Clearly Nebulous

When Irish Hearts are Happy...

...they open their arms and welcome those who deserve to be celebrated.

When about 300 American soldiers on their way to Iraq were grounded in Ireland, they wound up in a hotel where a wedding reception was in full swing.

Now, erroneous reports first said the soldiers crashed the party for Amelia Walsh and Sean O'Neill, but actually they were invited to join the celebration at the Clare Inn in Newmarket-on-Fergus.

The groom's uncle, Joe O'Neill said: "It didn’t take long before the combat fatigues were maneuvering to the strains of ‘The Walls of Limerick'."

The newlyweds posed for pictures with the troops and the father of the bride said the couple were "proud" to have the soldiers attend so they could experience an Irish wedding.

"They behaved in an exemplary manner at all times and if our troops behaved in the same way when they are on peacekeeping duties, I would be very proud," he said.

Everyone remembers that the Irish know how to treat a friend indeed.

Read one Irish journalist's take on how this was a proper way to thank the American troops here.

The Most Anticipated Round of Drinks in History!

I read E.J. Dionne's editorial today about how we as a nation need to stop all the racial score-settling. I found it very interesting that it was Henry Gates himself who once warned about:

"...a discourse in which everyone speaks of payback and nobody is paid," and concluded that "the result is that race politics becomes a court of the imagination wherein blacks seek to punish whites for their misdeeds and whites seek to punish blacks for theirs, and an infinite regress of score-settling ensues."

Makes me wish that he had listened to his own advice, because I don't think a round of beers in the Rose Garden can repair the damage that was done by this incident. I hope I'm wrong. A lot could be riding on how this meeting goes -- if it goes well, it may turn a step back into a step forward.

But am I the only one thinking that the media coverage of this is bordering on the ridiculous? I mean, we know all about the table they will be sitting at, exactly which brands of beer each man will be drinking... I wish I had the means to make a video -- but I was fulling expecting the coverage today to go something like this:

Jill: Well, the "Beer Summit" is just hours away, and we have a reporter at the scene with the latest. John, can you tell us if there are any new developments?

John: Well, I should mention there are protesters here who are enraged that an American, Canadian, and Jamaican beer are being consumed. They feel that the exclusion of beers from other parts of world shows a lack of diversity. But there are other, very important details we have learned.

First, we have an exclusive from the kitchen staff, that there will -- I repeat, there will be coasters used at the summit. There was some concern that there could be damage done to the customized picnic table and the plaques with the Presidents' names, but coasters will prevent that tragic possibility.

Second, we have learned that the men will not be drinking straight from the bottles, but will in fact be using glass mugs.

Jill: Have you been able to find out if the mugs will be frosted?

John: Wait I have someone signalling to me now... aaaand... Yes! I am able to confirm that indeed the mugs will be frosted!

Okay, maybe it won't be all that ridiculous. But it will be interesting to see  -- under this huge microscope, with expectations so high -- exactly what will be accomplished when three men sit down and imbibe some alcohol, shoot the breeze, talk about the weather, and maybe some sports... And then try to tackle one of the most serious issues in our nation.

We're going to need some pretzels with that.

                                                    

Does Any Politician Looks Good in Blue Jeans? You Betcha!

Ok! For the first time in a long time, a male politician is getting flak for his attire. Yes it is unfair how often women in politics -- or the wives of politicians -- are subject to readings of the riot act by the Fashion Police. But you have to admit it's because women actually wear attire worth noticing. Men's clothes are so boring -- most notably in the political realm.

I mean, what was the last fashion faux pas brouhaha regarding a male politician's business attire? Paul Simon's bow ties?

 

But I gotta side with Obama on this one. So, they were a little baggy -- but "mom jeans"?! Hardly. He was at a ballgame. He wanted to be comfortable. What's the big deal?

I mean it wasn't nearly as big a "Glamour Don't" as Bubba's short shorts! Ugh!

 

And for those who think it looks "un-Presidential" -- ok, so for sure don't wear them to a summit meeting. But jeans are as American as apple pie. We invented them. Every American owns a pair or two -- or twelve.

I'm glad to see Obama looking like a regular guy. He didn't have the equivalent of "spicy mustard" jeans. Designer duds are not required at the All-Star Game.

Besides, had he tried to look stylish in blue jeans, he would have paled in comparison to the only politician we know who can pull that off.

You betcha!

I Fought the Law and... Let's Go to the Video (or Audio) Tape

There has been a dicussion in the comments for my last post about race relations on this country. Now we have this Gates situation. A couple quick thoughts...

1) A black man the age of Gates more than likely experienced inequitable treament in his lifetime due to his skin color. AND --> I don't think he can compare himself to an inner city youth. Mr. Gates will not be able to convince me that he feared for his life. There was no reason why he couldn't simply cooperate to clear up a misunderstanding.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Gates had to drag race into this, and more unfortunate that Mr. Obama seemed to exacerbate it. The President may have been right that there are still problems with racism, but he jumped the gun in this instance. I don't understand why he thinks it's enough to acknowledge that he could have worded things differently. He called someone stupid when he shouldn't have. My mom taught me to apologize -- I'm guessing his did, too.

2) Apparently there are some audio tapes that may support the officer's account of the incident. And this leads to the bigger point I want to make:

It seems to me that it's about time that each and every encounter with law enforcement -- at the scene, on the street, by the roadside, in the interrogation room, wherever -- should be recorded in order for any sense of justice to be approached in this country.

There may still be lenghty trials that exonerate officers and enrage communities, as the Rodney King case did. But more often than not, the proof will be there as to what actually happened. There will still be disputes about whether force was "necessary," depending on the p.o.v. of the observer. But at least we can see what really occurred and not have conflicting accounts from the participants and witnesses, creating a situation just like Rashomon.

Now will this place a monetary burden on law enforcement budgets that are already strained? I imagine it will -- although with the cost of recording devices shrinking daily, it might be less than one would think. But I believe it's a cost that will pay for itself in the end -- not just monetarily, but in the way our society benefits in the name of true justice.

Sad that it's what we have to resort to, but there are too many with less than honorable motivations --on both sides of the law.

 

Thanks, Mr. Obama, for Proving Me Right

In another post that started out innocently enough with me pointing out that Twilight just might be more popular than the Obama girls (I will not make any Lennonesque comments about just how popular that movie is) I became embroiled in a debate in the commentary section.

I was admitting that the Obama family and BO himself set a good example for the black community, and for folks in general, but I felt he needed to say more. Not because he should but because if he did it could really have an impact. Just like he did with his Father's Day speech.

The commenter, Pat, was really giving me the business, in essence saying that it's not his job and he has so much else to do -- do you want him to come down and not be an elitist or rise up and be a shining example, etc

At one point she asked me what I thought he could say. I threw out this idea: 

"Here's a little thing he could do: Remind all the youth of our nation -- whatever color they are, who are at risk of dropping out -- what a privilege it is to be educated. They aren't trying to force something on you, they're giving you something -- you gotta grab it and make the most of it.

Just those few words, thrown in at these townhall meetings or in a national address -- I could be wrong, but with the influence the man seems to have, with the personal example that he has lived -- he could plant the seed that an education is the ticket out. It would then be up to us as a nation to nurture that seed and see that it flourishes."

As you probably have heard, that night he gave an address to the NAACP in which he said something not all that different. (Pat was the one who told me -- she must have been amazed with my prophetic wisdom, but fell short of admitting I was right.)

Now, I can't agree with everything the President said that night -- namely about his health-care, energy, and financial reform initiatives. And he and I have very different ideas about how to provide a decent education to struggling students, but I liked this part of his speech:

"Government programs alone won’t get our children to the Promised Land. We need a new mindset, a new set of attitudes – because one of the most durable and destructive legacies of discrimination is the way that we have internalized a sense of limitation; how so many in our community have come to expect so little of ourselves.

...Yes, if you’re African American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher. Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that someone in a wealthy suburb does not. But that’s not a reason to get bad grades, that’s not a reason to cut class, that’s not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school... Your destiny is in your hands...

To parents, we can’t tell our kids to do well in school and fail to support them when they get home. For our kids to excel, we must accept our own responsibilities. That means putting away the Xbox and putting our kids to bed at a reasonable hour. It means attending those parent-teacher conferences, reading to our kids, and helping them with their homework.

...It also means pushing our kids to set their sights higher. They might think they’ve got a pretty good jump shot or a pretty good flow, but our kids can’t all aspire to be the next LeBron or Lil Wayne. I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers. I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court Justice. I want them aspiring to be President of the United States.

...So, I know what can happen to a child who doesn’t have that chance. But I also know what can happen to a child who does. I was raised by a single mother. I don’t come from a lot of wealth. I got into my share of trouble as a kid. My life could easily have taken a turn for the worse. But that mother of mine gave me love; she pushed me, and cared about my education; she took no lip and taught me right from wrong. Because of her... I had the chance to make the most of life."

So listen, Pat, I don't expect the guy to be giving speeches like this every day -- or even every month. And of course it will remain to be seen just how much of an impact this speech -- hopefully coupled with future addresses -- will actually have on the black community or any young person at risk. We may not know until years from now.

But it's the silver lining of this presidency that I have been awaiting, and I hope it can bring about the change that I can believe in.

 

 

 

Any Mom Could Tell You -- Preborn Babies Have Memories

A study from the Netherlands confirms what every mom already knows: babies in the womb have memories.

My mother told me how I (or was it my brother?) would calm at the sound of the opening theme from The Days of Our Lives. Then she figured it out: she would sit down and watch the show everyday, including during her final months of pregnancy. It was familiar, and therefore soothing.

I had similar stories for each of my kids, most amusingly with my youngest. During our son's final weeks in my ever-expanding belly, my husband and I sat down to watch the entire first season of The Office. I was relaxed and laughing happily during those viewings.

Months later, picking up his big sister from the airport, my little guy was crying inconsolably at the very start of an hour-long drive. Thinking quickly, my daughter pulled out her cell phone and played the ring-tones on it.

The one that calmed him down immediately? The folksy strains that are heard over the opening shots of the gang at Dunder-Mifflin, of course. We must have played it a hundred times. And it worked on many an airport trip after that -- and elsewhere -- whenever she came to visit.

It still makes him smile, to this day.

So NARAL has no comment -- of course not. But every mom already knows it. Our babies lives do not begin on the day they are born. Life begins in the most sacred place of all -- the sanctity of our wombs --  no matter what NARAL, NOW or our President says.

What's Wrong with this Picture? Flow Chart has One Big Omission

Ok, so you've probably seen this flow chart. (Here's a better look at it that more readable.) It's become such a phenomenon, now you can buy the t-shirt. But there's one big omission on it. I can't believe it was left out.

I love what the man who unveiled it, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), had to say about the chart which  identifies at least 31 new federal programs, agencies, commissions and mandates:

“Why should any patient be forced to give control of their health care over to this Faustian pit of Washington bureaucracy?"

Here's what they had to say about the topic yesterday on Hannity -- there's a funny breakdown of the chart by Griff Jenkins and then J.C. Watts weighs in on the health care plan:

Sure, jokes can be made about missing boxes. "I don’t see any boxes for Fraud, Waste, Graft, and Abuse," said one poster on a website.

Another said so poetically, "Where is the  box with all the pathway arrows eventually making their way to it that says 'You’re Screwed'? "

But there's one big, fat box that actually should be on there that isn't -- one for Planned Parenthood. Yep, even though they make nearly a billion dollars a year, and are given over $300M by the government, and take money from the likes of the Susan G. Komen Foundation -- PP will garner even more power under this plan as abortion on demand will have to be included in every insurance plan in the land.

There is so much wrong with this picture -- with this boondoggle that the Dems are trying to pass off as health care reform. Call your senators -- NOW!

An Honest Liberal Law Professor Takes Sotomayor to Task

I could not approach being nearly as eloquent as Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman in an on-line debate over at the Federalist Society.

Believe me, this guy is as liberal as they come. He not only defended SS's statements about being empathetic and being a wise Latina but also the irrelevancy of not being able to find a single case in which partial-birth abortion was medically necessary.

But at least the guy is calling this nomination procedure like he sees it. On July 14 he wrote:

"...I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts?

First year law students understand within a month that many areas of the law are open textured and indeterminate—that the legal material frequently (actually, I would say always) must be supplemented by contestable presuppositions, empirical assumptions, and moral judgments. To claim otherwise—to claim that fidelity to uncontested legal principles dictates results—is to claim that whenever Justices disagree among themselves, someone is either a fool or acting in bad faith. What does it say about our legal system that in order to get confirmed Judge Sotomayor must tell the lies that she told today? That judges and justices must live these lies throughout their professional carers?

Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves."

Today he explained himself even further -- not backing off from what he said:

"...There's no denying that Republicans on the committee put Judge Sotomayor in a difficult moral position...  Either Judge Sotomayor had to misrepresent what she knows judges (all judges, conservative and liberal) do in hard cases, or she had to risk defeat. I'm willing to concede that this is not an easy choice, but I nonetheless think that she made a serious mistake.

To his tremendous credit, President Obama has made an effort in his public statements to shift the official ideology of judging so that it has some contact with reality. Yesterday, Judge Sotomayor explicitly repudiated the President. Here are some of the consequences of this kind of unilateral disarmament:

1. It means that the only people who end up on the Supreme Court are either naïfs or cynics.

2. It means that every official act that a justice takes deepens the corrosive cognitive dissonance between what she pretends to do and what she actually does. This kind of deep hypocrisy imposes psychic costs that, at some point, are bound to have an effect on decision-making.

3. Anyone who knows anything about law knows that the official version is a lie, but many Americans don't know anything about law. To them, the official version sounds plausible. Reinforcing that version has a terrible effect on the possibility of serious public deliberation about constitutional law.

The pity is that all of this was probably unnecessary. The Democrats have sixty votes in the Senate. It would have taken some courage for Judge Sotomayor to have told the truth, but not much. She said yesterday that judges should never decide cases out of fear. Yesterday, she testified out of fear. We have a right to expect better of her."

Couldn't have said it better myself. And yet, not only will the 60 Democratic senators shamelessly vote in favor of her nomination, but some Republicans will shamelessly join them.

But as Seidman said above, they probably don't know anything about the law, and to them the official version sounds plausible.

So glad to know that our legislature appoints nominees to the highest court in the land based on a "Sounds good to me!"

 

Sticking Up for Hillary?!

Egads! I'm with Hillary on this one.

I've been laughing at both HRC and BO all along. While they have pretended to have made all nice, you just know that there is a bitterness pervading their working relationship.

I've laughed at Hillary, knowing that she envisioned something bordering on a "co-presidency" -- at least on foreign matters. Does she honestly think that BO is going to let her run the show outside our borders?

And I've laughed at BO, knowing that he thought that since he's the President, she'll have to do as he says. Does he honestly think that he -- or anyone -- can tell Hillary what to do?

I just hope that it comes out someday, some way -- who had what info on whom. But I digress...

I've admired that HRC for the most part has not been engaging in the USA-flagellation that BO so easily falls into -- on just about every trip to any foreign land. (Sure, once in a while he stands up for our ideals, but there always seems to be some caveat that involves admitting some fault.) And I've actually been wondering where she has been lately -- has BO been trying to suppress her? Has she not been willing to follow his marching orders?

While I'm not ready to jump on the HRC bandwagon, I'm beginning to think it's about time to cut her some slack -- if only because she's willing to stand up to Obama.

Then yesterday there was a story that when the State Department issues its next report on global human trafficking, it will include the US in its assessment.

The question was raised at a news conference by someone who actually seemed concerned only about the coyotes who bring in illegal immigrants and securing our borders. Deep concerns indeed.

But when speaking of human trafficking, there is another kind, of course. The trafficking of young women and girls (and boys) for the sex trade. Even deeper concerns. Unfortunately they are often only associated with certain Asian nations.

But there have been cases on our southern border that involved women being held against their will and forced into prostitution. I wish I could recall the details of a story I saw on one of the prime time news shows that told how women were being held captive along the border in Texas. They were dragged into cleared areas under bushes and assaulted repeatedly. I was able to find this story -- so we know it can happen here.

Now many a conservative will have a natural reaction to consider this step preposterous. That we as a nation shouldn't be judged alongside the likes of Thailand. But I think I have to side with Hillary.

I do not fear that ultimately it will make us look like bad guys. To the contrary. As in the case above, we as a nation ardently fight this kind of debasement of human rights. The sex slave trade may still have a rare occurrence across our border, but we as a nation are not turning a blind eye to it as so many other nations do.

I predict this report will show the US as a shining example of how to fight this evil. And it will put to shame those countries who unapologetically accept it, as if nothing can be done.

To learn more about how you can help women and girls forced into the sex slave trade abroad, go to www.love146.com . 

Twilight Trumps Obama Girls

A 16-year-old neighbor reports this from the Jonas Brothers concert on July 13:

Audience members were able to text messages, and some were selected to be shown on a big screen.

When a message read "Scream if you like Sasha and Malia" a yell went up. (Probably in appreciation that the Obama sisters' attendance did not delay the start of the show, which actually started 3 minutes early.)

"But," said this wise conservative young lady, "when the next one said 'Scream if you like Twilight!'  Three times as loud."

Wonder what it would have been if it said "Scream if you like Sarah Palin."

Probably somewhere in between...

A picture of the screen at the Jonas Brothers concert on July 13.

The Only Big Loser in Palin Resignation

Yeah, this story ain't new. But I haven't written anything in so long, it had to be the topic upon my return...

So, Sarah Palin is stepping down. Not quitting. Not giving in. Not saying that the job was just too tough. Not abandoning the people of Alaska. Not totally ruining any future in politics.

But of course, that's what all her opponents and the MSM are saying. Of course they are. They think they've won. They think that saying those things will a) make them true and b) tarnish her and prevent her from doing what they have feared all along: becoming President. (Shudder!)

But of course, they are wrong. There are a lot of winners from this move, and only one big loser. But not the ones they say.

The winners:

The people of Alaska. Not because Sarah Palin was such a bad leader -- she was a great leader with bipartisan support that had astronomical approval ratings. Until, of course she had the audacity to try and go against Obama. Unforgivable!

So each and every Democrat in that state then opposed her at every turn. For the price of a postage stamp, they could file an ethics complaint that had to be investigated, costing the state tons of money. Palin could get nothing done. So she did the best thing for her constituents -- she chose to step down so that the state can get back to normal under the guidance of another great patriot, Sean Parnell.

  

The citizens of the U.S. Now that every single move by the Alaskan governor will not be challenged, there can be some real progress in taking advantage of the natural resources of the state. Still a tough sell thanks to the eco-policies of the current administration, but when push comes to shove, and even more people of this country demand to significantly decrease our subservience to overseas oil production, the Yukon State will be ready and able.

The Republican Party. In the great 49th state and the lower 48. Despite what some Republican leaders are saying, Sarah Palin is a rock star. When she starts campaigning for Republican candidates and starts raking in big bucks at fundraisers, they'll be falling all over themselves to get her to appear at their functions. Big money = big wins in 2010 -- and beyond.

The Palin family. Obviously, just like every celebrity, there will be opportunities to earn big bucks for her family. So why is this the only personal benefit that opponents are focusing on -- suggesting that Palin was leaving Alaska in a lurch simply to cash in? The Palin family will not only benefit from more "quality time" but they will be free to do as they like which they more than richly deserve after the last 10 months.

Sarah herself. Pundits for and against her argue whether or not this was a smart move. But what they are forgetting, is that no politician feels that being in the White House is the be-all and end-all of their purpose on earth. (Well, except for Hillary, of course.) And Sarah is no exception. She knows that if it's as President someday or not, she can do good in this world and for this country. She has nothing to prove to anyone but herself and her Maker.

And the one big loser:

The presence of women in our political system. Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post had an op-ed back in May of 2008 that discussed a study of why so few women run for office in America.  The main reason seemed to be that women recoiled from "dirty politics" and were reluctant to jump into the ring.

So what do Marcus and her ilk proceed to do? Attempt to tear down Sarah Palin every chance they got. When she announced she would be leaving, did Marcus say that this should not be taken as a sign that women can't handle it? Did she chide those who had blocked every move by Palin? No, she took Sarah to task, doing further damage to the political atmosphere for women.

Perhaps Marcus & co. think that they have emboldened more Pelosis and Feinsteins. But no one looks at the darlings when they are considering the political arena. They see the drudge. And it is not only conservative women and the mushy middle (especially loathe to enter the fray) who may have been turned away, even liberal women (front-row witnesses to Hillary's mistreatment) may also be content to stand on the sidelines and let the guys mix it up.

Thanks to the incessant attacks of the Democratic party, the media, the late-night comics, and the liberals in LA-LA Land, the governing bodies of this nation may continue to have a dearth of the contributions that women could be making to the hallowed halls of our legislatures. And the vicious lefties will have no one to blame but themselves.

But not if Sarah Palin, myself, and every other brave female soul out there have our say... despite them all.