I personally am all for this proposal:
At the beggining of any major US military atcion we circulate census formers asking each person if they support said action. If they do, and are fit enough, they should be immediately drafted in the armed forces. If they are unfit, their tax rate should be doubled, to cover the cost of the war.
All the false show-patriotism I see evrywhere should evaporate fairly soon.
If anyone objects, I ask you: Why aren't you in Iraq? And why do you hate the troops?
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Friday, March 18, 2005
Republicans Leadership and Terry Schiavo
A judge has ordered that Terry Schiavo's feeding tube can be removed, and last minute efforts by Congressional Republicans have, thus far, failed to save Terry's life. It appears that the clock has finally run out on Schiavo, although it's not over until it's... over.
MyWayNews Article
MyWayNews Article II
According to Peggy Noonan (Noonan Editiorial), the Republicans could see some backlash on this one. After all, the Republicans are in charge of the White House, and have majorities in both the House and Senate. If with all this power they still can't manage to save Schiavo's life, it speaks volume of Republican leadership.
This is a big issue to a large segment of the Republican base. For on social issues, the religious right has let it be known that they are staunchly pro-life. Terry deserves to live. Agree or not, one has to pay attention. Pro-lifers are passionate about their cause, and expect their leaders to hold the same passion.
Will this be the final straw for Republicans? That is, will pro-lifers leave a party that is, quite frankly, not as commited to life issues as they are? Only time will tell, although the religious right has been extremely loyal, and a mass exodus would be a surprise, if completely warranted.
The Republican party has sold principles for power. When the base finally understands this, they will leave.
And the Republicans will have only themselves to blame.
MyWayNews Article
MyWayNews Article II
According to Peggy Noonan (Noonan Editiorial), the Republicans could see some backlash on this one. After all, the Republicans are in charge of the White House, and have majorities in both the House and Senate. If with all this power they still can't manage to save Schiavo's life, it speaks volume of Republican leadership.
This is a big issue to a large segment of the Republican base. For on social issues, the religious right has let it be known that they are staunchly pro-life. Terry deserves to live. Agree or not, one has to pay attention. Pro-lifers are passionate about their cause, and expect their leaders to hold the same passion.
Will this be the final straw for Republicans? That is, will pro-lifers leave a party that is, quite frankly, not as commited to life issues as they are? Only time will tell, although the religious right has been extremely loyal, and a mass exodus would be a surprise, if completely warranted.
The Republican party has sold principles for power. When the base finally understands this, they will leave.
And the Republicans will have only themselves to blame.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Oil Prices and ANWR
Crude oil has surpassed 56 dollars a barrel for the first time ever. Some reports have the price reaching as high as 80 dollars a barrel by summer's end.
Yahoo Article
Who benefits from these high prices? I don't wish to lump myself with anyone who would suggest a conspiracy here, but the question is still valid.
Recall during Bush's first term when he tried, unsuccessfully to persuade Congress to allow drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Suddenly crude oil prices are skyrocketing and gas prices nation wide are averaging over $2.15 per gallon.
When prices escalate this summer, Congress may find itself less reluctant to give Bush the go ahead. Hit Americans in their pocketbook and they will act. If gas tops 3 bucks a gallon, preserving the Arctic will suddenly seem less important than filling up that SUV.
Bush may find getting Congress to approve drilling in ANWR a tad bit easier this time around.
Yahoo Article
Who benefits from these high prices? I don't wish to lump myself with anyone who would suggest a conspiracy here, but the question is still valid.
Recall during Bush's first term when he tried, unsuccessfully to persuade Congress to allow drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Suddenly crude oil prices are skyrocketing and gas prices nation wide are averaging over $2.15 per gallon.
When prices escalate this summer, Congress may find itself less reluctant to give Bush the go ahead. Hit Americans in their pocketbook and they will act. If gas tops 3 bucks a gallon, preserving the Arctic will suddenly seem less important than filling up that SUV.
Bush may find getting Congress to approve drilling in ANWR a tad bit easier this time around.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Conservative Activists?
Eventually, Rehnquist has to retire. The Nixon appointed Supreme Court Justice has been there for what seems like forever. All signs point to the current Chief Justice stepping down following this Supreme Court session. When that happens, watch out.
The Democratic Party is going to do everything they can to prevent Bush from appointing an "activist" judge.
Time out. A conservative activist judge would do what? Overturn Roe vs. Wade as judicial activism? Last I checked the Constitution was silent on abortion. Ergo, it's a states issue.
Recently a conservative court--seven out of nine justices were appointed by Republicans--ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional for minors. Justice Antonin Scalia, who is rumored to be in line as the next Chief Justice, was upset with the court.
Yahoo Article
Scalia blamed the five justices who came down against the death penalty for using "evolving notions of decency" as their reason for making a personal decision. He wondered aloud why the citizens would want nine lawyers to decide the fate of this country.
So let me get this straight. Scalia, who is arguably the most conservative judge on the bench is perturbed that justices have used their power for personal gain. He urges a more hands off approach. What's the threat from a conservative judge?
A conservative justice is not an activist one. She would allow the legislative process to do it's work. In other words: let the people decide the rules that govern them.
The Supreme Court has become a battering ram for liberal social revolution. Despite fears to the contrary, conservative justices are not going to stage a counter-revolution. As long as conservatives continue to play by the rules--read: actually bother to use the Constitution in decisions--liberals will get their way on the social front.
The high road is a lonely one.
The Democratic Party is going to do everything they can to prevent Bush from appointing an "activist" judge.
Time out. A conservative activist judge would do what? Overturn Roe vs. Wade as judicial activism? Last I checked the Constitution was silent on abortion. Ergo, it's a states issue.
Recently a conservative court--seven out of nine justices were appointed by Republicans--ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional for minors. Justice Antonin Scalia, who is rumored to be in line as the next Chief Justice, was upset with the court.
Yahoo Article
Scalia blamed the five justices who came down against the death penalty for using "evolving notions of decency" as their reason for making a personal decision. He wondered aloud why the citizens would want nine lawyers to decide the fate of this country.
So let me get this straight. Scalia, who is arguably the most conservative judge on the bench is perturbed that justices have used their power for personal gain. He urges a more hands off approach. What's the threat from a conservative judge?
A conservative justice is not an activist one. She would allow the legislative process to do it's work. In other words: let the people decide the rules that govern them.
The Supreme Court has become a battering ram for liberal social revolution. Despite fears to the contrary, conservative justices are not going to stage a counter-revolution. As long as conservatives continue to play by the rules--read: actually bother to use the Constitution in decisions--liberals will get their way on the social front.
The high road is a lonely one.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Illegals, Power Plants, and Other Harmless Things
Call them xenophobes, but Michael Savage and Pat Buchanan may be right. Lax border control will one day hurt this country badly, and the evidence of our vulnerability is here.
Washington Times Article
Illegal aliens were able to gain employment at a Florida nuclear facility using false social security numbers. Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, a Florida Republican is clamoring for action.
According to the Times: "...the incident illustrated the need for the Senate to pass the REAL ID act, which passed the House in February and sets national standards for the use of driver's licenses in federal facilities -- an incentive for states to make sure applicants are in the country legally."
Not bad, but here's a better idea: don't let the illegals into the country to begin with. Put U.S. armed forces on the border. If we don't have sufficient numbers to do this, we may need to quit over-extending U.S. troops.
Corporations demands for cheap labor have paralyzed the government from doing it's duty to protect the borders of the United States. Perhaps this will serve as a wake up call to our representatives. Being a stooge to special interests ensures reelection, but it's a poor excuse for civic responsibility.
Maybe being hit again will be the only thing that will wake this country up. Until we secure our borders we will not be safe. And while absolute safety is only an illusion of a utopian society, it's still a good goal to strive for.
Instead of trading liberty for safety--read: Patriot Act--we should encourage any measure that increases safety without diminishing liberty. Enforcing laws restricting immigration is a neccesart measure for any country, and one that we should not take to so lightly.
Unless we're not bothered with illegals in nuclear power plants. If that's the case, keep fiddling, but I assure you Rome is burning.
Washington Times Article
Illegal aliens were able to gain employment at a Florida nuclear facility using false social security numbers. Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, a Florida Republican is clamoring for action.
According to the Times: "...the incident illustrated the need for the Senate to pass the REAL ID act, which passed the House in February and sets national standards for the use of driver's licenses in federal facilities -- an incentive for states to make sure applicants are in the country legally."
Not bad, but here's a better idea: don't let the illegals into the country to begin with. Put U.S. armed forces on the border. If we don't have sufficient numbers to do this, we may need to quit over-extending U.S. troops.
Corporations demands for cheap labor have paralyzed the government from doing it's duty to protect the borders of the United States. Perhaps this will serve as a wake up call to our representatives. Being a stooge to special interests ensures reelection, but it's a poor excuse for civic responsibility.
Maybe being hit again will be the only thing that will wake this country up. Until we secure our borders we will not be safe. And while absolute safety is only an illusion of a utopian society, it's still a good goal to strive for.
Instead of trading liberty for safety--read: Patriot Act--we should encourage any measure that increases safety without diminishing liberty. Enforcing laws restricting immigration is a neccesart measure for any country, and one that we should not take to so lightly.
Unless we're not bothered with illegals in nuclear power plants. If that's the case, keep fiddling, but I assure you Rome is burning.
This Is Important?
I am a fan of baseball, and I'm troubled about recent allegations of steroid use among a number of players. Still, I'm a little surprised that Congress sees this as an important priority.
There has to be something else for our representatives to do, right? I don't know, how about social security? There's always healthcare. Or, if they're all feeling really productive, they could always balance the budget.
But no, in today's day and age, steroids are too serious an issue for Congress to ignore. Apparently, our representatives on the Hill can't sleep if a problem exists that the Feds don't have their hands in.
MyWayNews Article
Seven players, including Sosa and McGwire--though strangely not Bonds--have been subpoenaed and, at least according to one Congressman, may face jail time if they fail to show.
The reasoning behind this massive waste of time: "baseball's steroid problem was part of a growing public health crisis that threatens children." Ah, yes, the classic, "it's for the kids" card. I'm not sure when it became government policy to worry about children's role models. Last I checked, that wasn't covered in the Constitution.
Not that we care about that archaic document anymore.
It'd be nice if our representatives, I don't know, did something important and/or useful for a change. I'll try not to be unduly idealistic.
Maybe I should just be happy, they're not actually "working". When that happens, they end up spending our money. I'd rather keep mine.
After all, baseball starts in a couple of weeks and I don't have tickets yet.
There has to be something else for our representatives to do, right? I don't know, how about social security? There's always healthcare. Or, if they're all feeling really productive, they could always balance the budget.
But no, in today's day and age, steroids are too serious an issue for Congress to ignore. Apparently, our representatives on the Hill can't sleep if a problem exists that the Feds don't have their hands in.
MyWayNews Article
Seven players, including Sosa and McGwire--though strangely not Bonds--have been subpoenaed and, at least according to one Congressman, may face jail time if they fail to show.
The reasoning behind this massive waste of time: "baseball's steroid problem was part of a growing public health crisis that threatens children." Ah, yes, the classic, "it's for the kids" card. I'm not sure when it became government policy to worry about children's role models. Last I checked, that wasn't covered in the Constitution.
Not that we care about that archaic document anymore.
It'd be nice if our representatives, I don't know, did something important and/or useful for a change. I'll try not to be unduly idealistic.
Maybe I should just be happy, they're not actually "working". When that happens, they end up spending our money. I'd rather keep mine.
After all, baseball starts in a couple of weeks and I don't have tickets yet.
Name Calling
Here's something from one of my fellow bloggers: http://savingaeneas.blogspot.com/
His "A Brief Look at the Right-Wing Media" post is, well, slightly less than provacative.
So Loyal Achates is a bit more liberal than I am. His qualms with the "right-wing media" are valid. On both sides of the aisle, there are going to be partisan hacks. But does that mean that conservatives are "mentally ill", "crypto-nazis", "whores", etc.?
Such claims are mindless and absurd. It does no good to resort to name-calling. If the right-wingers are as he claims, he shouldn't even dignify them with verbal abuse.
Much like the hand-ringing over Michael Moore by talk radio pundits, the hosts expose their fear of Moore's power by even talking about him. If Moore's rhetoric is made up of lies, than it will be ineffective. Calling Moore fat and stupid is a waste of time and a classless act.
All of this finger-pointing gets in the way of what both sides should want, but secretly don't: an open and free dialogue on the issues. Unfortunatley, most of us would rather cling to our own biases and paint those who diagree as ignorant boobs than explain why they are wrong.
If you diagree with me, you're stupid.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Dean Update
I can't say I agree with him, but my respect for Howard Dean is growing. In Jackson, Mississippi as the new chairman of the DNC, Dean said, "The way we're going to win elections in this country is not to become Republican lite. The way we're going to win elections in this country is to stand up for what we believe in."
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/11025163.htm
I wish the Republicans would try that. Although our perspectives are different by quite a bit, I agree with Dean that the Republicans and the Democrats are all too similar.
The Democrats have always enjoyed spending taxpayer money on social programs, at least since FDR. Why then have the Republicans balked on their principles to try to outspend the Dems?
We don't need another Democratic party. The party of Lincoln and Reagan, Eisenhower and Goldwater, has always accepted the task of being the more fiscally responsible party. Has Bush forgotten, or does he believe, as does Cheney, that "deficits do not matter."
Deficits do matter, and so do principles. If Dean rallies the Democrats and usurps Republican power, the Republicans will have only themselves to blame. And though I'm not rooting for him, it is nice to have a leader, who at least claims to stand up for what he says.
One can't help but respect that.
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/11025163.htm
I wish the Republicans would try that. Although our perspectives are different by quite a bit, I agree with Dean that the Republicans and the Democrats are all too similar.
The Democrats have always enjoyed spending taxpayer money on social programs, at least since FDR. Why then have the Republicans balked on their principles to try to outspend the Dems?
We don't need another Democratic party. The party of Lincoln and Reagan, Eisenhower and Goldwater, has always accepted the task of being the more fiscally responsible party. Has Bush forgotten, or does he believe, as does Cheney, that "deficits do not matter."
Deficits do matter, and so do principles. If Dean rallies the Democrats and usurps Republican power, the Republicans will have only themselves to blame. And though I'm not rooting for him, it is nice to have a leader, who at least claims to stand up for what he says.
One can't help but respect that.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
(Lack of) Responsibilty
The latest evidence of a lack of personal responsibility in America is here.
http://www.local6.com/money/4239256/detail.html
Teens in Orlando are participating in "garage jumping". Participants vault themselves between private garages some eighty feet above the ground.
And surprise of surprises, someone fell. Fortunately, the teen--the fourth or fifth to fall--was not killed. Unfortunately, his family proceded to hire a lawyer.
Apparently, this is not the fault of the cretin who almost fell to his death. Instead, it's the fault of the owners of the private garages as well as the city of Orlando.
We live in a relatively free society. As such, there are ample oppurtunities to maim oneself however one chooses. It is not the government's role to protect us from ourselves. It is not the owner of the garage's repsonsibility to prevent kids from behaving as fools.
Yet, even though most would agree that this is an absurd and frivolous lawsuit, the garage owner will settle. Even though he is not in the wrong, it is cheaper to settle than to fight it out in court, even if he wins. Score one for the lawyers, again.
Here's an idea: let's find a way to dismiss frivolous lawsuits. Either allow the judge to toss them out, or provide a legal recourse. If the defendant is exonerated, he should be allowed to countersue the lawyer. Overly frivolous lawsuits should result in the loss of the ability to practice law.
Only drastic measures will stop this cultural abdication of personal responsibility.
http://www.local6.com/money/4239256/detail.html
Teens in Orlando are participating in "garage jumping". Participants vault themselves between private garages some eighty feet above the ground.
And surprise of surprises, someone fell. Fortunately, the teen--the fourth or fifth to fall--was not killed. Unfortunately, his family proceded to hire a lawyer.
Apparently, this is not the fault of the cretin who almost fell to his death. Instead, it's the fault of the owners of the private garages as well as the city of Orlando.
We live in a relatively free society. As such, there are ample oppurtunities to maim oneself however one chooses. It is not the government's role to protect us from ourselves. It is not the owner of the garage's repsonsibility to prevent kids from behaving as fools.
Yet, even though most would agree that this is an absurd and frivolous lawsuit, the garage owner will settle. Even though he is not in the wrong, it is cheaper to settle than to fight it out in court, even if he wins. Score one for the lawyers, again.
Here's an idea: let's find a way to dismiss frivolous lawsuits. Either allow the judge to toss them out, or provide a legal recourse. If the defendant is exonerated, he should be allowed to countersue the lawyer. Overly frivolous lawsuits should result in the loss of the ability to practice law.
Only drastic measures will stop this cultural abdication of personal responsibility.
State's Rights
Last Friday, Howard Dean was in Kansas. As the newly elected DNC Chairman, he was giving a speech about the current political climate.
http://www.ljworld.com/deanfordrudge.html
Dean also talked about the Republicans "diversion" on gay marriage. Yet Dean also reaffirmed the Democratic position on abortion. "The issue is whether women can make up their own mind instead of some right-wing pastor, some right-wing politician telling them what to do," Dean said.
Here's the connection: both abortion and gay marriage are issues that should be decided, not by the federal government, but by the states. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to weigh in on social issues. However, the Constitution does have a much overlooked Amendment called the 10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
Personal preferences must be set aside, for the greater good. When states are the arbiters of social debate, if one does not agree with the principles of a particular state, one has the freedom to move.
Although I am pro-life and anti-gay mariage, I am just as against an Amendment on gay marriage as I am against the courts decision that states cannot make illegal abortion.
The Constitution was never intended to apply to the states. Here's Jefferson on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: "Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delgated to the General [federal] Government. It must then rest with the states. "
I think it's fair to assume Jefferson interpreted the Constitution correctly. Not that it matters. State's rights left with the Confederacy, and with it, the most under-rated compromise ever brought into existence.
The Constitution has brought us this far. Why have we ceased to listen to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers? Perhaps Dean and Bush know better how to govern this great land.
My money still rides on Jefferson.
http://www.ljworld.com/deanfordrudge.html
Dean also talked about the Republicans "diversion" on gay marriage. Yet Dean also reaffirmed the Democratic position on abortion. "The issue is whether women can make up their own mind instead of some right-wing pastor, some right-wing politician telling them what to do," Dean said.
Here's the connection: both abortion and gay marriage are issues that should be decided, not by the federal government, but by the states. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to weigh in on social issues. However, the Constitution does have a much overlooked Amendment called the 10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
Personal preferences must be set aside, for the greater good. When states are the arbiters of social debate, if one does not agree with the principles of a particular state, one has the freedom to move.
Although I am pro-life and anti-gay mariage, I am just as against an Amendment on gay marriage as I am against the courts decision that states cannot make illegal abortion.
The Constitution was never intended to apply to the states. Here's Jefferson on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: "Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delgated to the General [federal] Government. It must then rest with the states. "
I think it's fair to assume Jefferson interpreted the Constitution correctly. Not that it matters. State's rights left with the Confederacy, and with it, the most under-rated compromise ever brought into existence.
The Constitution has brought us this far. Why have we ceased to listen to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers? Perhaps Dean and Bush know better how to govern this great land.
My money still rides on Jefferson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)