Everyone will read this and find something to disagree with. That is because I always have an opinion that falls into the middle ground. It sucks thinking with my eyes open.
I’ll start out saying that I love the idea that earmarks will be banned. I’d say something like, “Those pansies proposing it are putting a two year-expiration date on it!” except that I actually admire that. It is the right thing to do. It’s what should have been done with healthcare so when the system fails like Medicare and Social Security, we can just not renew it. So if this passes, we’ll have two years to see how no earmarks works. And if it’s fantastic, we can keep it.
I’m also pleased that we’ve heard none of this “Cut out earmarks by the year 2070” garbage like those idiots on the Debt Commission who will be praised by their grandchildren.
A few valid points have been brought up, however. The first is that earmarks total less than a half a percentage of the total budget. Hard to believe, but there the stats are. The second is that by taking away earmarks from Congress we give more spending power to the Executive branch. These are both issues that make me want to keep earmarks where they are.
Earmarks might be a decent check against wild Presidential waste, but as stated above, it’s less than one percent of the total budget. Considering that the current President has been appointing people withOUT the advice and consent of Congress, keeping some power might be in your best interest.
However, my final position is pulled by other considerations. What really needs to happen is that we should tell ALL our lawmakers to wake up and start doing their jobs. Congress, your job is to MAKE LAWS. Not spend money. Mr President, your job is to EXECUTE THOSE LAWS, which includes the money thing. So the ban on earmarks makes the most sense Constitutionally.
For everyone who is concerned about Presidential waste, read your American history and figure out that the treasury should NEVER be as big as it is. The opportunity for waste is greatly increased the further from the original intent we go. Principles of liberty don’t get old and die, they remain in force forever. Once earmarks have been taken out of Congress’s hands, the next step will to hire a President who will stay within his bounds and cut out the potential for waste. That will require a loss of power, but Congress is willing to do it, why shouldn’t the President?
Finally, I think the most important consideration is the unstated rule of Congress which is that if I can put earmarks that benefit you in my bill, you’ll vote for my bill no matter how wrong you think it is. Earmarks may feel like they’re about money but really it’s a tool for pushing one’s agenda. It’s wrong and it creates agreement out of greed instead of creative collaboration.
Let’s return to real leadership, real liberty, and let’s do it before we spend ourselves into oblivion.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Death of the Tea Party
For a short moment in time, the Tea Party captured our imagination. With wonder we said, THIS is what a grassroots movement looks like! THIS is what a small government organization looks like! And now it’s over.
Not to say that the Tea Party is losing influence. It continues to be influential and will probably continue to become stronger. But that is how it dies. When did this turn into an entity that collects millions of dollars in donations? When did it grow things like political strategists and alliances? How did the Tea get taken over by the Party?
By becoming more than a grassroots movement it fails its origin and becomes another member of the establishment. There are good things and bad things about this.
On the up side, it would be exciting to have a strong national movement that was all about small government. The Tea Party’s momentum doesn’t seem to be slowing down. In fact, as more people become educated, they join in the snowball. The threat it now poses to incumbents might force big-government Republicans to temper their ways and start voting like their constituents expect them to.
On the down side, large political organizations inevitably become corrupt, so there you go, Tea Party, your first step into hell. It seems that powerful people will stop at nothing to commandeer any threat to the establishment, so as this movement becomes bigger and more centralized, the less we will be able to trust it to represent us. Like the other two major parties, the more power this has, the more its power base will seek to entrench itself. Finally, it has positioned itself as a dependent arm of the Republican party, and has no influence on the liberal half of America.
The Tea Party was significant. It served to show those of us who believe that America is a haven for the free are not alone. It threatened and even toppled several of our ugliest incumbents. It also served to ignite the passion of liberty in previously apathetic people. More than anything else, it showed people’s true colors. Those who have hated it love power, they love debt, irresponsibility, backroom deals, entitlements, controlled economies, and manipulation. Those who have supported it have come from many different places, but generally we want decentralized government, free enterprise, and accountability for the horrible actions our government has taken recently.
As the Tea Party lives on you will see it engage in the very deceptions it originally opposed. They all do, eventually, and it’s sad. You will watch a grassroots movement be co-opted by those it set out to topple, and become one more power grab for the very rich. If it becomes powerful, they will make it permanent and divisive.
It’s sad. That’s the America we live in. Let’s continue working to take it back.
Not to say that the Tea Party is losing influence. It continues to be influential and will probably continue to become stronger. But that is how it dies. When did this turn into an entity that collects millions of dollars in donations? When did it grow things like political strategists and alliances? How did the Tea get taken over by the Party?
By becoming more than a grassroots movement it fails its origin and becomes another member of the establishment. There are good things and bad things about this.
On the up side, it would be exciting to have a strong national movement that was all about small government. The Tea Party’s momentum doesn’t seem to be slowing down. In fact, as more people become educated, they join in the snowball. The threat it now poses to incumbents might force big-government Republicans to temper their ways and start voting like their constituents expect them to.
On the down side, large political organizations inevitably become corrupt, so there you go, Tea Party, your first step into hell. It seems that powerful people will stop at nothing to commandeer any threat to the establishment, so as this movement becomes bigger and more centralized, the less we will be able to trust it to represent us. Like the other two major parties, the more power this has, the more its power base will seek to entrench itself. Finally, it has positioned itself as a dependent arm of the Republican party, and has no influence on the liberal half of America.
The Tea Party was significant. It served to show those of us who believe that America is a haven for the free are not alone. It threatened and even toppled several of our ugliest incumbents. It also served to ignite the passion of liberty in previously apathetic people. More than anything else, it showed people’s true colors. Those who have hated it love power, they love debt, irresponsibility, backroom deals, entitlements, controlled economies, and manipulation. Those who have supported it have come from many different places, but generally we want decentralized government, free enterprise, and accountability for the horrible actions our government has taken recently.
As the Tea Party lives on you will see it engage in the very deceptions it originally opposed. They all do, eventually, and it’s sad. You will watch a grassroots movement be co-opted by those it set out to topple, and become one more power grab for the very rich. If it becomes powerful, they will make it permanent and divisive.
It’s sad. That’s the America we live in. Let’s continue working to take it back.
NPR Digging its Own Pit
Lately NPR fired one of its political correspondents, Juan Williams, for making what they considered an offensive remark. This created a firestorm. Here is my reaction to it.
The most important point that can be made about the whole scenario is that it was news about the news. If you rely on me for your opinions and something happens to me, you will care about that something because I will care about it. That is exactly what is happening here. Fox, NPR, MSNBC, and everyone else along the spectrum are bouncing up and down because they get to talk about themselves. If I were NPR, as soon as this dies down, I’d fire someone else.
There has been a lot made as to the nature of his comment. Those who find it offensive simply view the world in a very different way than I do. But perhaps the biggest problem is that we don’t see “Muslim” the same way.
There are American Muslims. These are tolerant people who are content to live and let live. They are no less dedicated than their Mideastern counterparts, but they are less likely to strap on bombs and commit suicide. These are not the people that would cause fear in an airplane.
Middle Eastern Muslims are. These are the people who killed thousands of American civilians in one day by flying planes into buildings. These people celebrated when we died. They are not tolerant. They are not okay with you believing differently than they. They hate Christians, they really hate atheists, and they believe in eternal reward for killing you. If Juan or any other American finds themselves on a plane with people who dress to identify themselves as this type of person and feels fear, that would be perfectly normal.
We use the term “radical Muslim” to describe those kooks who want to kill us. I move to change our vocabulary. Let’s start using “Muslim” to describe that person since the majority of Muslims across the world believe along those lines. Then we’ll say “American Muslim” for the nice tolerant people who have devoted their lives to Allah.
Middle Eastern Muslims aren’t sympathetic toward you. Juan William’s gut reaction was informed and educated.
Let’s talk about prejudice for a moment. It is prejudice to refuse to fly Muslims because of what some of them did. It is NOT prejudice to feel a little hesitant when you do. Prejudice is behavior. I can feel and even think anything I want. You can’t call me a bigot until my behavior follows. Every human has tendencies toward prejudice. That’s not a problem until you act.
A more salient point: favoring a certain race/religion/gender over another is just as bigoted as the opposite.
William’s comments were made on Bill O’Reilley’s show, and anything said on it must be taken with a pillar of salt (I wanted to say “grain of salt” but grains of salt got offended.) (Lot’s wife was fine with it.) For NPR to punish him for something spoken beyond their hallowed airwaves is foolish.
I love NPR. While my friends let their brains fry on Radio from Hell or Chunga and Mister, I enjoyed the enlightenment and intellectual stimulation of Morning Edition. I always recognized a liberal bias but I was okay because it wasn’t overt. Now it is. Now NPR cannot claim they are an objective news organization. They put politically correct above honest reporting. They have a bias toward Muslims that is both unwarranted and unacceptable by objective news standards.
NPR has dug their own pit. It’s sad. Do they have the right to fire Williams? Sure they do. They’re not Congress—the First Amendment can’t restrict what they do. Further, Williams is a millionaire and a big-government liberal. If he has less of a platform to speak on I’m just as happy about it. Unfortunately now he’s at Fox making even more money.
But do you see the problem? They created news, then they reported news, and you listened. You cared. And they can do it with any issue out there.
In summary, Williams’ firing was a self-serving act by a news organization, and it benefitted everyone involved. NPR showed their true colors both as a puppet for the liberal viewpoint and a human resource disaster, colors which taint their high-quality productions. Williams’ remark was a natural response of anyone so hated and hunted as we Americans are. Finally, we need to change our vocabulary, because it’s not the minority of Muslims we need to fear; those in the minority are our friends.
The most important point that can be made about the whole scenario is that it was news about the news. If you rely on me for your opinions and something happens to me, you will care about that something because I will care about it. That is exactly what is happening here. Fox, NPR, MSNBC, and everyone else along the spectrum are bouncing up and down because they get to talk about themselves. If I were NPR, as soon as this dies down, I’d fire someone else.
There has been a lot made as to the nature of his comment. Those who find it offensive simply view the world in a very different way than I do. But perhaps the biggest problem is that we don’t see “Muslim” the same way.
There are American Muslims. These are tolerant people who are content to live and let live. They are no less dedicated than their Mideastern counterparts, but they are less likely to strap on bombs and commit suicide. These are not the people that would cause fear in an airplane.
Middle Eastern Muslims are. These are the people who killed thousands of American civilians in one day by flying planes into buildings. These people celebrated when we died. They are not tolerant. They are not okay with you believing differently than they. They hate Christians, they really hate atheists, and they believe in eternal reward for killing you. If Juan or any other American finds themselves on a plane with people who dress to identify themselves as this type of person and feels fear, that would be perfectly normal.
We use the term “radical Muslim” to describe those kooks who want to kill us. I move to change our vocabulary. Let’s start using “Muslim” to describe that person since the majority of Muslims across the world believe along those lines. Then we’ll say “American Muslim” for the nice tolerant people who have devoted their lives to Allah.
Middle Eastern Muslims aren’t sympathetic toward you. Juan William’s gut reaction was informed and educated.
Let’s talk about prejudice for a moment. It is prejudice to refuse to fly Muslims because of what some of them did. It is NOT prejudice to feel a little hesitant when you do. Prejudice is behavior. I can feel and even think anything I want. You can’t call me a bigot until my behavior follows. Every human has tendencies toward prejudice. That’s not a problem until you act.
A more salient point: favoring a certain race/religion/gender over another is just as bigoted as the opposite.
William’s comments were made on Bill O’Reilley’s show, and anything said on it must be taken with a pillar of salt (I wanted to say “grain of salt” but grains of salt got offended.) (Lot’s wife was fine with it.) For NPR to punish him for something spoken beyond their hallowed airwaves is foolish.
I love NPR. While my friends let their brains fry on Radio from Hell or Chunga and Mister, I enjoyed the enlightenment and intellectual stimulation of Morning Edition. I always recognized a liberal bias but I was okay because it wasn’t overt. Now it is. Now NPR cannot claim they are an objective news organization. They put politically correct above honest reporting. They have a bias toward Muslims that is both unwarranted and unacceptable by objective news standards.
NPR has dug their own pit. It’s sad. Do they have the right to fire Williams? Sure they do. They’re not Congress—the First Amendment can’t restrict what they do. Further, Williams is a millionaire and a big-government liberal. If he has less of a platform to speak on I’m just as happy about it. Unfortunately now he’s at Fox making even more money.
But do you see the problem? They created news, then they reported news, and you listened. You cared. And they can do it with any issue out there.
In summary, Williams’ firing was a self-serving act by a news organization, and it benefitted everyone involved. NPR showed their true colors both as a puppet for the liberal viewpoint and a human resource disaster, colors which taint their high-quality productions. Williams’ remark was a natural response of anyone so hated and hunted as we Americans are. Finally, we need to change our vocabulary, because it’s not the minority of Muslims we need to fear; those in the minority are our friends.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
I'm Concerned. Are You?
I’m very concerned. It seems like every day something weird is happening in my country’s government. I mean, weird stuff happens all the time, but this is beyond what we’re used to. Here’s what I’m talking about.
Rep. Rangle wants a free pass on a severe ethics violation. If you don’t want to be known as corrupt, Mr Rangle, don’t act corrupt. Instead of apologizing for your illicit activities and paying the price, which very well might be the removal of your power, you “cut a deal,” thereby spreading your corruption to the entire ethics committee. Richard Nixon welcomes you home.
President Obama “appoints” the new health czar. Normally these appointments go through Congress, but he bypasses that little tiny step. “The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.” His reasoning was that Republicans would stop the nomination. First, that makes no sense because Republicans are the minority. Second, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Find someone everyone can be pleased with.
Elena Kagan is even considered as a Supreme Court Judge. First of all, never been a judge. She’s the Dean of a College and the Inspector General. When John Roberts was nominated there was concern because he’s supposedly a conservative, but at least he stated that his job was to be an “impartial umpire.” Kagan has stated that she will rule however she wants. Law Schmaw. I know we don’t like to say this, but that opinion is wrong.
Democrats take the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. They fail to repeal both No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act, which they screamed so loudly about during Bush’s reign. This became a lot less surprising when they included features in the Healthcare bill and in the Financial Reform bill that involve more privacy intrusions than the Patriot Act ever had. Outstanding, people! You’ve proven that all you want is power.
Maybe it’s a scratch-my-back issue. If you don’t repeal the crap the Republicans passed, then they agree not to repeal the crap the Democrats pass.
The Federal government sues Arizona. This reminds me of a story. Once a man had a daughter who was raped every day for a week. On the eighth day she slapped the man who raped her. The father stood up and yelled at his daughter, “Stop that! That’s my job!” I just don’t see how the Federal government can react in any way but to hang its head in shame for failing so dramatically. They are supposed to be the pillar of our freedom, a body built to unify Americans under one head. Instead they are acting in the most divisive way possible to prolong the problem without a solution.
Former Illinois Governor Blogojovich is being tried for corruption. While it is very important that he receive a fair trial and that he be allowed to present his defense, there’s no doubt what the verdict should be. Fair doesn’t mean he has a 50/50 shot of getting off, it means he’s treated with dignity as he goes down the toilet. Power and money seems to buy a lot of strange verdicts.
I am very concerned. I have been for a while, but the irresponsibility is reaching a very shrill pitch. I want us to find solutions, even if it means not advancing agendas. I, along with 86% of Americans who disapprove of Congress, am feeling very frustrated.
Rep. Rangle wants a free pass on a severe ethics violation. If you don’t want to be known as corrupt, Mr Rangle, don’t act corrupt. Instead of apologizing for your illicit activities and paying the price, which very well might be the removal of your power, you “cut a deal,” thereby spreading your corruption to the entire ethics committee. Richard Nixon welcomes you home.
President Obama “appoints” the new health czar. Normally these appointments go through Congress, but he bypasses that little tiny step. “The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.” His reasoning was that Republicans would stop the nomination. First, that makes no sense because Republicans are the minority. Second, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Find someone everyone can be pleased with.
Elena Kagan is even considered as a Supreme Court Judge. First of all, never been a judge. She’s the Dean of a College and the Inspector General. When John Roberts was nominated there was concern because he’s supposedly a conservative, but at least he stated that his job was to be an “impartial umpire.” Kagan has stated that she will rule however she wants. Law Schmaw. I know we don’t like to say this, but that opinion is wrong.
Democrats take the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. They fail to repeal both No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act, which they screamed so loudly about during Bush’s reign. This became a lot less surprising when they included features in the Healthcare bill and in the Financial Reform bill that involve more privacy intrusions than the Patriot Act ever had. Outstanding, people! You’ve proven that all you want is power.
Maybe it’s a scratch-my-back issue. If you don’t repeal the crap the Republicans passed, then they agree not to repeal the crap the Democrats pass.
The Federal government sues Arizona. This reminds me of a story. Once a man had a daughter who was raped every day for a week. On the eighth day she slapped the man who raped her. The father stood up and yelled at his daughter, “Stop that! That’s my job!” I just don’t see how the Federal government can react in any way but to hang its head in shame for failing so dramatically. They are supposed to be the pillar of our freedom, a body built to unify Americans under one head. Instead they are acting in the most divisive way possible to prolong the problem without a solution.
Former Illinois Governor Blogojovich is being tried for corruption. While it is very important that he receive a fair trial and that he be allowed to present his defense, there’s no doubt what the verdict should be. Fair doesn’t mean he has a 50/50 shot of getting off, it means he’s treated with dignity as he goes down the toilet. Power and money seems to buy a lot of strange verdicts.
I am very concerned. I have been for a while, but the irresponsibility is reaching a very shrill pitch. I want us to find solutions, even if it means not advancing agendas. I, along with 86% of Americans who disapprove of Congress, am feeling very frustrated.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Politicians Kill Metaphors
Perhaps what we really need is a Constitutional amendment stating that if a politician ever waxes poetic they get booted out of office instantly. Somehow, the humanistic arts, benevolent shows of creativity and wit, get twisted into campaign dramas. It just isn’t right.
So some clown called Boehner who, according to wikipedia, actually passed his name on to his children, rose up to occupy a high Republican pedestal on account of all the other Republican politicians were smart enough to keep clear of it. And this guy makes some remark that the stimulus money is like killing an ant with a nuclear bomb. See what I mean, this is poetry to these guys. Blunt, crass, and inappropriate. Should be booted.
But before we boot him let’s consider his metaphor for a moment. Stimulus packages from all origins over the past five years were a poor idea to fix a natural problem that plunged us into worse debt than we have ever known. Killing an ant with a nuclear bomb would be a waste of expensive material, cause more harm than good, and the same effect could be accomplished by letting the ant walk into a field of Off Chalk.
Maybe my original analysis was wrong. Blunt and crass, sure, but perhaps more appropriate than we all thought.
But my eyeing his metaphor critically is hardly overreacting, that’s just what I do.
What would be overreacting? Remember, this is a politician speaking, and no matter who you are, there is always someone to stomp. So Barack Obama, whose dignity always falls second to his opportunism, picks up these words and turns them into a bat with which to swat at a high-ranking member of the opposition party.
Can you believe it? he says, This Republican thinks that the economic crisis is an ant. A tiny little ant. How out of touch can he be? He must not understand you people, like I understand you. This metaphor demonstrates that my policies are superior because I can use someone else’s words against them.
And for a moment, Carl Rove smiled.
It was one thing when a Republican conceived of an ill metaphor. It was another when the President took that metaphor and made everyone dumber.
Do you really think the Republican thinks the economic crisis is the size of an ant? Or did it simply fit his comparison well? Do you think he’s out of touch? Any more out of touch than you or anyone else in Washington? I’ll tell you who’s out of touch, and that’s anyone letting this President do their thinking for them.
I hope there are so many more bad examples of this so that when someone intelligent pops up, we won’t even hear the brainless attacks against them.
So some clown called Boehner who, according to wikipedia, actually passed his name on to his children, rose up to occupy a high Republican pedestal on account of all the other Republican politicians were smart enough to keep clear of it. And this guy makes some remark that the stimulus money is like killing an ant with a nuclear bomb. See what I mean, this is poetry to these guys. Blunt, crass, and inappropriate. Should be booted.
But before we boot him let’s consider his metaphor for a moment. Stimulus packages from all origins over the past five years were a poor idea to fix a natural problem that plunged us into worse debt than we have ever known. Killing an ant with a nuclear bomb would be a waste of expensive material, cause more harm than good, and the same effect could be accomplished by letting the ant walk into a field of Off Chalk.
Maybe my original analysis was wrong. Blunt and crass, sure, but perhaps more appropriate than we all thought.
But my eyeing his metaphor critically is hardly overreacting, that’s just what I do.
What would be overreacting? Remember, this is a politician speaking, and no matter who you are, there is always someone to stomp. So Barack Obama, whose dignity always falls second to his opportunism, picks up these words and turns them into a bat with which to swat at a high-ranking member of the opposition party.
Can you believe it? he says, This Republican thinks that the economic crisis is an ant. A tiny little ant. How out of touch can he be? He must not understand you people, like I understand you. This metaphor demonstrates that my policies are superior because I can use someone else’s words against them.
And for a moment, Carl Rove smiled.
It was one thing when a Republican conceived of an ill metaphor. It was another when the President took that metaphor and made everyone dumber.
Do you really think the Republican thinks the economic crisis is the size of an ant? Or did it simply fit his comparison well? Do you think he’s out of touch? Any more out of touch than you or anyone else in Washington? I’ll tell you who’s out of touch, and that’s anyone letting this President do their thinking for them.
I hope there are so many more bad examples of this so that when someone intelligent pops up, we won’t even hear the brainless attacks against them.
Oil Spill
Normally over a big news-making thing like BP’s oil spill in the gulf, I’d make a big deal out of it pretty quickly. It’s been months and this is the first I’ve written about it. The reason is that it makes absolutely no sense to me. I have too many questions to say anything intelligent. For instance:
Why is oil “gushing?” Why isn’t it sitting in the ground? Are the pumps still on? It seems to be exerting a lot of effort to push its way into all five thousand feet of heavy water sitting on top of it. I don’t understand.
Why can’t people help? Why are entities that aren’t necessarily BP or Barack Obama forbidden to do things? There are great ideas and enough at stake that the private sector could come up with a lot of money to do them. Why isn’t that allowed?
Why did environmentalists think that drilling at five thousand feet was a better idea than one thousand feet? Why aren’t they taking any heat for their legislation?
Is it really that hard to plug a leak? It’s giving us a hundred thousand barrels of oil each day, let’s see what a couple thousand barrels of cement could do.
How is it nobody stepped up until the leak had been going for a month? Does no one with power care? What do the powers-that-be stand to gain from this?
Can you really call it pollution when one natural substance infiltrates another natural substance, just because it’s unsightly?
A platform blows up, and a mile away a leak springs. This seems like it should be starring Bruce Willis or Harrison Ford, perhaps it should be directed by Michael Bay. This just doesn’t make sense.
Again, rehashing the point that BP somehow let it go on for months. How did they not jump on top of this problem immediately? How did they not have a contingency plan to cover this?
The word “crisis” just sued for abuse. It seems that it doesn’t like being used 24/7.
Hasn’t Louisiana suffered enough?
Anyway, you can appreciate that I am flabbergasted by the whole situation. If you’re not, please write in and help me figure it out, because we’ve taken more drastic measures for smaller problems. We invaded Afghanistan to find one dude. We spent more than our economy is worth to save it. Maybe I’ve finally figured out the hallmark of modern society: exhausting ourselves with minimal effect.
Why is oil “gushing?” Why isn’t it sitting in the ground? Are the pumps still on? It seems to be exerting a lot of effort to push its way into all five thousand feet of heavy water sitting on top of it. I don’t understand.
Why can’t people help? Why are entities that aren’t necessarily BP or Barack Obama forbidden to do things? There are great ideas and enough at stake that the private sector could come up with a lot of money to do them. Why isn’t that allowed?
Why did environmentalists think that drilling at five thousand feet was a better idea than one thousand feet? Why aren’t they taking any heat for their legislation?
Is it really that hard to plug a leak? It’s giving us a hundred thousand barrels of oil each day, let’s see what a couple thousand barrels of cement could do.
How is it nobody stepped up until the leak had been going for a month? Does no one with power care? What do the powers-that-be stand to gain from this?
Can you really call it pollution when one natural substance infiltrates another natural substance, just because it’s unsightly?
A platform blows up, and a mile away a leak springs. This seems like it should be starring Bruce Willis or Harrison Ford, perhaps it should be directed by Michael Bay. This just doesn’t make sense.
Again, rehashing the point that BP somehow let it go on for months. How did they not jump on top of this problem immediately? How did they not have a contingency plan to cover this?
The word “crisis” just sued for abuse. It seems that it doesn’t like being used 24/7.
Hasn’t Louisiana suffered enough?
Anyway, you can appreciate that I am flabbergasted by the whole situation. If you’re not, please write in and help me figure it out, because we’ve taken more drastic measures for smaller problems. We invaded Afghanistan to find one dude. We spent more than our economy is worth to save it. Maybe I’ve finally figured out the hallmark of modern society: exhausting ourselves with minimal effect.
The Question: Expediancy or Principle?
In a long political career, a senator learns to bend with the wind. One who cannot be expedient will be ostracized by his fellow lawmakers and one who does not stand on principle is ousted by his constituents. I cannot say whether he is sincere or not, but today I appreciate and agree with Orrin Hatch.
Hatch, a Republican Senator from Utah, sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has participated in her hearing. Following is his statement in regards to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan:
"I have carefully examined Solicitor General Elena Kagan's record, actively participated in the entire Judiciary Committee hearing, and considered the views of supporters and opponents from Utah and across the country. Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy. The law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law. I have concluded that, based on evidence rather than blind faith, General Kagan regrettably does not meet this standard and that, therefore, I cannot support her appointment.
"Supreme Court Justices who, like General Kagan, had no prior judicial experience did have an average of 21 years in private legal practice. General Kagan has two. The fact that her experience is instead academic and political only magnifies my emphasis on judicial philosophy as the most important qualification for judicial service.
"Over nearly 25 years, General Kagan has endorsed, and praised those who endorse, an activist judicial philosophy. I was surprised when she encouraged us at the hearing simply to discard or ignore certain parts of her record. I am unable to do that. I also cannot ignore disturbing situations in which it appears that her personal or political views drove her legal views. She promoted the Clinton administration's extreme position on abortion, including the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.
"As Dean of Harvard Law School, she blocked the access by military recruiters that federal law requires. And she took legal positions on important issues such as freedom of speech that could undermine the liberties of all Americans.
"General Kagan is a good person, a skilled political lawyer, a brilliant scholar, and was a fine law school dean. I like her personally and I supported her to be Solicitor General. But applying the standard I have always used for judicial nominees, I cannot support her appointment to the Supreme Court."
I agree with every point Hatch makes in this statement. Her rejection of John Roberts' “objective umpire” idea makes her a very spooky appointment for the Supreme Court. Someone who wants to forward an agenda needs to run for Congress. Of course, to do so requires some charm, and as Kagan has exuded none of that, this appointment is her only chance at acquiring power.
My concern is that Hatch knows his constituents in Utah want to read exactly what he wrote. After his buddy Bennett was recently ousted by voters tired of soulless senators, Hatch's position is grim, so a loud pronouncement like this may bolster his support back home. Again, this statement may be about principle, but it could just as easily be his only chance to keep his power.
Hatch, a Republican Senator from Utah, sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has participated in her hearing. Following is his statement in regards to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan:
"I have carefully examined Solicitor General Elena Kagan's record, actively participated in the entire Judiciary Committee hearing, and considered the views of supporters and opponents from Utah and across the country. Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy. The law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law. I have concluded that, based on evidence rather than blind faith, General Kagan regrettably does not meet this standard and that, therefore, I cannot support her appointment.
"Supreme Court Justices who, like General Kagan, had no prior judicial experience did have an average of 21 years in private legal practice. General Kagan has two. The fact that her experience is instead academic and political only magnifies my emphasis on judicial philosophy as the most important qualification for judicial service.
"Over nearly 25 years, General Kagan has endorsed, and praised those who endorse, an activist judicial philosophy. I was surprised when she encouraged us at the hearing simply to discard or ignore certain parts of her record. I am unable to do that. I also cannot ignore disturbing situations in which it appears that her personal or political views drove her legal views. She promoted the Clinton administration's extreme position on abortion, including the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.
"As Dean of Harvard Law School, she blocked the access by military recruiters that federal law requires. And she took legal positions on important issues such as freedom of speech that could undermine the liberties of all Americans.
"General Kagan is a good person, a skilled political lawyer, a brilliant scholar, and was a fine law school dean. I like her personally and I supported her to be Solicitor General. But applying the standard I have always used for judicial nominees, I cannot support her appointment to the Supreme Court."
I agree with every point Hatch makes in this statement. Her rejection of John Roberts' “objective umpire” idea makes her a very spooky appointment for the Supreme Court. Someone who wants to forward an agenda needs to run for Congress. Of course, to do so requires some charm, and as Kagan has exuded none of that, this appointment is her only chance at acquiring power.
My concern is that Hatch knows his constituents in Utah want to read exactly what he wrote. After his buddy Bennett was recently ousted by voters tired of soulless senators, Hatch's position is grim, so a loud pronouncement like this may bolster his support back home. Again, this statement may be about principle, but it could just as easily be his only chance to keep his power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)