing in your example is "chronic" (constant; long-term; without end) and "debilitating" (to make weak or feeble; to reduce beyond normal capacity). I can sympathize with such cases, even empathize with them, but I am confident that modern medicine has the means to alleviate many of the symptoms and side effects to such conditions... not the least of which is pain medication and physical therapy.
This is a moot point to argue anyway... illegal or not, no punitive action can be taken against a successful suicide, and any unsuccessful suicides are treated as "developmentally challenged" (i.e. "potentially crazy") persons anyway, without exception. The illegality of the act is to deter people from "assisting" or "promoting" suicide where it isn't (or shouldn't be) a viable option.
We are talking about 3 consenting adults that don't want to bother anyone, just want to live their life, pay their taxes, worship their God and raise their kids. Are you telling me that if you wish to engage in this that BY DEFINITION you are mentally deficient to the point of being "incapable of making decisions?"
You are right and I shouldn't have lumped polygamy in with the child marriages or other abusive cases... there is nothing to say that three (or more) perfectly rational adults couldn't decide that they all want to live happily ever after as man and many wives (or vice versa). I'm not the one that determined that such an arrangement is un-Constitutional... the US Supreme Court did when it upheld numerous polygamy case decisions over the course of the last 200+ years, most notably Reynolds v. United States, where it was determined that the polygamist state of marriage violated the rights of the various wives and their dependant children. This was a powerful enough decision by the SCOTUS that even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints adopted the anti-polygamist position it promoted, despite the divinely-revealed truth passed on by Joseph Smith that polygamy was "God's Law". I'm not suggesting that this isn't a situation that could be challenged, because I am certain that this sort of case was every bit as biased as Dred Scott v. Sandford was, but I am saying that the determination stands until such time as the Court rules otherwise. Furthermore, the laws against polygamy are STATE laws, and regulation and enforcement of the laws is left (almost) exclusively to the individual States, which is something I think we can both agree is a good thing.
And as such you STILL have not explained why it is "okay" for the government to "discriminate" against 3 consenting adults that are NOT set on injuring a third, or under age party and NOT "insane", or "emotionally disabled."
I think I have done my best with the above. The SCOTUS determined the practice to be un-Constitutional, and that determination has remained unchanged or challenged since 1878. A marriage amendment defining marriage as "one man-one woman" will settle the question just as quickly as it will the gay marriage issue.
To sum up (and I think it's time to get back on track here):
In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which made "one man-one woman" Federal law. My point was that the SCOTUS, in my opinion, is poised to shoot this legislation down based on the 1,138 special privileges that Act entitles to married couples, but denies to all "other" couples. If the conservative movement wants to continue to work towards defending traditional marriage, then it must find a way to eliminate or greatly reduce those "special privileges" so that the "other couples" don't have a Constitutional axe to grind anymore. All I have EVER maintained through this whole thread was that I DO FEEL that the status quo is discriminating against those individuals choosing to practice a same-sex relationship by denying them the same level of opportunity based on nothing more than their sexual orientation, which is clearly prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is my stated, clear opinion. I offer it as an explanation for the position I have taken in regards to gay marriage, but NOT as proof positive that anyone else is WRONG.
I can't be any clearer than that.
And by the way ...
If you come to the conclusion that to maintain your gay marriage argument there is now way to still justify the government "regulating morality" when it comes to the illegality of consenting adults that number above 2 (and wanting to be married), then fine, I understand. You have a Libertarian philosophy towards marriage that is completely consistent - consenting adults may marry as many as they desire, or same sex or engage in any other form of non traditional marriage they choose as long as everyone is of age, sane, and not hurting anyone else. I would disagree with you of course, but I could not assail what you posit as inconsistent ... the case would be closed.
You are trespassing against me ...
You are taking obtuse to an entirely new level! First off, you have at the very least capitulated that there are instances in which the government properly assumes the role of "regulating morality." I just read that.
Now ... your argument is that the government has no right to deny same sex couples the "status" of heterosexual couples because the government shouldn't be in the business of "regulating morality" when it comes to 2 consenting adults not set on "hurting" a third, innocent party. Yet, yet, you point to specific instances in which you endorse their doing just that!
1.) Suicide (first, I agree in its illegality, my point here is the inconsistency in your premise): it is ERRONEOUS in the extreme for you summarily judge all individuals attempting suicide as unable to make sane judgments, thus their right to death is justifiably denied them. What about those with a chronic, debilitating, painful illness? Could they not be in full control of their mental faculties? Perhaps knowing they will join God, cease their physical pain and the financial burden of caring for them they make the judgment to end their life on their terms. The idea that Titus in NEPA can summarily judge these people as "nuts" , thus the government is justified in denying them their chosen "out" is PREPOSTEROUS. So if a person can be "certified" sane in a court of law, present the reasoning for their choice of suicide in a manner we all understand as above (the illness scenario), then YOU, Titus, by your own argument must as a juror grant them the right to preform the suicide, and the right of the Kevorkian assistant to pursue his "profession", right?
2.) Plural marriage ... (which by the way I am 100% opposed to):
"Multiple marriages, child marriages, and any obviously abusive associations that you wish to hold up as examples of the "evil" associated with a deviant lifestyle are also regulated by the government... because they are harmful to individuals that are either not part of the decision making process involved or are incapable of making the decisions themselves."
Woah, woah, woah, waoh. Wait just a damn minute.
Forget child marriage or any other injured third party. We are talking about 3 consenting adults that don't want to bother anyone, just want to live their life, pay their taxes, worship their God and raise their kids. Are you telling me that if you wish to engage in this that BY DEFINITION you are mentally deficient to the point of being "incapable of making decisions?" Are you kidding? To advocate plural marriage you are BY DEFINITION no longer sane, thus the government has the right to deny your request? What if I were to say that about gay marriage, which is also illegal in at least 15 states? "Homophobe!" you'd scream. "Bigot" you'd yell! What the hell are you talking about Titus? So any one in any era that engaged in plural marriage was "mental?" This is a cop out of an answer and you know it.
And as such you STILL have not explained why it is "okay" for the government to"discriminate" against 3 consenting adults that are NOT set on injuring a third, or under age party and NOT "insane", or "emotionally disabled." By your own argument polygamy should be legal, or at least its' legality left up to the individual states. I keep coming back to this and you keep lumping it in with "child marriage." Again, why is it "okay" to deny them the same "status" as a traditional marriage, but not for homosexual marriage? See, this is the slippery slope I am concerned with when the definition of marriage is opened up to interpretation.
"... but I fail to see where I (or the Federal Government) has the RIGHT to mandate that lifestyle [traditional marriage] as the only option available to every person in this country, especially when those same people are denied benefits or status because they choose NOT to follow that lifestyle."
Can a sane, self sufficient, otherwise law abiding polygamist not make that EXACT argument? You are forcing your version of morality on he. And you are consenting your government to regulate that morality by force, if necessary. So why is it "okay" for the government to regulate morality by defining marriage in number, but not "okay" to "regulate morality" by defining marriage in gender - when both are between consenting adults not injuring a third or underage party and in complete control of their mental faculties?
And let me be as blunt as possible - in my opinion you either must concede that sane, functioning, consenting adults have the right to plural marriage (not to mention that a court certified sane person has the right to suicide in order to end a painful disease/condition) or you must concede that the government has just as much right to regulate marriage by gender as it does by number. It is completely inconsistent for you to to say that my advocation is based solely on "morality" and thus it is unjustifiable for the government to foist it on my fellow, consenting adult Americans that are injuring no one else, but then state it is justifiable for you to turn right around and do the exact same thing in the two scenarios I just mentioned.
Now ... your argument is that the government has no right to deny same sex couples the "status" of heterosexual couples because the government shouldn't be in the business of "regulating morality" when it comes to 2 consenting adults not set on "hurting" a third, innocent party. Yet, yet, you point to specific instances in which you endorse their doing just that!
1.) Suicide (first, I agree in its illegality, my point here is the inconsistency in your premise): it is ERRONEOUS in the extreme for you summarily judge all individuals attempting suicide as unable to make sane judgments, thus their right to death is justifiably denied them. What about those with a chronic, debilitating, painful illness? Could they not be in full control of their mental faculties? Perhaps knowing they will join God, cease their physical pain and the financial burden of caring for them they make the judgment to end their life on their terms. The idea that Titus in NEPA can summarily judge these people as "nuts" , thus the government is justified in denying them their chosen "out" is PREPOSTEROUS. So if a person can be "certified" sane in a court of law, present the reasoning for their choice of suicide in a manner we all understand as above (the illness scenario), then YOU, Titus, by your own argument must as a juror grant them the right to preform the suicide, and the right of the Kevorkian assistant to pursue his "profession", right?
2.) Plural marriage ... (which by the way I am 100% opposed to):
"Multiple marriages, child marriages, and any obviously abusive associations that you wish to hold up as examples of the "evil" associated with a deviant lifestyle are also regulated by the government... because they are harmful to individuals that are either not part of the decision making process involved or are incapable of making the decisions themselves."
Woah, woah, woah, waoh. Wait just a damn minute.
Forget child marriage or any other injured third party. We are talking about 3 consenting adults that don't want to bother anyone, just want to live their life, pay their taxes, worship their God and raise their kids. Are you telling me that if you wish to engage in this that BY DEFINITION you are mentally deficient to the point of being "incapable of making decisions?" Are you kidding? To advocate plural marriage you are BY DEFINITION no longer sane, thus the government has the right to deny your request? What if I were to say that about gay marriage, which is also illegal in at least 15 states? "Homophobe!" you'd scream. "Bigot" you'd yell! What the hell are you talking about Titus? So any one in any era that engaged in plural marriage was "mental?" This is a cop out of an answer and you know it.
And as such you STILL have not explained why it is "okay" for the government to"discriminate" against 3 consenting adults that are NOT set on injuring a third, or under age party and NOT "insane", or "emotionally disabled." By your own argument polygamy should be legal, or at least its' legality left up to the individual states. I keep coming back to this and you keep lumping it in with "child marriage." Again, why is it "okay" to deny them the same "status" as a traditional marriage, but not for homosexual marriage? See, this is the slippery slope I am concerned with when the definition of marriage is opened up to interpretation.
"... but I fail to see where I (or the Federal Government) has the RIGHT to mandate that lifestyle [traditional marriage] as the only option available to every person in this country, especially when those same people are denied benefits or status because they choose NOT to follow that lifestyle."
Can a sane, self sufficient, otherwise law abiding polygamist not make that EXACT argument? You are forcing your version of morality on he. And you are consenting your government to regulate that morality by force, if necessary. So why is it "okay" for the government to regulate morality by defining marriage in number, but not "okay" to "regulate morality" by defining marriage in gender - when both are between consenting adults not injuring a third or underage party and in complete control of their mental faculties?
And let me be as blunt as possible - in my opinion you either must concede that sane, functioning, consenting adults have the right to plural marriage (not to mention that a court certified sane person has the right to suicide in order to end a painful disease/condition) or you must concede that the government has just as much right to regulate marriage by gender as it does by number. It is completely inconsistent for you to to say that my advocation is based solely on "morality" and thus it is unjustifiable for the government to foist it on my fellow, consenting adult Americans that are injuring no one else, but then state it is justifiable for you to turn right around and do the exact same thing in the two scenarios I just mentioned.
I was wondering...
... when Ryan would get to texting about ol' Harry.
I have always been a fan of the old adage "What goes around, comes around." Harry Reid is living that adage, and so is the rest of the Democratic leadership in DC. In fact, I think Reid went even further than Trent Lott did... Lott was trying to flatter a really old Senator by saying he had done the country much good, while Reid was saying that Obama could do the country much good IN SPITE of his being "Negro" (I'm paraphrasing, of course). Add to that the fact that Lott even had Democrats defending him, while Reid can't even get the support of all the Democrats, and you begin to see the scope of Reid's nightmare.
If Reid doesn't step down, this Congress will fall into a depth of uselessness unparalleled in history. It is already one of the lowest rated Congresses on record, but to allow this level of hypocrisy to go unaddressed will handicap this class into the next year.
All polls lead to the conclusion that Reid won't even get re-elected next cycle, so his "lame duck" status is cemented. If the DNC doesn't force his hand pretty soon, 2010 really could be the turning point for the conservative movement in America.
I have always been a fan of the old adage "What goes around, comes around." Harry Reid is living that adage, and so is the rest of the Democratic leadership in DC. In fact, I think Reid went even further than Trent Lott did... Lott was trying to flatter a really old Senator by saying he had done the country much good, while Reid was saying that Obama could do the country much good IN SPITE of his being "Negro" (I'm paraphrasing, of course). Add to that the fact that Lott even had Democrats defending him, while Reid can't even get the support of all the Democrats, and you begin to see the scope of Reid's nightmare.
If Reid doesn't step down, this Congress will fall into a depth of uselessness unparalleled in history. It is already one of the lowest rated Congresses on record, but to allow this level of hypocrisy to go unaddressed will handicap this class into the next year.
All polls lead to the conclusion that Reid won't even get re-elected next cycle, so his "lame duck" status is cemented. If the DNC doesn't force his hand pretty soon, 2010 really could be the turning point for the conservative movement in America.
Honestly, Ryan...
I thought the questions were rhetorical... I really did. I'm not trying to pick fights here, or to intentionally piss you (or anyone else) off by being flippant or sarcastic. I'll do what you said, though, and answer the questions the best I can.
I am curious. Should each state decide its' own abortion laws? Would you be a proponent of that?
Your focus on abortion is unfair and isn't applicable. Abortion is, indeed, a moral issue for me. However, it is also (in my opinion) a situation where the "rights" of the child to be aborted are ignored and thus violated. There is another "party" who is harmed, in other words, where I do not feel that anyone is affected by allowing gays the same "status" opportunities as heterosexuals.
Still, to answer your question: Yes, I would be in favor of that course of action. I understand that it wouldn't end abortion, but there is a far better chance of limiting it (and thus reducing the number of abortions performed) because I feel sure there are numerous states that would vote to ban the procedures altogether. If a traditionally conservative state such as Kansas or Texas banned abortions, then the pro-life movement would have an example to point to and say "See? It doesn't have to be all or nothing anymore."
How about an abortion amendment? Now careful - you'll be demanding your government "regulate morality" with an Amendment to prohibit abortion. Can you do such a thing?
See how I thought these were rhetorical? There is just a hint of irony and sarcasm here, don't you think? Yes, there are areas of morality that should be regulated and policed by the government... murder, violence, theft, ethical behavior in business and trade, etc. These DO fall under the purvue of the government because they are actions that effect other people not directly involved in the actions themselves. I feel that abortion ignores the fact that the child in the womb is a human being with all the same rights and dignities that you or I have outside of the womb... in short, the sanctioned killing of a human life for the purpose of convenience for the mother/parents of the child.
So, to answer this question: Yes, I would gladly support such an amendment, because it would protect the rights of the child where they are not being protected now.
Now, had you really had your thinking cap on, you wouldn't have used abortion as your counter to my arguments on gay marriage... you'd have used suicide.
Suicide is illegal in the US, but it (technically) effects no one but the person in questions (by definition). The moral issues involved in suicide are completely personal and (in most cases) do not effect those around the individual, and thus should be (by my own argument) outside of the purvue of government regulation, right?
I feel it is perfectly justifiable to keep suicide on the books as "illegal" because I simply cannot imagine any person in their full mental and emotional capacity capable of killing themselves. Depression, anxiety, chemical addiction... all are factors in nearly every case and thus negate the argument that it is a decision made by a rational individual capable of understanding right and wrong. Allowing or assisting in suicide is, in my opinion, right on par with euthanasia and eugenics in its immorality and I am more than comfortable having it "regulated" by the government as illegal.
The closest you came to answering my questions was with the following:
I have a specific definition of marriage that I believe is a healthy, protective and fruitful way to organize society around. I have made my judgment on the matter. However, you can not describe that judgement as "discriminatory", unfair or unjust because you have made those exact judgments on plural marriage, underage marriage, etc. Those laws are in fact regulating "marriage", plain and simple. Those laws help to define what marriage is and is not, plain and simple. And I use plural marriage in particular because there you have consenting adults (again, not hurting anybody), perhaps simply practicing their religion.
I can completely agree that a marriage state between a man and a woman is the ideal... it is what Nature (read: God, Creator, evolution, happy accident) obviously intended. The whole study of biology tells us this, with no ambiguity whatsoever. That doesn't mean that the government automatically gets to determine that it is the ONLY option available to rational adults that choose to go against nature and aren't hurting anyone else in the process.
The most obvious analogy that comes to mind is the drinking of alcohol. Alcohol (specifically, ethyl alcohol, or grain spirits) is a mild poison that, if consumed in enough quantity, can kill a person. It does permanent damage when abused, and can effect an individual's abilities to a degree that makes them a danger to others. The government attempted to ban the production, possession and use of alcohol once already (through the very means you are advocating now), and the results speak for themselves. I am a rational, right-thinking adult and I am perfectly willing to take on the individual responsibility that comes with drinking... I know the dangers and choose to adjust my behavior accordingly or face the consequences. Much "immoral" behavior can be shown to stem from the abuse of alcohol, yet I still feel society is better off since the government decided NOT to ban booze altogether, but to leave the final decision up to the individual States and the individual citizens themselves as to how they will regulate the issue and punish those that abuse it. I also feel that statistics support my opinion.
Multiple marriages, child marriages, and any obviously abusive associations that you wish to hold up as examples of the "evil" associated with a deviant lifestyle are also regulated by the government... because they are harmful to individuals that are either not part of the decision making process involved or are incapable of making the decisions themselves. That kind of regulation protects the innocent, and thus society in general. Just like it is a crime to drive drunk: we are punishing the INDIVIDUAL who abuses the privilege, not removing the privilege altogether.
Finally, from your last post:
You claim that the government has the right to regulate but not "define" marriage...
I did not say that. I did suggest that this society (at this point in history) will be unwilling, and possibly unable, to define it by the means you have described as ideal: a Constitutional amendment. I did say that, were that unlikely situation to arise, I would support it with every fiber of my being.
More to the point, I have said all along that the reasons for denying gays the ability to gain and hold the same status as heterosexual couples seem completely rooted in "moral" reasoning that, while perfectly understandable to me as a Catholic and an individual, fail to meet the requirements of government purvue as defined by the Constitution itself. I WANT to do whatever I can to protect the traditional nuclear family lifestyle in this nation, but I fail to see where I (or the Federal Government) has the RIGHT to mandate that lifestyle as the only option available to every person in this country, especially when those same people are denied benefits or status because they choose NOT to follow that lifestyle.
Why can't we discuss how to get gay couples the same benefits and tax-status as heterosexual married couples? That, in my eyes, is the root of the trouble all around. As I said before, "separate but equal" has been determined to be un-Constitutional, so rather than re-inventing the wheel, let's discuss how to fix the wheels we have so that no one is left off the cart.
Is that so wrong?
I am curious. Should each state decide its' own abortion laws? Would you be a proponent of that?
Your focus on abortion is unfair and isn't applicable. Abortion is, indeed, a moral issue for me. However, it is also (in my opinion) a situation where the "rights" of the child to be aborted are ignored and thus violated. There is another "party" who is harmed, in other words, where I do not feel that anyone is affected by allowing gays the same "status" opportunities as heterosexuals.
Still, to answer your question: Yes, I would be in favor of that course of action. I understand that it wouldn't end abortion, but there is a far better chance of limiting it (and thus reducing the number of abortions performed) because I feel sure there are numerous states that would vote to ban the procedures altogether. If a traditionally conservative state such as Kansas or Texas banned abortions, then the pro-life movement would have an example to point to and say "See? It doesn't have to be all or nothing anymore."
How about an abortion amendment? Now careful - you'll be demanding your government "regulate morality" with an Amendment to prohibit abortion. Can you do such a thing?
See how I thought these were rhetorical? There is just a hint of irony and sarcasm here, don't you think? Yes, there are areas of morality that should be regulated and policed by the government... murder, violence, theft, ethical behavior in business and trade, etc. These DO fall under the purvue of the government because they are actions that effect other people not directly involved in the actions themselves. I feel that abortion ignores the fact that the child in the womb is a human being with all the same rights and dignities that you or I have outside of the womb... in short, the sanctioned killing of a human life for the purpose of convenience for the mother/parents of the child.
So, to answer this question: Yes, I would gladly support such an amendment, because it would protect the rights of the child where they are not being protected now.
Now, had you really had your thinking cap on, you wouldn't have used abortion as your counter to my arguments on gay marriage... you'd have used suicide.
Suicide is illegal in the US, but it (technically) effects no one but the person in questions (by definition). The moral issues involved in suicide are completely personal and (in most cases) do not effect those around the individual, and thus should be (by my own argument) outside of the purvue of government regulation, right?
I feel it is perfectly justifiable to keep suicide on the books as "illegal" because I simply cannot imagine any person in their full mental and emotional capacity capable of killing themselves. Depression, anxiety, chemical addiction... all are factors in nearly every case and thus negate the argument that it is a decision made by a rational individual capable of understanding right and wrong. Allowing or assisting in suicide is, in my opinion, right on par with euthanasia and eugenics in its immorality and I am more than comfortable having it "regulated" by the government as illegal.
The closest you came to answering my questions was with the following:
I have a specific definition of marriage that I believe is a healthy, protective and fruitful way to organize society around. I have made my judgment on the matter. However, you can not describe that judgement as "discriminatory", unfair or unjust because you have made those exact judgments on plural marriage, underage marriage, etc. Those laws are in fact regulating "marriage", plain and simple. Those laws help to define what marriage is and is not, plain and simple. And I use plural marriage in particular because there you have consenting adults (again, not hurting anybody), perhaps simply practicing their religion.
I can completely agree that a marriage state between a man and a woman is the ideal... it is what Nature (read: God, Creator, evolution, happy accident) obviously intended. The whole study of biology tells us this, with no ambiguity whatsoever. That doesn't mean that the government automatically gets to determine that it is the ONLY option available to rational adults that choose to go against nature and aren't hurting anyone else in the process.
The most obvious analogy that comes to mind is the drinking of alcohol. Alcohol (specifically, ethyl alcohol, or grain spirits) is a mild poison that, if consumed in enough quantity, can kill a person. It does permanent damage when abused, and can effect an individual's abilities to a degree that makes them a danger to others. The government attempted to ban the production, possession and use of alcohol once already (through the very means you are advocating now), and the results speak for themselves. I am a rational, right-thinking adult and I am perfectly willing to take on the individual responsibility that comes with drinking... I know the dangers and choose to adjust my behavior accordingly or face the consequences. Much "immoral" behavior can be shown to stem from the abuse of alcohol, yet I still feel society is better off since the government decided NOT to ban booze altogether, but to leave the final decision up to the individual States and the individual citizens themselves as to how they will regulate the issue and punish those that abuse it. I also feel that statistics support my opinion.
Multiple marriages, child marriages, and any obviously abusive associations that you wish to hold up as examples of the "evil" associated with a deviant lifestyle are also regulated by the government... because they are harmful to individuals that are either not part of the decision making process involved or are incapable of making the decisions themselves. That kind of regulation protects the innocent, and thus society in general. Just like it is a crime to drive drunk: we are punishing the INDIVIDUAL who abuses the privilege, not removing the privilege altogether.
Finally, from your last post:
You claim that the government has the right to regulate but not "define" marriage...
I did not say that. I did suggest that this society (at this point in history) will be unwilling, and possibly unable, to define it by the means you have described as ideal: a Constitutional amendment. I did say that, were that unlikely situation to arise, I would support it with every fiber of my being.
More to the point, I have said all along that the reasons for denying gays the ability to gain and hold the same status as heterosexual couples seem completely rooted in "moral" reasoning that, while perfectly understandable to me as a Catholic and an individual, fail to meet the requirements of government purvue as defined by the Constitution itself. I WANT to do whatever I can to protect the traditional nuclear family lifestyle in this nation, but I fail to see where I (or the Federal Government) has the RIGHT to mandate that lifestyle as the only option available to every person in this country, especially when those same people are denied benefits or status because they choose NOT to follow that lifestyle.
Why can't we discuss how to get gay couples the same benefits and tax-status as heterosexual married couples? That, in my eyes, is the root of the trouble all around. As I said before, "separate but equal" has been determined to be un-Constitutional, so rather than re-inventing the wheel, let's discuss how to fix the wheels we have so that no one is left off the cart.
Is that so wrong?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
