22
Jan
I have the Social Security issue all figured out ( again ). It doesn’t require cutting back benefits or raising taxes. It’s simple too.
Just expand the death penalty to include crimes that result in abuse or death. That category would include molesters, drug dealers, and “insane” murderers. Make it a lot simpler to enforce if the evidence is obvious. Eliminate states’ choice in the matter. If one state won’t do it, send them to a state that will. Make it quick. Make it often.
THEN
Open the doors and let the Mexicans work here all they want. Just tax them as you would any US citizen.
What you get is a bunch of people who would drain the system are removed while a bunch more people contribute to it that can never use it.
Simple, huh?
27
Oct
I have written a few times about Westboro Church. They are disgusting and abusing religion in the worst possible way. Well, one father of a slain soldier has had enough. Albert Snyder, father of Matthew Snyder, is suing Westboro for disrupting his son’s funeral. I am 100% in support of Albert’s lawsuit. However, he’s an average guy with somewhat limited resources and needs help.
You can help by going following this link.
Please do.
November 1, 2007 UPDATE: Snyder won his case! However, some are feeling that free speech advocacy might win out in the long run. However, this ain’t your typical free speech. This is verbal assaults intentionally aimed at the families of someone who has just died. Twenty-two states have placed limitations on these idiots because it so out of the expectations the Founding Fathers had in mind. They can say whatever the hell they please. But, there is no logical reason on this Earth that they should have the legal right to say it DURING and AT a funeral. None. Let them say it all day and night in Topeka Kansas. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to say what you want, WHERE you want. And, saying some things will get you in trouble. That’s already proven and accepted by the Supreme Court. Assaulting someone is not protected by the Constitution. Never has been.
11
Sep
Kathy Griffin won an Emmy for making people laugh. Well some people anyway, I don’t have a clue who she is. However, she felt compelled to undo that laughter with her acceptance speech:
Yet another shooting star who feels compelled to use the limelight of their industry’s honoring them to push their own personal political rhetoric. My guess is she’s going to get a lot of flack over this. And she should. This was no place for politics, period. We reward these people for entertaining us. If we wanted their politics, they should be running for office. But they don’t, and they won’t, they don’t have the guts to put their butts on the line where it only really matters. And, they know that unlike the media driven industry they dwell in, the average person doesn’t have to accept their BS and they would never get elected with opinions like that. She may get a seat on The View, but she’ll never be in a position to push the rhetoric in any realistic way. Stupid move, Kathy. Very, very stupid.
19
Aug
Kevin Rudd is a very popular politician in Australia. He has run on conervative Christian values and has done quite well using that platform. That platform has been quite used in the US for about 25 years or so, but is still fairly unusual in Australia. So, people in Australia are having quite a time dealing with his latest headline:
Paper Exposes Australian Opposition Leader’s Drunken Romp at NYC Strip Club
Now, this comes right back to the problem I’ve had with politicians mixing religion with politics. Most often, they set a moral bar so high, by criticizing other candidates, that it’s impossible for them to maintain as well. Everyone sins. If they don’t, they are too boring to get elected to any position. Everyone NEEDS to sin. It’s good for the soul. Someone who runs around pointing fingers at someone else for doing what I would do to vent my stresses in life doesn’t appeal to me. Never has. People who adhere to conservative values often mistake the perception that applies to their personal lives as well. I just don’t buy that and think that has been an overwhelming mistake people have made over the last twenty-five years. Conservative values in politics just means smaller, less meddling government. That’s all. It does not mean you have to be a religious puritan. Never has. Some of the greatest conservatives previous to 1980 were drunken brawlers. However, they kept their personal lives and their politics seperate. All they shot for was keeping government taxes low and government intervention in public life minimal.
I really think we need to return to the days when people stopped trying to imply conservatism is a religious adjective. No one apparently can live up to that expectation. Just ask Kevin.
Spent a little bit of the last hour or so mulling over someone mulling from the middle. In this case, it’s Kevin Sullivan. In this case, he really does seem to live in the middle. I REALLY like what he’s got to say and will be keeping an eye on his stuff.
11
Jun
I read an excellent comment on Outside the Beltway. I’d like to just post the whole thing here, but that’s discouraged. So, I’ll just lift the best part:
Perhaps naively, I still believe genuine corruption among Congressmen and other major officials in American politics is an aberration rather than routine. The people who aspire to and land in those high offices are mostly already quite successful and motivated by some combination of a genuine desire to serve, an interest in public policy, fame, and power. Money is likely low on the list; certainly, most could make more money elsewhere.
Still, the earmarking system is a classic case of the real crime is whats legal. Transparency should be the hallmark of the appropriations process and secret deals are anathema to that. The process brings suspicion on what I believe to be the lions share of Congressmen who at honorably. Its high time for serious reform.
I think James Joyner is dead-on. However, the perception problem has been compounded of late by SOME politicians pandering to the “all politicians are corrupt theme”. Mainly, of course, Nancy Pelosi and her culture of corruption theme when the Republicans were in charge. That may have bought her a few votes, but it damaged the reputation of Congress in general because although she painted it as a one way issue, it reminded voters of all the legal dancing Clinton did. And, now that Democrats are getting busted, the fact is obvious that neither party is immune. This now blatantly obvious pandering by Pelosi is biting her party in the butt right now. And, it’s going to get worse. You take a group of 535 people and your chances that none of them will succumb to the temptations of seeing a lot of money floating around won’t tempt a single one are nil. People steal from churches, boy scouts, grocery stores, Goodwill. You name it, someone will take it. Congressmen are people no different than anyone else. Some are financially stable, some not. It doesn’t really matter a whole lot because some want more than what they have no matter what they already have. Nancy was betting against insurmountable odds that of the nearly 300 people she lumped in her holier than thou clique, none would succumb. By doing that, she immediately excited the opposite party to keep a special eye out for those that do. When they do, they will be targeted with added vigor by those labeled by Pelosi as being corrupt because of their registration. So, I do see some ugliness where ugliness need not be. William Jefferson is this month’s poster boy for the Republicans, there will be another soon enough.
Secondly, although people rattle off a list of five to ten Congressmen that have gotten into trouble over the last few years, that’s from a list of several hundred. If all of our society could hold to that standard, our jails wouldn’t be crammed full. Fact is, Congress in large does set a higher standard of ethics than the society they were selected from. No one’s a saint, but by and large, they do abide by the laws. You just never hear about those. Ever.
Lastly, the system in place now encourages unethical practices. The problem we have now is very unethical practices are allowed, but then we expect them to abide within the laws. It’s sort of a catch-22. In order to get your word out in DC, you’re expected to accept certain things. Meals, mixers, whatever. It just can’t be cash. Well, it can be cash, but it has to go through a very methodical manner via donations to some PAC or 527. Then they can spend it. What Jefferson did legally wrong was he didn’t form a 527 or PAC to accept that money. That’s all. If he had, he could have been bought all day and night and no laws would have been broken. That’s why I have harped that if Nancy Pelosi were sincere in her political pandering to voters to clean up Washington, we would have seen something tangible. As yet, we haven’t . 527s, PACs, donations, speaking fees, they’re all as legal as they were before. Nothing has been introduced to curb their influence. So, it’s the same old hypocrisies. Nancy got what she wanted, now the issue’s dead and the if the next Congressman busted is a Republican, she’ll harp on the “culture of corruption” and the media will eat it up. If it’s a Democrat, especially if it’s a minority representing Democrat, they’ll harp it’s an anomaly, the vast right wing conspiracy, or the Republicans making them bad. And the core issues will get white-washed again.
Every time the G-8 convenes, a bunch of people feel compelled to protest. More often than not they don’t know why, they just know they have to. Like you know when you have to poop, pee, and eat, these people know they have to protest. Case in point about how they don’t even seem to know what they are protesting against:
All I’ve got to go by is the video and pictures of what they are doing. I don’t care enough to research any further. However, it is apparently obvious to me this year they are protesting clowns. Now, that’s all fine and good, and people have the right to protest anything they want, but last I heard, the G-8 supported the rights of all clowns in the world to look clownish any time they chose so long as they didn’t ask the non-clowns of the world to loan them billions of dollars they never intended to pay back.
29
May
Nah, this isn’t going to be your typical illegal alien rant. This is much more important:
The Don attributed their rude behavior to protest of US immigration policies. However, that doesn’t condone them attacking an innocent person, and they know that. So, it was just plain rude and totally inappropriate. I think an apology from whoever it is that is the Mexican presidente would be greatly appreciated by those of us IN the United States propping up his economy by employing those workers who apparently can’t get a job there. If he wishes for us to continue doing so, he better start giving us reasons to LIKE Mexico and a few less reasons to NOT like Mexico. The reason the immigration policy is so popular here and so unpopular there is it keeps the thugs, drugs, and criminals THERE and not HERE. That’s not Rachel Smith’s fault, it’s theirs.
File this one under jerks of the day as well.
Other opinions:
17
May
I wasn’t going to say anything about Falwell’s passing, but feel remiss for not. So, I’m gonna tackle it as best I can.
I have never been a fan of Falwell’s. Ever. When I was a small kid and he was on television, I either laughed at how inane he was, or just turned it before anyone could see it was even on long enough for me to figure what it was and flip the channel. Televangelists just annoy me.
However, if you go back to 1979, the country was in a state of flux. We had possibly the worst president of all time, definitely in my lifetime. We were still reeling from Vietnam. The Supreme Court was passing repeated very liberal opinions. The US was being held hostage by Iranians. The economy was in shambles. Gas was scarce and expensive. Things were basically just a huge mess. And, they were the result of very liberal and weak leadership. Although Jimmy Carter was a very religious man, his policies were perceived as being very liberal. The Republican Party was disorganized and completely lacking direction. The prospects going into 1980 were pretty bleak on both sides. Ronald Reagan had lost his primary in 1976 to Gerald Ford in a very tight primary that split the party even moreso than it had been already. Ted Kennedy was giving Jimmy Carter a fight for his political life when the hostage situation bailed Carter out. The events that caused the country to rally behind the flag would lead to complete and utter frustration. Things were bad and no one was stepping up to lead us in a new direction. Reagan was very upbeat and positive, but was relying on his economic philosophies to excite his voter base. And, it wasn’t working. Then, leading into the North Carolina primary, things changed. Senator Jesse Helms came out very firmly behind Reagan and brought all his organization and grass roots support with him. What that led to was Jerry Falwell organizing a new element in politics, televangelist driven voter drives. The ranks of Republican voters had steadily declined throughout the 60′s and 70′s. With this new social initiative, they suddenly swelled. With Reagan’s acting skills and speech making prowess, the Republican Primary of 1976 turned unexpectedly exciting with an obvious new element arising in the party. The Democrat Party was contentious and traditional. Although Reagan lost in 1976, by the time Jimmy Carter was sworn in, the whole country knew who our next president would be. It was just a matter of time. During that time Falwell continued to motivate young, conservative professionals to register Republican en masse. Millions of them joined the Republican Party. Whereas the Democrat Party had staked its future on the hippy generation, the Republicans were being reborn as the religious conservatives. And, these weren’t your typical conservatives. They were aggressive and outspoken. Just like their mentors. When Reagan won in 1980, Falwell was given a lot of credit. When Reagan was re-elected in 1984, Falwell was there with him. The Neo-conservatives had risen from nothing to national prominence in basically eight years. Thanks for the most part by the leadership of Falwell. Those who dared attack Falwell, as McCain did in 1984, lost. The Republicans were back in control, and would eventually regain the House and Senate briefly. Falwell and his followers were right there with them the whole way. When Clinton won in 1992, neither candidate really associated themselves with the Religious right. However, Falwell and the Religious Right went after Congress and the Senate. With that grassroots conservatism, the Republicans won both the House and Senate. In 2000, they’d get the White House as well. With the riches came the in-fighting that goes along with it. The Religious Right basically imploded and Falwell faded from the limelight amid a series of very intolerant quotes.
As I started with, I didn’t like Jerry Falwell. I don’t like what the Neos have done to my party. But, I do acknowledge that if they hadn’t, there wouldn’t be much left of that party. Reagan and the neophyte Neocons returned the United States to a strong two-party system, regardless of what I think. Maybe not for the right reason for me. But, the alternative was even worse.
And for that, Jerry Falwell does need to be recognized.
Before going any farther, I learned a long time ago not to trust rhetoric purely because someone says it happened. So, I looked up John Edwards’ website. Sure enough, here it is:
As citizens, we honor and support our troops for their service and sacrifice.As Americans, we are blessed by that sacrifice and support, which keeps us safe and keeps us strong.
I tend to agree with Morin on this one. Using a day to honor to people who have died defending our country is the worst possible day to politicize someone’s own personal beliefs. It’s a day for them, not for John Edwards. I doubt Edwards had much support from military voters in the first place, if this word gets spread around much, he’ll probably have none.
However, the bigger issue I see for John is that he is apparently making the War in Iraq his central theme by focusing on it on his website, and starting a website specifically to protest the War, http://www.supportthetroopsendthewar.com/ Now, as I noted strongly earlier, this rigid anti-war rhetoric hasn’t done Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats any good at all. Her ratings have fallen precipitously since she went hard-line on the issue. That’s something Nancy can work her way out of over time, she’s not gonna get voted out any time soon. Not so with Edwards. The primaries are right around the corner and the places he’s leading, such as Iowa, are strong conservative areas where he’s perceived as the least liberal of the Dems running. He can’t afford to slip in those areas. He won’t win in New York or Illinois, or probably California. He HAS to win in the bread-basket. And, by alienating the military, he won’t.
The American Legion is huge across the US. Count Edwards out IMO.
