Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Where Will You Be?



If you agree with the thoughts in this video, you'll want to join in the Tea Party on July 4th. Go to the online organizing site, and find your local Tea Party - we are Taxed Enough Already!

Don't just think of yourself - think of the future generations who will still be paying for this mad spending spree!

But, Don't Question Their Patriotism!



If this isn't an attempted coup, I don't know what it. The Republicans are the properly elected heads of this legislative - they had the votes. Although some Democrats joined the Republicans, there was no shady dealing, "fudging" the ballots or qualifications, or any of that stuff.

The Democrats are using the technique of refusing to leave. Their protest is unprecedented in American politics.

I love the headline of this news report - "Republicans Seize Control of State Senate".

From the Wikipedia article:
Democrats have argued that the move was illegal, and therefore Malcolm Smith is still the majority leader and temporary president. One argument presented is that the session was adjourned before the vote to change leadership took place. According to Malcolm Smith, senator Neil Breslin had accepted a motion to adjourn, and therefore ended the session, before the Republicans were able to gain control.[11] Senator Libous argues that since his original motion was on the floor, the session could not have been adjourned. According to Libous, who based his argument upon Robert's Rules of Order, the rules of order used by the state Senate, “you cannot adjourn when a motion is on the floor.”[12] Furthermore, like all motions, motions for adjournment require a vote, which never took place before the Senators left.

Malcolm Smith claims that the attempted power shift was not legal, even if the resolution was passed,[13] and issued a statement saying that he "was elected to a two year term pursuant to a resolution passed by a majority of Senators in January 2009", and that "the purported coup was an unlawful violation of New York State law and the Senate rules" which he does not accept. However, contrary to Smith's personal opinion, the Majority Leader is not elected to a fixed term, but remains in office only as long as the majority supports him, as the ouster of Ralph J. Marino in November 1994 shows. The election of Joseph Bruno, to succeed Marino against the latter's wishes, was not disputed by either Republicans or Democrats.

Angelo Aponte, the Secretary of the Senate, has further complicated matters by refusing to recognize the coalition, and has engaged in various efforts to prevent them from taking control, including locking Senate chambers, cutting off lights and video cameras, locking away bills, and withholding the court stenographer. Senate Republicans have sought legal action against Aponte for his behavior.[14]

But, hey, there's a bright spot - with the split, new legislation can't be enacted - the votes are too close. So, at least they won't cause any more damage.

Hmmm. Maybe we can encourage the US House to do the same - at least abominations like the Cap & Trade bill will stop.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

About Sanford

I found a lovely little commentary about Mark Sanford that neatly summarizes what I've been feeling for the last few days - that Gov. Sanford, although an adulterer, may not be all that caddish (is that a word? It should be). He apparently treated the woman involved with tenderness and with effort to keep her out of the headlines. He was, it seems, in love.
I remember Jenny, or someone close to me, once commenting that while my mom was pleasant and warm it was sad she had never accomplished anything of significance. I replied that they were wrong because she had the ultimate of all gifts — and that was the ability to love unconditionally. The rarest of all commodities in this world is love. It is that thing that we all yearn for at some level — to be simply loved unconditionally for nothing more than who we are — not what we can get, give or become.
How romantic. How unexpected in a politician. As was said in Jerry Maquire, "You had me at hello."

A Truly Sad Life, In So Many Ways

There have been many people talking about Michael Jackson's life and early death over the last few days. Most of them are famous. One is not.
I am no prophet, and it did not take a rocket scientist to see the impending doom. Michael was a man in tremendous pain and his tragedy was to medicate his pain away rather than addressing its root cause.
That quote was from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who had tried to lead Jackson to a better way of life. He realized in 2004 that Jackson was unlikely to live a normal lifespan - it was already evident that Jackson was not healthy, in body, mind or soul.
Because Michael substituted attention for love, he got fans who loved what he did but he never had true compatriots who loved him for who he was.

Perhaps this is why, when so many of his inner circle saw him destroying his life with prescription medication - something he used to treat phantom physical illnesses which were really afflictions of the soul - they allowed him to deteriorate and disintegrate rather than throwing the poison in the garbage.

Michael's death is not just a personal tragedy, it is an American tragedy. Michael's story was the stuff of the American dream.

A poor black boy who grows up in Gary, Indiana, and ends up a billionaire entertainer. But we now know how the story ends. Money is not a currency by which we can purchase self-esteem, and being recognized on the streets will never replace being loved unconditionally by family and true friends.
His greatest sickness was not physical, nor was it mental or emotional - it was spiritual.

Joanne Jacobs Followers, Come On In

Over at Joanne Jacobs, the talk turned political. I invited anyone who wanted to continue the discussion to visit. Feel free to hit the comments.

The talk centered on the expected effect of the new Energy bill - commonly called Cap & Trade. Some feel that the bill will cause stress on an already troubled economy; others feel that the hoped-for benefits will be worth it.

The changes brought in by Obama HAVE been major:
Just think of it… the federal government (Obama and Congress) now has de facto control over the banking industry, the insurance industry, the auto industry, and (after the Senate passes this Bill and Obama signs it) the energy industry in this country. The only thing left is the health care industry – which Obama’s gearing up to fight for, with ABC News’ help – and once they have control of that, the federal government will control more than 1/2 of this nation’s economy, and they will be able to micromanage all Americans’ lives.
Personally, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to worry about the effect on the economy, and our system of governance. The changes have happened fast, and they have been costly. We're expected to trust that it will all be worth it - without any evidence to that effect. We might have more trust if there had yet been some measurable good results.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Get a New Thesaurus!

He uses that word constantly!

What word?

Distraction.
let's understand that this notion that somehow these hundreds of thousands of people who are pouring into the streets in Iran are somehow responding to the West or the United States. that's an old distraction that I think has been trotted out periodically. And that's just not gonna fly.
"Gonna fly?"

These are the words of the hyper-intelligent, Ivy League, too-smart-for-the-common-people-to-appreciate, head & shoulders above the rest SUPERSTAR who now "rules" America?
we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way. And, you know, already we've seen violence out there. I think I've said this throughout the week. I want to repeat it that we stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict, and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that's a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for.

Krauthammer was right to call him "clueless". The reality is, the Iranian theocrats won't allow ANY protest. What does a peaceful protest look like?


Is it this? It's a protest against the government, and is likely to lead to bloodshed today.



Is it this? Eh. It's a PEACEFUL protest against the hated Israel Republic.



Is it this? That image was from the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran. That "protest" was anti-US, and therefore encouraged by the Islam leaders.
the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we've already seen. We shouldn't be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard.

Now, what we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the, you know, incredible demonstrations that we've seen is a testimony to, I think what Dr. King called the the arc of the moral universe. It's long but it bends towards justice.

Or, possibly, it's just the ARC of a Scimitar.



It seems as though that arc is about to come down on Iranian protesters' heads.

It's Time for Americans to Call It What It Is...Barbarism

The out-of-control Islamic rage that manifests itself with beatings, bombs, and bullying must be called what it is:
Barbarism
Read what one very brave woman is doing to combat that.

So where is the Fearless Leader of the World, when real leadership is required? Charles Krauthammer explains:
Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.

It's easy to talk about leadership, it's hard to actually demonstrate it.

Powerline has a round-up
of other commentary on this topic.

Hot Air has the video and transcript of Obama's comments on Iran. Today is the deadline, at 4:00 pm. The Mullah's regime will either crush the dissent, or fold.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Obama - His Enemies List

`The American Spectator has a post on the kind of politics Obama plays:
In late August, the Obama campaign emailed an "Obama Action Wire" to thousands of supporters and liberal activists exhorting them to harass the offices of Chicago's WGN radio by flooding the station with angry phone calls and emails. Activists screamed insults to call-in screeners. The radio station's offense was that a long-time, respected radio host had the temerity to interview Ethics and Public Policy Center watchdog Stanley Kurtz. Kurtz had uncovered university records that documented a much closer relationship between Obama and Ayers than the presidential candidate had previously disclosed.

A few weeks later, state prosecutors and top sheriffs in Missouri who were prominent Obama supporters responded to a chilling Obama campaign request. They styled themselves as a "truth squad" and threatened to prosecute anyone including media outlets that printed or broadcasted material they deemed to be inaccurate about the Illinois Senator.

Obama contributors in the Justice Department's Civil Rights section (headed by $2,000 Obama donor and former ACLU attorney Mark Kappelhof) urged preemptive prosecution of individuals the Obama campaign believed might disrupt the November election. A cited example of anticipated disruption was to send mailings of a non-violent nature addressing voting issues unfavorable to Obama.
This isn't a new tactic. Obama's been playing hard and dirty for years.

Dirty? Surely that's a nasty word for something "everybody does".

You decide:
After becoming a state Senator, he quickly set his sights higher and ran for a House seat against Congressman Bobby Rush. He lost. What to do now?

He set to work to redraw the state electoral map to serve his political goals.

Critics disparage this type of practice as gerrymandering; but when it is done by politicians that are favored by commentators it is characterized as "redrawing the map".
His rise after this point underscores the importance of often-ignored groundwork - he who controls the infrastructure, wins!

Another blast from the past:
why did so many Democrat legislators in 2004 express a hearty dislike for Obama? It seems that in 2003, Emil Jones, the new majority leader of the Illinois State Senate, made Barack Obama the sponsor of virtually every high profile piece of legislation on his agenda.

Because the Republicans had been in control of state government for over 20 years there was a huge backlog of items. Jones also gave Obama the bills straight out of local headlines, such as a ban on pyrotechnics in nightclubs after 21 people died during a stampede at a Chicago nightclub that caught fire. After having been all but invisible in prior sessions, Obama became the sponsor of 26 bills enacted into law in 2003, thanks to Emil Jones. In doing so, Jones shafted a great many veteran Democrat legislators who had sponsored similar bills in the past, only to watch them die in committee session after session.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Traditional vs. Modern Morality

Oz Conservative has an interesting discussion going on, about traditional vs. modern morality and ethics, and how they affect society.

It's often said, "it's my decision how I run my life, everyone else should mind their own business". However, we don't live on islands; our behavior naturally affects others in the near vicinity (and, sometimes, beyond). So, society has some reason to meddle in private affairs, when they come to their attention.

And, it's generally only when they become public that society has any reason to step in.

Drink/drug yourself into insensibility? Your concern. It only crosses the line into a public matter when you make your behavior impossible to ignore - such as a public arrest for drunkeness, drug sales that affect the neighborhood, drunken driving, etc.

Sexual libertine? Who cares? Unless you expose minor children to your follies, carry on with wild parties that spill over into neighbor's yards, or have children that you expect your neighbors to pay for.

So it goes for many moral "sins". Americans are remarkably tolerant of others' transgressions. We have no native Taliban.

Where we have fallen down lately is protection of minor children. Too many kids are exposed to the seamier sides of life in their own home. Child welfare services, in an effort to be "non-judgemental", often fail to remove children in danger. Every year, I see the fallout - kids who reek of pot (from the high levels of smoking by PARENTS and other adults around them), children who have empty pantries (not from society's lack of effort to get them fed, but from parents who are more concerned about themselves), children who are exposed to real danger from felonious/predatory strangers (because you just CAN'T ask mumsy/daddums to restrict their sex lives in any way).

Kids are generally conservative. They want discipline, parental restriction of impulse, and a calm, secure home life.

As a political conservative, I generally want to get government out of my life. I'd rather live and let live; only the extreme circumstance of endangering children brings me to act in restrictive ways. If the culture would work to keep access out of kids' hands, I'd have no problem with legalization of marijuana. If people want to smoke their brains out, who cares?

But, if they are chuckleheaded enough to allow their use to affect their kids (and other people's), I'd have to step in. And, unfortunately, our culture is filled with pseudo-adults who show no evidence that they are mature enough to keep their drug use away from the kids.


Eternity Road also has a discussion relating to this topic.
If you don't read Francis' blog, you're missing a treat.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Go, Iranian Twitterers!

I've long thought Twitter an application for the terminally bored, but this post by Betsy's Page explains how it is being used by Iranian protesters. Also, props to Twitter, who re-scheduled maintenance on the system to facilitate their Tweets.

It's Not the Size of the Dog in the Fight...

it's the size of the fight in the dog. Or, in this case, 3 Chihuahuas, who should be named Bravest Dogs of the Year. There's a lesson here for small countries, I think.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Just How Stupid Do They Think We Are?

Never mind.

Fashion Models, Explained in Detail

This is amazing! This site explains the differences between fashion models, feature-by-feature, compared to the average woman.

I've always called the emaciated physique of models, with their silicone implants, "boys with boobs".

Saturday, June 13, 2009

I'm Beginning to Feel That America Has Become a Giant Alzheimer's Ward

Because everyone seems to be Sgt. Schultz - remembering "Nothing! Nothing!"

From the Anchoress:
Actions speak louder than “words, just words.”

My husband did not get the campaign reference to the “just words” quote; he doesn’t follow politics much. He probably won’t remember Obama laughing at Sarah Palin back when she said during the 2008 campaign,

“Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”

He won’t remember, either, that Obama said in February:

“Now, do [enemy combatants and terrorists] deserve miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.”

So, my husband won’t realize the hypocrisy in this news:

…the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

More:

“The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”
I'm really getting tired of responding to these things, only to hear a skeptical "Where did you hear THAT?". Folks, it isn't rocket science. Read the papers, the news sites, pay attention, and, if the issue is legislative, READ THE FREAKIN' BILL! Most of them aren't that long, or complicated.

At least read the abstract.

"Sort of God"?

Newsweek magazine's Evan Thomas caused a mini-furor last week, by saying that:
in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.


Newsbusters has the video on YouTube:



Why is that such a big deal? After all, Thomas merely meant to figuratively describe the level of stature Obama has (in his opinion) in the world.

Well, for believing Christians, that was a MAJOR slap in the face. It's blasphemy:

1.impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.
2.Judaism.
a.an act of cursing or reviling God.
b.pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3.Theology. the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4.irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.


Most of the time, in the modern world, we ignore this behavior. Sadly, Christians are accustomed to being disrespected and having their beliefs joked about. (Just once, I'd like to see comedians being "fair and balanced", who would try the same with Islamic beliefs - but it'll never happen. Muslims will kill you for just such "jokes". And the comedians know it.)

All kidding aside, I wouldn't want Islamic beliefs trivialized and belittled. It's not right to do that to anyone.

So, why are Christians always the target?

Why are those "sensitive" souls who chastise everyone else about multicultural awareness and respect so prone to ignore decency when it comes to Christians?

I'd like to think it's just ignorance. Sometimes we forget just how thoroughly the elite world has been indoctrinated against expression of Christian belief. When they do encounter a Christian, they aren't sure what to DO with him.

I once worked at a social service agency. The old director left, and the new guy came in. Someone had seen his bookshelf, and was concerned. I, being the token believer on the staff, was asked by a few worried staffers to do the recon and report back.

I checked out the bookshelves, and was able to report back that, although there were several Bibles and other religious books, they were mainstream (KIV, NAB, etc.). I left the group shaking my head at the invincible ignorance of these people, who understood NOTHING about Christianity or Christians, but who had no trouble expounding on "those people" and their beliefs (which, according to orthodox liberal philosophy, was bad, against education, and somehow mixed up with snake-handling and other such esoteric practices).

Evan Thomas might be like that - ignorant, prejudiced, and clueless. We should all direct him to sites where he might educate about the topic of Christianity.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Today Show interview with Sarah Palin

I caught the video of the show; Sarah came off very well, I thought. Matt appeared to imply that Sarah owed Letterman an apology for implying that her daughter was not safe around him.

I not only disagreed, I contacted the Today show (do so, also, would you?) about Matt's evident bias.

Check out the interview yourself.

Americorps Scandal

I'm particularly interested in this, because my daughter served in CityYear for several years.

Most of the people involved in the domestic service programs are sincere, honest, and hard-working. We don't need greedy and duplicitous hucksters to ruin the image and value of these programs.

Therefore, it's very important to audit the programs and verify that all money, much of which comes from federal funding, is spent appropriately. Firing the Inspector General, just as he comes close to proving that a major Obama backer is mis-spending Americorps funds, looks VERY BAD. When Sen. Grassley (R), who has used his position to keep other Inspectors from being summarily fired, stepped in, the White House backed off. Why can't Obama just make the IG go?
Congress gave IGs this level of protection precisely to avoid this kind of action by the White House. Obama doesn’t want IGs investigating his cronies and political allies, and the evidence for this is rather clear from the way the White House handled it. Instead of going to Congress, which the lawyers in the White House should have known was the correct procedure, they attempted to intimidate Walpin out of his job first. Apparently they didn’t have a good enough case for the proper procedure.
If the rule of law is good enough for Republicans to have to follow, the same goes for Democrats.

A fuller look at the law regarding Inspector Generals is here.

When Even the Leftists Realize That Palin is Getting Shafted

I found the site Reclusive Leftist, and was surprised that the author was fair and balanced about the anti-Palin hysteria.

As always, when I find a site I like, I'll add it to the Blogroll. I suggest you do the same.

Hit Letterman Where It Hurts!

Follow this link for instructions on how to contact David Letterman's sponsors.

Why is this so important? After all, it was just a thoughtless joke.

No, it wasn't. Here's the chronology:

First, he made the original "jokes".



Then, he continued the Palin daughters' trashing the next day, by suggesting that Bristol Palin is a prostitute.



Here's his "apology" - I put the word in quotes, because he never apologized, just excused himself for targeting the "wrong" Palin daughter.



In these hard economic times for all media outlets, the last thing they can afford is an advertiser boycott. I strongly suggest anyone reading this start writing to the sponsors - information about how to contact them, and who to send letters/phone calls to, is at the top of this post.

When even the notoriously leftist and anti-Republican N.O.W. is offended, you know you've stepped over the line.


Further contact information is at Conservatives4Palin.


BTW, no, I am not a supporter of Palin for President. I think she has some work to do before she might be a choice - she is too new to the national stage. OTOH, she apparently has been an effective (and honest) governor, which might make her a reasonable candidate in the future - NOT 2012. My only concern now is to keep these vicious, partisan attacks on politicians' families from spreading.

Why Women Are Becoming More Dominant in Higher Education

There's a widespread belief that women don't get a fair shake in higher education, and, therefore, that policies need to be adjusted to allow them a better chance at being hired and promoted. Christine Hoff Sommers (of the American Enterprise Institute) argues that, on the contrary, men are the ones who are discriminated against. She makes some important points, and the article is well worth reading.

I will argue that some of the stats she uses aren't put into context. From the post:
Perry shows that men are now on the wrong side of the degree gap at every stage of education. Here are his figures for the class of 2009:

Associate’s degrees: 167 for women for every 100 for men.

Bachelor’s degrees: 142 for women for every 100 for men.

Master’s degrees: 159 for women for every 100 for men.

Professional degrees: 104 for women for every 100 for men.

Doctoral degrees: 107 for women for every 100 for men.

Degrees at all levels: 148 for women for every 100 for men.
The disparity in Associate's degrees is easily explained by the differences in jobs that workding-class men and women hold. Women tend to cluster in jobs for which a license (and training) is a requirement. Men, on the other hand, are likelier to work in jobs that offer on-the-job training (factory work, construction work, trades work).

The rather large Master's degree differences can be explained by several female-heavy professions that encourage/require Master's for advancement - nursing, teaching, social work. Increases in pay are limited, except for advanced degrees. That the difference isn't due to the thirst for education is shown by the similarities in Doctoral degrees. For women, getting that degree would take a lot of time and money, for very little pay-off.

In short, these are rational decisions.

Why +Size Clothing is So Unattractive

Finally, a rational explanation of the +size problem - too few clothes that look good, and hideous fit and style.

Sunday, June 07, 2009

Saturday, June 06, 2009

New Link

I found a polling site, and thought I'd get to know the many inked people who find my blog. Click on the link to the right, or here, to participate in the poll.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

The Pope - "Discredited Leader"?

From the White House Press Office:
A couple weeks ago John Boehner added his name to, like, 20 or so prominent Catholics asking that the President remove Harry Knox from the faith-based council for comments that he made about the Pope and the Catholic Church; he referred to the Pope as a discredited leader. Does the President disagree with those comments and is he planning any action on that?

MR. GIBBS: I haven't seen that letter, but I think the President is comfortable with the makeup of his faith advisory council.

I checked the entire web site - no statement about the Little Rock recruiting office shootings.

Putz.

Lies of the Left

This COULD be a lengthy post. But, I'll try to winnow it down to a reasonable length. The CA Parent Bribery 'Scandal' - the 1...