Today there was a murder in Wichita, Kansas that should sadden us all. Dr. George Tiller, a well known abortionist, was gunned down in a church. While I do not agree with his chosen profession I never can rationalize the murder of another human being in the name of any cause.
For those who know me I have been active in the pro-life movement for several years and committed to the cause all of my life. The people I associate with are passionate about this cause but never condone violence as an expression of their passion. You will rarely see us at any protests, rather we choose to provide information and services to pregnant women that are faced with the daunting choice of whether to terminate a pregnancy. We offer counseling, ultrasounds, and prayer. We believe that life begins at conception and that we have a moral responsibility to help the unborn child make its way into this world. Our services are free of charge and we provide them without government funding, unless tax exempt status counts as such. Trust me, the donations we receive are all dedicated to the services we provide. There is no financial profit in this business!
The reason for the above explanation is that 99.9% of the people involved in the pro-life movement are just like us. They don't bomb abortion clinics, shoot people, or become violent in any fashion. We may believe abortion to be murder but that is a moral judgment, not a legal one. This moral judgment does not justify violence against another human being, no matter what.
The people that do bomb abortion clinics or shoot people in the name of stopping abortions are sick and twisted individuals that need to be brought to justice.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Should Principles Be Defended?
The buzz in the news is about Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. The fawning press hailed her as the "most experienced judge ever to be nominated" and elected and self-appointed hispanic leaders lined up behind any microphone they could find to sing her praises. The reports on the day she was presented would make one look skyward to see if she was riding on a chariot from the heavens to save us. Everyone told us she was a lock for confirmation.
Well, as is usually the case all that glitters is not gold and information has come out on some of her opinions that have some conservatives as well as liberals attacking her. The liberals are concerned that her Catholic faith and sparce record on abortion may make her vulnerable to the likes of Scalia and Thomas to bring her to the dark side of pro-life. The conservatives have a couple of issues with her. First, Sotomayor has made statements to the effect that it is the job of the judiciary to legislate from the bench. Most conservatives believe it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the consititution, not change it. That is left to the Congress and the states. The second issue has to do with a ruling on a reverse discrimination case on which she heard the appeal and which she she made some rather questionable statements about. She made the statement that she, as a Latina judge, could make a better ruling than a white male judge because she was a Latina. Such a statement made by a white male judge would doom him to career purgatory. Apparently, most people on both sides of the isle thinks its okay because they are lining up to defend her.
Enter Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, who both called her out as a racist. Whoa! I thought only white males could be racists!!!! We have apparently reach a point in our struggle for equality when minorities can achieve that vaulted status as well. Of course, Rush and Newt are now being called racists for calling her one. They are being admonished by the "leaders" of the Republican party to "shut up". As you might guess Rush has made it the centerpoint of his show since she was nominated. He puts forth a compelling argument against her nomination. Both he and Newt will show up on the talk shows tomorrow and will be assailed for their statements.
The arguments from the Republican "leadership", which does not include Rush or Newt, is that this is not a fight they want to have. With the strong Democrat majority in the Senate and the fact that she is hispanic they see fighting her nomination as a losing proposition. Unless she has some undisclosed dirty linen that would force her to withdraw her nomination she will most likely be confirmed. She is already an icon with hispanic leaders and anything other than a coronation will alienate them from her detractors. So the Republicans have conceded her confirmation with the hopes of currying favor with the growing power of the hispanic vote.
Now you know why I turned in my Republican card. The purpose of the confirmation process is to examine the record of the nominee to determine if they can serve as a fair and impartial jurist in interpreting the constitution of the U.S. All evidence is gathered and brought forth to assure that the person is qualified to serve. This is so important because they are the final arbiter of justice in our country and much of our lives are being directed by rulings they make. Add to that the lifetime appointment, a judge can serve 20 years or more.
What really aggravates me is the attempts to silence her critics from the right. The last time I checked they have a right to express their opinions as long as they are not libelous or slanderous. I may not agree with them but defend their right to say it. Let it all be part of the discussion on her qualifications and let the chips fall where they may. My guess is that both Newt and Rush realize that they are probably not going to succeed in twarting her confirmation but the fact that they will jump in the water to defend their principles in reason for admiration.
Well, as is usually the case all that glitters is not gold and information has come out on some of her opinions that have some conservatives as well as liberals attacking her. The liberals are concerned that her Catholic faith and sparce record on abortion may make her vulnerable to the likes of Scalia and Thomas to bring her to the dark side of pro-life. The conservatives have a couple of issues with her. First, Sotomayor has made statements to the effect that it is the job of the judiciary to legislate from the bench. Most conservatives believe it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the consititution, not change it. That is left to the Congress and the states. The second issue has to do with a ruling on a reverse discrimination case on which she heard the appeal and which she she made some rather questionable statements about. She made the statement that she, as a Latina judge, could make a better ruling than a white male judge because she was a Latina. Such a statement made by a white male judge would doom him to career purgatory. Apparently, most people on both sides of the isle thinks its okay because they are lining up to defend her.
Enter Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, who both called her out as a racist. Whoa! I thought only white males could be racists!!!! We have apparently reach a point in our struggle for equality when minorities can achieve that vaulted status as well. Of course, Rush and Newt are now being called racists for calling her one. They are being admonished by the "leaders" of the Republican party to "shut up". As you might guess Rush has made it the centerpoint of his show since she was nominated. He puts forth a compelling argument against her nomination. Both he and Newt will show up on the talk shows tomorrow and will be assailed for their statements.
The arguments from the Republican "leadership", which does not include Rush or Newt, is that this is not a fight they want to have. With the strong Democrat majority in the Senate and the fact that she is hispanic they see fighting her nomination as a losing proposition. Unless she has some undisclosed dirty linen that would force her to withdraw her nomination she will most likely be confirmed. She is already an icon with hispanic leaders and anything other than a coronation will alienate them from her detractors. So the Republicans have conceded her confirmation with the hopes of currying favor with the growing power of the hispanic vote.
Now you know why I turned in my Republican card. The purpose of the confirmation process is to examine the record of the nominee to determine if they can serve as a fair and impartial jurist in interpreting the constitution of the U.S. All evidence is gathered and brought forth to assure that the person is qualified to serve. This is so important because they are the final arbiter of justice in our country and much of our lives are being directed by rulings they make. Add to that the lifetime appointment, a judge can serve 20 years or more.
What really aggravates me is the attempts to silence her critics from the right. The last time I checked they have a right to express their opinions as long as they are not libelous or slanderous. I may not agree with them but defend their right to say it. Let it all be part of the discussion on her qualifications and let the chips fall where they may. My guess is that both Newt and Rush realize that they are probably not going to succeed in twarting her confirmation but the fact that they will jump in the water to defend their principles in reason for admiration.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The California Way
Today the State Supreme Court of California upheld the ban on same sex unions. By a vote of 6 to 1 they decided that the ban was constitutional but made legitimate the 18,000 unions that were performed before the ban was passed. The latter part was a clear attempt to appease the gay rights activists. Guess what didn't work! Let the hissy fits begin!
Almost immediately the activists in major cities took to the streets to protest this miscarriage of justice. I am sure that, over the next week, we will be treated to marches and speeches. The Sunday talk shows will be scouring the land far and wide for their on gay expert to tell the world of this travesty. Legal challenges are being formulated as we speak, ready to take on that backward-assed electorate in California that voted for such a ban.
Wait a minute here! Let's step back and look at this objectively. National estimates of the homosexual population range from 5% to 20%, depending on who is grinding the axe. My guess is that it is in the neighborhood of 10%. So when 90% of the population's beliefs are 180 degrees from yours what reasonable person would expect to win that fight? Even in a liberal state such as California it isn't a fair fight. So the homosexual advocates believe they should have it because they want it? It was a totally uncharacteristic display of a spine by the Supreme Court as well as the voters of California.
Look, as much as I abhor the debasement of the institution of marriage by these "whatever" unions I respect the rights of the states and their voters to decide whether they want to legitimize them. The steady line of states doing so is troubling to me but my judgment is not what they should be concerned with. There is a greater moral standard that is being tested. I would hope that this will be considered by the states as they face the same decision that California did.
Almost immediately the activists in major cities took to the streets to protest this miscarriage of justice. I am sure that, over the next week, we will be treated to marches and speeches. The Sunday talk shows will be scouring the land far and wide for their on gay expert to tell the world of this travesty. Legal challenges are being formulated as we speak, ready to take on that backward-assed electorate in California that voted for such a ban.
Wait a minute here! Let's step back and look at this objectively. National estimates of the homosexual population range from 5% to 20%, depending on who is grinding the axe. My guess is that it is in the neighborhood of 10%. So when 90% of the population's beliefs are 180 degrees from yours what reasonable person would expect to win that fight? Even in a liberal state such as California it isn't a fair fight. So the homosexual advocates believe they should have it because they want it? It was a totally uncharacteristic display of a spine by the Supreme Court as well as the voters of California.
Look, as much as I abhor the debasement of the institution of marriage by these "whatever" unions I respect the rights of the states and their voters to decide whether they want to legitimize them. The steady line of states doing so is troubling to me but my judgment is not what they should be concerned with. There is a greater moral standard that is being tested. I would hope that this will be considered by the states as they face the same decision that California did.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Is It Worth Fighting For?
Seems the latest flap is about the fight for control of the Republican Party. After the dismal showing in the last two general elections some might wonder. In two short years the Republicans went from control of both houses of Congress and the White House to being in control of none of them at the beginning of the year. It's not even close anymore! So, of course, the natural thing to do is start fighting among yourselves with the goal of establishing a particular faction as representative of the party.
The Conservatives, whose heyday began with Reagan and ended with W's first term, see their approach as the salvation of the party. The problem is that the best they can do for leadership is Rush Limbaugh. Sure they have a bunch of wannabes out there with about as much charisma as drying paint. Such guys as Mike Pence and Eric Cantor would like to be the Conservatives standard bearers. The problem is that the party doesn't seem to want to go that direction. At the first of the year the party elected Michael Steele as its chairman. His major attributes are being black and a moderate. The Conservatives that once elected Haley Barbour as the chairman were either on vacation or not in a position to influence this selection.
So it appears that the Moderates have taken the day. Michael Steele and Colin Powell are the face of the new Republican Party and the party faithful (other moderates) the likes of Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Tom Ridge want the party to move toward the center in order to appeal to more of the population. They also want the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Reagan to "shut up". They believe that the social conservatives will scare away the moderates they so covet.
Let's assume they get their way and the Republican Party becomes a "moderate" party. Just what does that mean? What are their principles and what will be the platform? Essentially, what will distinguish them from the Democrats? Here are a few major areas Democrats and Republicans have differed on in the last 30 years:
Education
Abortion
Government regulation
Economic policy
Foreign policy
Military strength
To tell the truth in the last five years they haven't been very far apart on these issues. In fact, Bush, along with his shipmates in Congress, spent money like a drunken sailor and moved closer to the Democrats in most of the areas. However, such was not the case with Reagan. So maybe we should do like Jeb Bush suggests and forget about Reagan. Living in the past does nobody any good.
This is one indisputable fact: in all recent successful Republican presidential campaigns the candidate ran as a conservative. The general population of the U.S. is more conservative than the press and democrats would have you believe. But they don't believe you are a conservative just because they call themselves one (ask John McCain). I believe these voters will be turned off by this new moderate Republican Party and the party will soon attain the insignificance they had in the '60's and '70's.
As for me the answer to the question is NO, it is not worth fighting for. I will be looking for that leader or party that will not require that I surrender my values to play in their sand box. Until then my shredder will continue to deal with the Republican solicitations for money.
The Conservatives, whose heyday began with Reagan and ended with W's first term, see their approach as the salvation of the party. The problem is that the best they can do for leadership is Rush Limbaugh. Sure they have a bunch of wannabes out there with about as much charisma as drying paint. Such guys as Mike Pence and Eric Cantor would like to be the Conservatives standard bearers. The problem is that the party doesn't seem to want to go that direction. At the first of the year the party elected Michael Steele as its chairman. His major attributes are being black and a moderate. The Conservatives that once elected Haley Barbour as the chairman were either on vacation or not in a position to influence this selection.
So it appears that the Moderates have taken the day. Michael Steele and Colin Powell are the face of the new Republican Party and the party faithful (other moderates) the likes of Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Tom Ridge want the party to move toward the center in order to appeal to more of the population. They also want the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Reagan to "shut up". They believe that the social conservatives will scare away the moderates they so covet.
Let's assume they get their way and the Republican Party becomes a "moderate" party. Just what does that mean? What are their principles and what will be the platform? Essentially, what will distinguish them from the Democrats? Here are a few major areas Democrats and Republicans have differed on in the last 30 years:
Education
Abortion
Government regulation
Economic policy
Foreign policy
Military strength
To tell the truth in the last five years they haven't been very far apart on these issues. In fact, Bush, along with his shipmates in Congress, spent money like a drunken sailor and moved closer to the Democrats in most of the areas. However, such was not the case with Reagan. So maybe we should do like Jeb Bush suggests and forget about Reagan. Living in the past does nobody any good.
This is one indisputable fact: in all recent successful Republican presidential campaigns the candidate ran as a conservative. The general population of the U.S. is more conservative than the press and democrats would have you believe. But they don't believe you are a conservative just because they call themselves one (ask John McCain). I believe these voters will be turned off by this new moderate Republican Party and the party will soon attain the insignificance they had in the '60's and '70's.
As for me the answer to the question is NO, it is not worth fighting for. I will be looking for that leader or party that will not require that I surrender my values to play in their sand box. Until then my shredder will continue to deal with the Republican solicitations for money.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Don't They Make You Proud?
Every odd numbered year for about the first five months of that year Austin, Texas experiences a circus that gives Barnum & Bailey a run for their money : the regular session of the Texas Legislature. Such times are legend around here, filled with DWI legislators, fistfights in the chambers, legislators caught with prostitutes, etc. You get the drift; a grand time is had by all. They do manage to work in a little of the people's business during their five month toga party so I guess they earn part of their $600 per month salary.
The wackiest part of the entire process is caused by the finality of the session. They have until a date certain, this year it's June 1st, to complete and pass all bills. This deadline creates mini-deadlines weeks before the final day that bills must be approved. Any bill not meeting these deadlines are essentially killed for the session. The only way they can be considered if not passed in this session is for the Governor to call a special session. He decides what is considered during the special sessions.
This is the end of May so, as if on cue, they are getting crazy once again. As usual they have a backlog of bills that need to get approved soon. The problem is that there is one bill that seems to really be bothering the Democrats and that is the Voter Identification Act. This would require voters to show a form of identification that would indicate their eligibility to vote. It passed to the final stages in both the House and Senate but not by huge margins. The Dems really don't want this passed! So this year they are employing a delaying tactic called chubbing where they use the maximum allotted time for the bills in considered thereby threatening the almost certain failure of those left unconsidered when time runs out. Kind of a mini filabuster on hundreds of pieces of legislation. They are trying to get the supporters of the Voter ID bill to pull it from consideration in order to save important legislation that may die due to time constraints.
Lest you think this an anomoly let me assure you something like this happens just about every session. Years ago a group of liberal Democrat Senators absconded to New Mexico to deny the senate a quorum, thereby halting business of the Senate. Of course this is a violation of state law so the governor initiated a seach by state troopers to bring them back to the capital. Of course they had no idea where they were. Quorum breaking attempts such as these have provided some great entertainment over the years but have also made the Texas Legislature a national laughing stock.
Who knows how this will end? Likely there will be some legislation that will die but that may be a blessing. Regardless, you can rest assured that two years from now some kind of high school stuff such as this will be going on. In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "It's like deja vu all over again".
The wackiest part of the entire process is caused by the finality of the session. They have until a date certain, this year it's June 1st, to complete and pass all bills. This deadline creates mini-deadlines weeks before the final day that bills must be approved. Any bill not meeting these deadlines are essentially killed for the session. The only way they can be considered if not passed in this session is for the Governor to call a special session. He decides what is considered during the special sessions.
This is the end of May so, as if on cue, they are getting crazy once again. As usual they have a backlog of bills that need to get approved soon. The problem is that there is one bill that seems to really be bothering the Democrats and that is the Voter Identification Act. This would require voters to show a form of identification that would indicate their eligibility to vote. It passed to the final stages in both the House and Senate but not by huge margins. The Dems really don't want this passed! So this year they are employing a delaying tactic called chubbing where they use the maximum allotted time for the bills in considered thereby threatening the almost certain failure of those left unconsidered when time runs out. Kind of a mini filabuster on hundreds of pieces of legislation. They are trying to get the supporters of the Voter ID bill to pull it from consideration in order to save important legislation that may die due to time constraints.
Lest you think this an anomoly let me assure you something like this happens just about every session. Years ago a group of liberal Democrat Senators absconded to New Mexico to deny the senate a quorum, thereby halting business of the Senate. Of course this is a violation of state law so the governor initiated a seach by state troopers to bring them back to the capital. Of course they had no idea where they were. Quorum breaking attempts such as these have provided some great entertainment over the years but have also made the Texas Legislature a national laughing stock.
Who knows how this will end? Likely there will be some legislation that will die but that may be a blessing. Regardless, you can rest assured that two years from now some kind of high school stuff such as this will be going on. In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "It's like deja vu all over again".
Friday, May 22, 2009
California Dreaming?
We just returned early Tuesday morning from a short trip to Southern California. My wife and I try to go for a visit with relatives every year or two. The weather was nice and we had a good visit but I must share my observations of the political situation "on the ground" in the state.
The current problem with the state is they don't have any money. Really, NONE! They recently suspended payment of state income tax refunds. The reason they have no money is because they have been spending it like they do. You can get by with that for a little while if you have a booming economy but once it slows down you realize how short your going to be. In there case the latest estimate I have heard is $42 billion. This is not chump change I don't care how big the state is!
So the Governator and the legislature have been fighting back and forth trying to come up with a fix. First they looked to Uncle Sam to bail them out with that stimulus money. Hey the banks were getting it, auto manufacturers got a little so why not the state the Democrats love most? Well, it didn't work out that way. Seems the Obama administration was really only interest in giving money out to specific projects that will make them look good. Keeping state government workers on the dole didn't meet that criteria. So the money they did get really couldn't fix their problem.
Second, with California being the king of initiative and referendum, They put a bunch of propositions on the ballot that would have knocked off $15 billion from the deficit. Tuesday, all but one of those propositions were defeated soundly with an extremely low turnout. The one that did pass served to freeze the salaries of high ranking public officials, whatever that means. So, with no other choice Arnie sends out pink slips for 20,000 state workers. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin!!!!!! Apparently nobody told them that government jobs can go away just like private sector ones. It must be in the state constitution that all jobs in California are lifetime appointment with a minimum cost of living raise each year.
In an unrelated incident (or was it a sign?) we experienced an earthquake with the epicenter about a mile from where my wife was at the time. Only a 4.7 but significant to a Texas girl! That, with the teachers and other government workers rounding up their pitchforks Monday night seem to be a great time to get back to the protection of our wonderful state legislature trying to wrap up their business.
Seriously, I am not making fun of people that may be about to loose their jobs. These are scary times for these people, most with families that rely on this income for their very existence. And it doesn't end there. There will have to be cuts in social programs such as MediCal, witch provide health care for the poor including those that live in nursing homes. The predictions are that these most vulnerable groups will pay the highest price. Unless a miracle happens they are in for some really hard times.
What angers me is that these clowns that call themselves leaders along with the spoiled children they call a constituency are responsible for this mess. For years the state that prides itself on its environmentalism and being the trendsetter for the rest of the country has always tried to been seen as very progressive. Offshore drilling? Not off our beaches! Emission standards used by the rest of the country? Not good enough! Every feel-good project to come along they were crawling all over each other to take credit for it. The irony is that they would get shot down on tax increases to pay for the excesses by the same people that wanted them. So you want to provide cradle to grave social services for the invasion of illegals from Mexico but don't want to pay for it? That's a good deal if you can get it.
So it is time for them to grow up in California and realize that the cuts will happen one way or another; either they make them or the checks will start bouncing!
The current problem with the state is they don't have any money. Really, NONE! They recently suspended payment of state income tax refunds. The reason they have no money is because they have been spending it like they do. You can get by with that for a little while if you have a booming economy but once it slows down you realize how short your going to be. In there case the latest estimate I have heard is $42 billion. This is not chump change I don't care how big the state is!
So the Governator and the legislature have been fighting back and forth trying to come up with a fix. First they looked to Uncle Sam to bail them out with that stimulus money. Hey the banks were getting it, auto manufacturers got a little so why not the state the Democrats love most? Well, it didn't work out that way. Seems the Obama administration was really only interest in giving money out to specific projects that will make them look good. Keeping state government workers on the dole didn't meet that criteria. So the money they did get really couldn't fix their problem.
Second, with California being the king of initiative and referendum, They put a bunch of propositions on the ballot that would have knocked off $15 billion from the deficit. Tuesday, all but one of those propositions were defeated soundly with an extremely low turnout. The one that did pass served to freeze the salaries of high ranking public officials, whatever that means. So, with no other choice Arnie sends out pink slips for 20,000 state workers. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin!!!!!! Apparently nobody told them that government jobs can go away just like private sector ones. It must be in the state constitution that all jobs in California are lifetime appointment with a minimum cost of living raise each year.
In an unrelated incident (or was it a sign?) we experienced an earthquake with the epicenter about a mile from where my wife was at the time. Only a 4.7 but significant to a Texas girl! That, with the teachers and other government workers rounding up their pitchforks Monday night seem to be a great time to get back to the protection of our wonderful state legislature trying to wrap up their business.
Seriously, I am not making fun of people that may be about to loose their jobs. These are scary times for these people, most with families that rely on this income for their very existence. And it doesn't end there. There will have to be cuts in social programs such as MediCal, witch provide health care for the poor including those that live in nursing homes. The predictions are that these most vulnerable groups will pay the highest price. Unless a miracle happens they are in for some really hard times.
What angers me is that these clowns that call themselves leaders along with the spoiled children they call a constituency are responsible for this mess. For years the state that prides itself on its environmentalism and being the trendsetter for the rest of the country has always tried to been seen as very progressive. Offshore drilling? Not off our beaches! Emission standards used by the rest of the country? Not good enough! Every feel-good project to come along they were crawling all over each other to take credit for it. The irony is that they would get shot down on tax increases to pay for the excesses by the same people that wanted them. So you want to provide cradle to grave social services for the invasion of illegals from Mexico but don't want to pay for it? That's a good deal if you can get it.
So it is time for them to grow up in California and realize that the cuts will happen one way or another; either they make them or the checks will start bouncing!
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Free Speech of Beauty Queens
One of my guilty pleasures in life is watching the so-called beautiful people in this world open their mouths and make fools of themselves. An arena rife with such opportunities is beauty pageants. Who could ever forget Miss Teen South Carolina explaining to us why Americans can't find anything on a map? Seems everyone of these debacles of late has someone sticking their foot in their mouth up to their hip. Apparently this is some lame attempt by pageant operators to impress us with the intelligence of their contestants. I do not doubt that some of these women are smart; just not very good ad libbing.
Now comes the saga of Miss California in the Miss U.S.A. contest a couple of weeks ago. To a question about same-sex marriages she responded that she believed that marriage was between a man and a woman and that she opposed granting marital rights to homosexual couples. I am paraphrasing but you get the gist. It was one of the more straightforward answers I had heard to one of these beauty pageant questions and I thought nothing of it. Obviously I am totally out of touch. One of the judges, Perez Hilton, went off on his own little hissy fit about it and claimed that she lost the crown of Miss U.S.A. based on that answer. He had some other demeaning statements about her but, since I am not the president of the Perez Hilton fan club I'll let you Google it for yourself. Smelling blood, the media got out their shovels and dug up the following information on Cari Prejean; she has had breast augmentations and she made some risque pictures when she was seventeen. The objective was very clear: punish her for having an opinion different from theirs. Forces with the pageant sought to have her title as Miss California stripped from her and throw her naked (augmented) body in San Francisco Bay. That last part was a joke but probably their secret desire.
This all culminated yesterday with her tearfully defending her right to express her opinion because her grandfather fought with Patton for that right. After hours of examing these photos (God knows how many), that great arbiter of justice, Donald Trump, decided that the photos did not violate the morals clause of his pageant and she would keep her crown. All is right in Pageant Land once again and, with some luck, we will hear little more about it going forward.
Seriously, we can all learn a several valuable lessons from the experience of Ms. Prejean. First, know your audience. She obviously did not realize the views of the judges of the pageant were markedly different from hers and, with state after state recently voting to allow the abomination of same sex marriage, the judges were not interested in her opinion, just mouthing a statement that supported them and the rest of the entertainment industry. Second, the right to speak your mind does not bar people from critizing you. I admire her somewhat inconsistent convictions to a traditional definition of marriage there is more to taking a position than mouthing a couple of sentences. The people opposed to her are ready for a fight and they have microphones. Finally, the traditional morality in this country has been replaced by whatever form of moral relativism the media and pop culture decides it to be. It will continue to erode as long as we keep letting it.
Ms. Prejean, if you can't bring your A game to the fight, shut up!
Now comes the saga of Miss California in the Miss U.S.A. contest a couple of weeks ago. To a question about same-sex marriages she responded that she believed that marriage was between a man and a woman and that she opposed granting marital rights to homosexual couples. I am paraphrasing but you get the gist. It was one of the more straightforward answers I had heard to one of these beauty pageant questions and I thought nothing of it. Obviously I am totally out of touch. One of the judges, Perez Hilton, went off on his own little hissy fit about it and claimed that she lost the crown of Miss U.S.A. based on that answer. He had some other demeaning statements about her but, since I am not the president of the Perez Hilton fan club I'll let you Google it for yourself. Smelling blood, the media got out their shovels and dug up the following information on Cari Prejean; she has had breast augmentations and she made some risque pictures when she was seventeen. The objective was very clear: punish her for having an opinion different from theirs. Forces with the pageant sought to have her title as Miss California stripped from her and throw her naked (augmented) body in San Francisco Bay. That last part was a joke but probably their secret desire.
This all culminated yesterday with her tearfully defending her right to express her opinion because her grandfather fought with Patton for that right. After hours of examing these photos (God knows how many), that great arbiter of justice, Donald Trump, decided that the photos did not violate the morals clause of his pageant and she would keep her crown. All is right in Pageant Land once again and, with some luck, we will hear little more about it going forward.
Seriously, we can all learn a several valuable lessons from the experience of Ms. Prejean. First, know your audience. She obviously did not realize the views of the judges of the pageant were markedly different from hers and, with state after state recently voting to allow the abomination of same sex marriage, the judges were not interested in her opinion, just mouthing a statement that supported them and the rest of the entertainment industry. Second, the right to speak your mind does not bar people from critizing you. I admire her somewhat inconsistent convictions to a traditional definition of marriage there is more to taking a position than mouthing a couple of sentences. The people opposed to her are ready for a fight and they have microphones. Finally, the traditional morality in this country has been replaced by whatever form of moral relativism the media and pop culture decides it to be. It will continue to erode as long as we keep letting it.
Ms. Prejean, if you can't bring your A game to the fight, shut up!
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Nancy Caught in a Lie!
The Sunday talk shows were entertaining today! Dick Cheney (a.k.a. Darth Vader) is on the attack over the alleged torture of enemy combatants. He is pressing for the release of classified information that documents what was gleaned from the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques used on them. Specifically, what did we learn and what attacks did this information stop? He is also disputing the claims by well-placed Democrat leaders that they were not briefed about these techniques. Well, just so happens Nancy Pelosi, then a ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed multiple times and made public statements that supported it. Oops!
Now the fact that a politician got caught in a lie is nothing to write home about. In fact, finding one that will fess up to it would be groundbreaking indeed. The point is that she has been on such a witch hunt wanting to indict Cheney for war crimes that her amnesia got the best of her. I think this is the reason the dems have backed off prosecutions associated with the EIT's because they are finding culpability in their own ranks. They are both finding that their support of using these techniques when they were happening would not be so easily excused if they go after Cheney. So now they want to let it all die away, quietly.
Not so fast! They have spent a great deal of time calling the EIT's torture, besmirching the reputations of the CIA, the military, and anyone associated with authorizing them. This all being done to placate the very left of their base. I say we lay out everything; a public venting of our spleens, if you will. Every congressman, senator, aide, appointed or elected politician, or even the butler to W. that may have had some knowledge of these interrogations should be hauled up by a special prosecutor and made to pay for their crimes. That means Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, as well as the Republicans they are salivating to indict should be hauled up for public ridicule and punishment.
Of course, this will never happen. It was never about torture! It was about getting even with W. and the Republicans for "stealing" the 2000 election. The Dems couldn't care less about what we did to that human waste we interrogated to prevent another attack. They were disappointed that there was not a successful one! They are calling it torture now like the little kid in a ball game saying that the only reason the other team won is they cheated. Give me a break!
Whether or not "torture" was used is open for debate. Interrogations to be successful must make the person being interrogated uncomfortable. Second, he must not know for sure how far you will go. If he thinks we will stop at sleep deprivation, for example, he can set his mind at ease that it will not get any worse. I have read of the methods used and do not consider them torture. Would I like them done to me? No. But then I would rather be waterboarded than a public beheading! In the high stakes nature of terrorism they only have to be successful once to impact thousands of lives. (Remember 9/11?) The Geneva Convention set out rules for "civilized" warfare, including treatment of prisoners. The problem is that most countries do not observe them. Executing our soldiers, dragging their dead bodies through the streets, torturing them (the real thing) were common place in Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, Germany, Japan, etc. I do not recall us stooping to their levels of human mistreatment.
In an ideal world we would all come together and sit down at a table and work out our differences. There would be no need for the vast military forces maintained by countries around the world. The problem is that such a world has never existed and never will! There will always be countries wanting to force their will on other countries either for financial gain, political gain, or religious zealotry. The only thing that makes an impression on these folks is that they know what will happen if they do something stupid. (Remember Afganistan?) If we show what they believe to be weakness (compassion, high ideals) resulting in lesser consequences, they might be emboldened to attack again. They believe we don't have the stomach for battle and I am beginning to agree with them.
Now the fact that a politician got caught in a lie is nothing to write home about. In fact, finding one that will fess up to it would be groundbreaking indeed. The point is that she has been on such a witch hunt wanting to indict Cheney for war crimes that her amnesia got the best of her. I think this is the reason the dems have backed off prosecutions associated with the EIT's because they are finding culpability in their own ranks. They are both finding that their support of using these techniques when they were happening would not be so easily excused if they go after Cheney. So now they want to let it all die away, quietly.
Not so fast! They have spent a great deal of time calling the EIT's torture, besmirching the reputations of the CIA, the military, and anyone associated with authorizing them. This all being done to placate the very left of their base. I say we lay out everything; a public venting of our spleens, if you will. Every congressman, senator, aide, appointed or elected politician, or even the butler to W. that may have had some knowledge of these interrogations should be hauled up by a special prosecutor and made to pay for their crimes. That means Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, as well as the Republicans they are salivating to indict should be hauled up for public ridicule and punishment.
Of course, this will never happen. It was never about torture! It was about getting even with W. and the Republicans for "stealing" the 2000 election. The Dems couldn't care less about what we did to that human waste we interrogated to prevent another attack. They were disappointed that there was not a successful one! They are calling it torture now like the little kid in a ball game saying that the only reason the other team won is they cheated. Give me a break!
Whether or not "torture" was used is open for debate. Interrogations to be successful must make the person being interrogated uncomfortable. Second, he must not know for sure how far you will go. If he thinks we will stop at sleep deprivation, for example, he can set his mind at ease that it will not get any worse. I have read of the methods used and do not consider them torture. Would I like them done to me? No. But then I would rather be waterboarded than a public beheading! In the high stakes nature of terrorism they only have to be successful once to impact thousands of lives. (Remember 9/11?) The Geneva Convention set out rules for "civilized" warfare, including treatment of prisoners. The problem is that most countries do not observe them. Executing our soldiers, dragging their dead bodies through the streets, torturing them (the real thing) were common place in Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, Germany, Japan, etc. I do not recall us stooping to their levels of human mistreatment.
In an ideal world we would all come together and sit down at a table and work out our differences. There would be no need for the vast military forces maintained by countries around the world. The problem is that such a world has never existed and never will! There will always be countries wanting to force their will on other countries either for financial gain, political gain, or religious zealotry. The only thing that makes an impression on these folks is that they know what will happen if they do something stupid. (Remember Afganistan?) If we show what they believe to be weakness (compassion, high ideals) resulting in lesser consequences, they might be emboldened to attack again. They believe we don't have the stomach for battle and I am beginning to agree with them.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Listen To This!
On Sunday I caught the majority of a re-broadcast of a town hall style meeting held in a pizza joint by three Republican leaders (?), Rep. Eric Kantor, R-VA., former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and Former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney. This event was billed as a listening tour for the Republican party; an attempt to gather information from the people about the future of the party. What resulted, in my opinion, was a pathetic attempt to move the Republican party back to its rightful place as the subserviant party in American politics. Sadly, they might succeed in this effort.
Many of us can remember the days before Ronald Reagan. The Republican Party was run by the wealthy northern establishment of the ilk of Nelson Rockefeller, Gearld Ford, and Richard Nixon. You had to kiss the rings of the power brokers in order to succeed in the party. The Republicans were out of touch with the working man and, therefore, secured their place as a minority party. The party would take the White House more on the personality of the candidate they put forth than on the ideals of the party platform. Regardless, the Democrats solidly controlled congress and assured their agendas would be considered strongly if not rule.
Then came the Reagan Revolution. Not only was he a great communicator but his conservative ideas struck a chord with the people. He was the right leader to fix the mess caused by Jimmy Carter and the Democrats in the late 70's and set the country on a path to prosperity. He successfully went over the heads of the Congress and saw his agenda implemented. His foreign policy drove the last nail into the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc and, when the dust settled, we are the world's only super power. George H.W. Bush ran on and won with a Reaganesque platform but then governed like a Democrat. George W. Bush ran as a conservative and invoked Reagan's name but spent more like a drunken sailor than an fiscal conservative. So in the last four years the country has turned decidedly back to the Democratic Party. This is more about the lack of leaders in the Republican Party than the ideas of the Democrats.
Let me make this clear: The Republicans have a bunch of wannabes clamoring for a seat at the table. Many of them are faces from the past such as Romney, Jeb Bush, and Newt Gingrich. Most of them have adopted the mantra to forget about Reagan, stop being nostalgic, etc. They are all in on the social engineering that has been occurring since 1964 just with less government control of it. I don't see much difference between them and their Democrat counterparts; definately not enough difference to inspire me to support them.
So where is the future of the Republican Party? If the party is to return to the leadership prominence of the past it will require new visionary leaders. These will probably come from outside Washington, probably governors. There are a number of good prospects in the House of Representatives. You can usually hear them on C-Span giving speeches from the floor during dinner each night. None of them will break out from there. Too much noise and shouting to be heard.
There is a good litmus test to identify those individuals that have potential. If you see the press attacking someone with the fury of a rabid dog, that must be someone that scares them. And since the press is a prominent wing of the Democrat party they must be scared as well. They tried it with Reagan and it didn't work. They did it to Newt, W. and others. But of late their passion has been toward the destruction of Sarah Palin. Since her nomination as VP running mate last summer there has been a orchestrated effort to destroy her personally and professionally. Nothing was off limits. The goal of the media and Democrats is to taint her permanently so she has no significance in the future.
Why does this governor from one of the least populated states invoke such ire? Because she can connect with people! She does not have that blue blood pedigree, (she didn't go to Harvard or even Yale), and she is not rich. Palin is like so many of us, raising families and facing day-to-day challenges that are foreign to most in politics. She is optimistic and communicates a positive message. No wonder they hate her!
So Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are their targets right now but watch for new targets as they dare speak up. I am optimistic that they are out there. Whether they have the courage to seize the opportunity is another question. I hope so.
Many of us can remember the days before Ronald Reagan. The Republican Party was run by the wealthy northern establishment of the ilk of Nelson Rockefeller, Gearld Ford, and Richard Nixon. You had to kiss the rings of the power brokers in order to succeed in the party. The Republicans were out of touch with the working man and, therefore, secured their place as a minority party. The party would take the White House more on the personality of the candidate they put forth than on the ideals of the party platform. Regardless, the Democrats solidly controlled congress and assured their agendas would be considered strongly if not rule.
Then came the Reagan Revolution. Not only was he a great communicator but his conservative ideas struck a chord with the people. He was the right leader to fix the mess caused by Jimmy Carter and the Democrats in the late 70's and set the country on a path to prosperity. He successfully went over the heads of the Congress and saw his agenda implemented. His foreign policy drove the last nail into the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc and, when the dust settled, we are the world's only super power. George H.W. Bush ran on and won with a Reaganesque platform but then governed like a Democrat. George W. Bush ran as a conservative and invoked Reagan's name but spent more like a drunken sailor than an fiscal conservative. So in the last four years the country has turned decidedly back to the Democratic Party. This is more about the lack of leaders in the Republican Party than the ideas of the Democrats.
Let me make this clear: The Republicans have a bunch of wannabes clamoring for a seat at the table. Many of them are faces from the past such as Romney, Jeb Bush, and Newt Gingrich. Most of them have adopted the mantra to forget about Reagan, stop being nostalgic, etc. They are all in on the social engineering that has been occurring since 1964 just with less government control of it. I don't see much difference between them and their Democrat counterparts; definately not enough difference to inspire me to support them.
So where is the future of the Republican Party? If the party is to return to the leadership prominence of the past it will require new visionary leaders. These will probably come from outside Washington, probably governors. There are a number of good prospects in the House of Representatives. You can usually hear them on C-Span giving speeches from the floor during dinner each night. None of them will break out from there. Too much noise and shouting to be heard.
There is a good litmus test to identify those individuals that have potential. If you see the press attacking someone with the fury of a rabid dog, that must be someone that scares them. And since the press is a prominent wing of the Democrat party they must be scared as well. They tried it with Reagan and it didn't work. They did it to Newt, W. and others. But of late their passion has been toward the destruction of Sarah Palin. Since her nomination as VP running mate last summer there has been a orchestrated effort to destroy her personally and professionally. Nothing was off limits. The goal of the media and Democrats is to taint her permanently so she has no significance in the future.
Why does this governor from one of the least populated states invoke such ire? Because she can connect with people! She does not have that blue blood pedigree, (she didn't go to Harvard or even Yale), and she is not rich. Palin is like so many of us, raising families and facing day-to-day challenges that are foreign to most in politics. She is optimistic and communicates a positive message. No wonder they hate her!
So Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are their targets right now but watch for new targets as they dare speak up. I am optimistic that they are out there. Whether they have the courage to seize the opportunity is another question. I hope so.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
It Should Have Died Years Ago
On Friday, Chrysler filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New York City. This was after the federal government threw billions of dollars down that black hole in hopes of saving their sorry butt. This was also after teasing everyone with a possible rescue by Fiat that would avoid bankruptcy only to find our now that bankruptcy was part of the deal to suck them in after all.
As my previous rantings have said I was totally against the government bailouts in general, and the car manufactures specifically. This deal with Chrysler has proven me to be right. If and when they emerge from bankruptcy the ownership structure will be something like this:
United Auto Workers 55%
Fiat SpA 20%
U.S. Government 8%
Canadian Government 2%
Unknown 15%
The unknown 15% will probably be secured creditors and the conversion of debt to stock. This could be less if Fiat negotiates a higher percentage through the proceedings.
The big red light in this smelly deal is the United Auto Workers owning controlling interest in the company. This assures that the outrageous labor and benefit costs that drove the company into the dirt will continue and the likelihood that Chrysler will ever become a competitive manufacturer is diminished greatly. The grand plan counts on Fiat, a successful manufacturer in Europe, will spread a little magic on Chrysler and make them successful.
I really can't place all the blame for Chrysler's demise on the UAW. A big part of their failure can be attributed to inflexibility and the failure to adapt to industry changes and consumer's choices. Chrysler's heyday was before the Arab oil embargo in 1973. Before then driving big clunkers was a status symbol and gas was less than $0.50 per gallon. Japanese cars were just starting to come on the market so their only competition was other crappy American cars built by Ford and GM. They played the "Buy American" card successfully for awhile but eventually that didn't work. So in 1980 they filed for their first bankruptcy. They were bailed out by Jimmy Carter and the U.S. government in that one, too. Much lower price tag, but a bailout nonetheless. The next 29 years were fraught with feeble attempts to compete with the Japanese imports as well as GM and Ford. While GM and Ford were making quality and reliability improvements along the way Chrysler continued to shoot itself in the foot. The only way they sold enough cars to keep them afloat was low balling on government contracts and retail sales. I purchased some of their cars for my company in the late 90's and got unreliable shoddily built cars. It only took us one round with them to eliminate Chrysler from our list.
So now that it is clear that we, the taxpayers of the U.S., are in the auto business, as well as the banking and insurance business, I am compelled to begin a boycott against any company taking bailouts from the U.S. taxpayers. That begins with Chrysler and General Motors, continues with AIG and any of the banks taking funds from the government. Right now if I wanted an American-made car it would have to be Ford or Toyota. I bank with regional banks and my brokerage firms haven't received money from Uncle Sam so I guess none of them get fired yet.
My point is that government involvement in the private sector weakens our economic system and forestalls economic failures at a greater expense than if market forces were allowed to control the demise of weak players. Being a Harvard Law School graduate does not qualify you to be the CEO at GM and many billions of dollars later it will become clear.
As my previous rantings have said I was totally against the government bailouts in general, and the car manufactures specifically. This deal with Chrysler has proven me to be right. If and when they emerge from bankruptcy the ownership structure will be something like this:
United Auto Workers 55%
Fiat SpA 20%
U.S. Government 8%
Canadian Government 2%
Unknown 15%
The unknown 15% will probably be secured creditors and the conversion of debt to stock. This could be less if Fiat negotiates a higher percentage through the proceedings.
The big red light in this smelly deal is the United Auto Workers owning controlling interest in the company. This assures that the outrageous labor and benefit costs that drove the company into the dirt will continue and the likelihood that Chrysler will ever become a competitive manufacturer is diminished greatly. The grand plan counts on Fiat, a successful manufacturer in Europe, will spread a little magic on Chrysler and make them successful.
I really can't place all the blame for Chrysler's demise on the UAW. A big part of their failure can be attributed to inflexibility and the failure to adapt to industry changes and consumer's choices. Chrysler's heyday was before the Arab oil embargo in 1973. Before then driving big clunkers was a status symbol and gas was less than $0.50 per gallon. Japanese cars were just starting to come on the market so their only competition was other crappy American cars built by Ford and GM. They played the "Buy American" card successfully for awhile but eventually that didn't work. So in 1980 they filed for their first bankruptcy. They were bailed out by Jimmy Carter and the U.S. government in that one, too. Much lower price tag, but a bailout nonetheless. The next 29 years were fraught with feeble attempts to compete with the Japanese imports as well as GM and Ford. While GM and Ford were making quality and reliability improvements along the way Chrysler continued to shoot itself in the foot. The only way they sold enough cars to keep them afloat was low balling on government contracts and retail sales. I purchased some of their cars for my company in the late 90's and got unreliable shoddily built cars. It only took us one round with them to eliminate Chrysler from our list.
So now that it is clear that we, the taxpayers of the U.S., are in the auto business, as well as the banking and insurance business, I am compelled to begin a boycott against any company taking bailouts from the U.S. taxpayers. That begins with Chrysler and General Motors, continues with AIG and any of the banks taking funds from the government. Right now if I wanted an American-made car it would have to be Ford or Toyota. I bank with regional banks and my brokerage firms haven't received money from Uncle Sam so I guess none of them get fired yet.
My point is that government involvement in the private sector weakens our economic system and forestalls economic failures at a greater expense than if market forces were allowed to control the demise of weak players. Being a Harvard Law School graduate does not qualify you to be the CEO at GM and many billions of dollars later it will become clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
