Clearly Nebulous

Save Sakineh -- and others like her...

Although her stoning apparently has been suspended, Iranian mother Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani still faces a death sentence for having an "illicit relationship." She has already endured 99 lashes, and will likely be hanged. 

It is not known for certain what became of the two men involved, but since women must be proven innocent and men must be proven guilty in these cases, it almost always results in no punishment for males.

The estimate of 5000 "honor killings" worldwide each year is probably far lower than the actual number.

This article reports that apparently "honor killings" are on the rise, and not just in Muslim countries -- the majority of reported deaths occur in the U.K. (But of course, the numbers reported are far lower than the actual crimes committed.) While the author argues that the motivation is religious, not simply misogynistic, I believe that this barbaric practice is dis-using religious beliefs to justify the most heinous oppression of women. Ain't nothing more misogynist than killing a woman simply for seeking to live a normal life.

A website started by Sakineh's two sons tells her story and has a petition asking for her release. (And there is a facebook page as well.) It has attracted the attention of some celebrities, but it deserves everyone's attention on its own merit. We cannot continue to let extremists hijack a peaceful religion, and stopping the murders of innocent women is one of the most compelling reasons to speak out.

Illegal is AZ Illegal Does

The question of what to do about illegal immigration in this country has come to a boil over a new law signed in Arizona. I think the facts of this legislation have been lost in the coverage by liberal media outlets. Many incorrect assumptions have been made. Those who support immigrant rights shouldn't be so fast to condemn Gov. Jan Brewer without knowing the truth. 

Jan Brewer with the Governor of Sonora -- the governor of Arizona has been working hard to have good relations with Mexican officials during her administration. No one seems to be reporting that...

 

The truth is -- this state legislation is no different  than the federal laws already on the books. It merely makes a federal crime into a state crime as well. 

Here is the actual, pertinent language: 

“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state... where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”

Lawful contact. Sorry, but the comparisons to Nazi Germany asking to "zee if your papers are in order" are just not accurate. No one will be arbitrarily pulled aside simply based on how they look. 

Reasonable suspicion. Campbell Brown declared that Latinos in Arizona are going to be afraid to be on the streets. Why? The governor has already declared there will be training to avoid profiling. If you aren't doing anything wrong, and you are here legally -- what is there to fear?

Determine the immigration status. Just like anyone who is stopped by an officer, they will ask for a driver's license or some other form of identification. If the offender can't produce any, they can -- just like anyone else -- be detained. This is in accordance with federal laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

"Abolish Borders" -- seriously?!!

What's really going on here is that Arizona and the GOP are being labeled by liberals as "draconian"-- simply for asking what is already national law to be enforced.

Rather than calling names and posturing -- or boycotting Arizona as lawmakers in San Francisco are considering and other groups are calling for -- those who oppose the legislation should keep the debate where it belongs. 

I personally believe that the U.S. is a great land of opportunity that can accommodate a vast number of those seeking the American dream. AND you have to come here legally.

I have no patience for those who want to keep all immigrants out and who complain about them not learning the language. We are a magnanimous nation. There is plenty of room at the table, and we can work around language barriers.

The state of Arizona is struggling to deal with the estimated billion dollars it costs them to deal with the nearly half-million illegals amongst its 6.6 million legal residents. Violence has spilled across their border. The feds have let them down, so they are taking action.

Perhaps the governor's approach is not the best way to deal with this issue. Rather than frijole swastikas and yelling in the streets, let's get back to a reasonable debate about how we can secure our borders and stop the violence while allowing entry to those in search of a better life.

Meanest GOP ever? Good!

It's funny how some sermons really resonate -- even if the message is really simple. One that has stuck with me for several years was about being a "mean" parent.

How many of us have heard more than a few times from our kids -- "You're so mean!" 

Well, a preacher taught me the proper reply to such outbursts -- "You think I'm mean? Gooood!"

Because if it's mean to say no to my children in order to protect them, or if it's generally in their best interest, I'm going to say no. I don't care about being popular with them, I don't care how much of a fuss they make.

Because more than sometimes "no" is the best call.

"But everybody else agrees with me."

"No."

"All of my friends get to do it."

"No."

"Come on, I never get to do anything."

"No."

I'll throw in some levity "I know, I know. I'm the Meanest Mom in the World -- I won't let my kid go see a trashy movie/ watch another hour of tv / hang out at them mall again / what-have-you..."

They get the message. They don't like it, but they are learning it's my job.

This lesson can be used in all sorts of extrapolations, in interpersonal relationships and in greater context.

It's a lesson that a certain sector of the electorate and elected officials in this nation need to learn.

Meanest minority in Congress? Gooood!

                                    

Waiting for Obama to Decide, People Died

Gee, should we distill the complex issue of dealing with our military decisions to simple phrases?

As if the burden of making decisions about the ramifications of war can be summed up in a single "clever" sentence. But liberals seem to think that Bush twisted the truth in a rush to judgment and still use a similar phrase about him. Even though Congress agreed with Bush and supported his decisions, they have to throw it on him, suggesting he deliberately misled everyone to force their hands.

Why shouldn't we now do the same to Obama, suggesting that his languid indecision is leading to more deaths than necessary?  Of course there should be astute analysis before he acts -- but when does forethought become procrastination? When does worrying about what this group or that country will think give way to the fortitude to commit oneself to a course of action?

Should we also suggest that the President stop playing so much golf and start concentrating on the matters at hand? Michael Moore made a big deal about it in Fahrenheit 9/11 -- Bush eventually saw the light on that one, and stopped playing. Meanwhile, Obama has hit the links more times in 10 months than W. did in eight years (technically 33 months -- Bush stopped playing in October 2003). Will there be a documentary from Moore suggesting that Obama cares more about his short game than the troops? Why aren't we hearing a roar of disapproval for BO's time on the fairway?

Sure a President needs to decompress -- how about sticking to jogging and leaving the clubs idle?

And when will the MSM utter anything remotely resembling disapproval? Very few supporters of the President have criticized his indecision on Afghanistan. While continuing to delay -- while searching for improbable "off-ramps" out of the mess -- while trying to find his way out of the conundrum of winning the war he said we could and should (during the campaign), but also keep favor with those who want an immediate pull-out...

While 86 days have passed since McChrystal requested more troops -- the quagmire persists, and our troops remain vulnerable.

Sarah Palin said that Obama needs to make a simple decision. Liberals jump all over the word simple -- misunderstanding that she is not saying it's an easy choice. But it's one he knew was coming, and one that is expected of the President of the United States. It's part of the job description. It's all about having the guts to make these hard decisions, and facing the fallout.

Candidate Obama said he would take care of the situation in Afghanistan. It's long past time for President Obama to do so.

I am not a Verb! I am a Human Being!

Historical figures lend their names to all kinds of allusions -- from Oedipal to Kafkaesque, we have seen how the famous can easily illustrate a comparison in contemporary times. You know me, I'm all about short cuts. Any way to find more minutes in my day. It's so much easier to say "They gave him the Three Stooges treatment" than to go into details.

But now, I have to stand up and say no to the latest political trend: The tendency of writers and pundits to use a politician's name as a verb has got to stop. I don't think we're ever going to stop folks from using "Boycott" but let's call for an end to using "Bork" as a verb.

Sure it's punchy, and it sounds like a verb -- but it's a lazy way of describing a nefarious course of action and it demeans a brilliant man I have had the pleasure of meeting. He's a real person whose judicial credentials were considered impeccable until he happened to face the wrath of abortion supporters when he was nominated for the Supreme Court.

Now gentleman that he is, Judge Bork can be gracious about this distinction.  "My name became a verb. And I regard that as one form of immortality," he has quipped. But I would be willing to guess that he would much rather be remembered as the brilliant legal mind who tried to emulate his hero, Sir Thomas More.

But this has to be bipartisan -- the WashPo had an article today that said Dede Scozzafava fears that now she will be the new verb in politics. That pundits will declare that conservative Republicans will Scozzafava any candidates they view as too liberal.

Not quite as punchy -- doesn't really roll off the tongue too easily -- but neither does Blagoevich, and I think lots of folks learned how to pronounce that name, which could also be a contender for the next political verb. Yes, I made fun of her name at the end of the campaign, but the campaign is over. Time to let her be.

And while we're at it -- a similar, yet much darker use of a political figure's name emerged recently. Sad to report that it was suggested by a liberal blogger (I won't name the sleaze ball) that a good man's name, Bart Stupak, should be made synonymous with the sepsis that can occur with an illegal abortion.

Never mind that such sepsis occurs in legal abortions too, and never mind that it's the sector of society that tells women an abortion is their "best" option and drives them to take desperate measures -- not men like Stupak who are standing up and saying that every woman and her child deserves to be cherished -- that cause women to experience such an infection.

Enough already. Stop being lazy, stop trying so hard to sound clever. Talk about the issues, but leave people their dignity.

Election 2009: Lessons for a Krystal Ball

My head is awhirl from all the political spin this morning! My thoughts:

1) McBollinelli sweeps in Virginia

There's more to this story, as many other Republicans at lower levels were also voted in, including 5 more seats in the Virginia House to increase their majority. Was it Deeds fault for not embracing Obama? Well, that didn't work for Corzine. Was it because voters simply wanted to clean house? Probably, since exit polls indicated that jobs and the economy were their #1 concern. (Despite the fact that VA's unemployment rate is only about 6.4%, far below the national average.)

But wouldn't you know it -- while just four years ago, the Democrat's win was declared a referendum on GWB by the NYTimes -- for some reason that same publication says the success of the GOP in this election is only a reflection on Democrats, not the President. I think it truly was a rejection of the politics of Obama, Pelosi and Reid, and that a better run campaign by Deeds would not have made a difference -- and embracing BO might have made the defeat worse.

One last thing -- it was verrrry interesting that the attempt to beat down McDonnell based on his beliefs expressed years ago was not successful. McDonnell's actual record won over the electorate. The Dems did not learn the lesson that BO won the state of VA in spite of his social liberalism, not because of it. So much for a socially conservative Republican not being able to win.

2) Christie over Corzine

Obama and other prominent Dems went there several times, and Corzine still lost. Not a referendum on BO, but it shows that if you follow the Democratic recipe for dealing with a financial crisis as Corzine did (raising taxes and increasing spending) not even a popular Democratic President -- past or present -- can save you. Voters of all parties are sick of the exorbitant tax rates and spending.

Christie actually didn't run a very good campaign, was outspent by at least 3 to 1, and still beat an incumbent from a Democratic state. So much for a socially conservative Republican not being able to win.

3) Hoffman just misses in NY-23

The Dems are spinning this to say that a Democrat pulled off an upset in a traditionally Republican area.

Said a frequent commenter on my site: "Owens won in a district that hadn't gone to a Dem since the Civil War! I'm over the moon about it. It seems Mrs. Palin's endorsement went over like a lead balloon! I guess she'll have to find redemption elsewhere, because thousands of Facebook followers do not a successful presidential candidate make."

What?! How about this analysis: Owens didn't even get half of the vote (and that 49% might be even less with absentees counted), and that was after he was given a few points by DS's endorsement. You can also add the folks who didn't want to vote for a third party candidate. (I know that I am loathe to encourage them in general, although this case was entirely different.) And -- how do I say this? I think some Owens voters just went for the more "charismatic" guy. I mean, have you seen and heard Hoffman? Anyway so much for a socially conservative Republican not being able to (almost) win.

A lead balloon? Seriously? Hoffman was a blip on the radar just 30 days ago. He took off like a rocket in the polls once Palin and others got on board. Another 30 days and the result could easily have gone the other way. (And I hardly think a win by Hoffman would have meant anything about Palin's presidential chances -- a loss doesn't either.)

Over the moon? About a special election that will more than likely be corrected a year from now when the local GOP -- which I believe has learned it's lesson not to put in a DIABLO (even worse than a RINO -- a Dem In All But Label Only) -- chooses a candidate even better than Hoffman and blows Owens away? More like, get over yourselves.

The interesting 2010 race that I now look to locally involves the most unfortunately named woman since the owner of Lear Jets named his daughter Chanda. Krystal Ball is running for Congress. She kicked off her campaign 18-months ahead of time earlier this year under the hubris of the Obama win, imo.

Gee, if it weren't for her politics, I'd love to support her. I mean, I'm glad she's running because more young women need to. And she is very young -- only 27, which would make her the youngest member of Congress. She is also very charismatic, and has a ton of money (and I imagine EMILY's List will throw a ton her way) but I knew right away this pro-choice Democrat looking to unseat a Republican was living in Obama-LaLa-Land.

Maybe yesterday will give her pause, but knowing the DNC, they will figure she just needs to tinker with her message, and she will prevail. Can't wait 'til it's proven that this election cycle was not just a correction, not just throwing the bums out, but the people of this country showing that they realized they were hoodwinked last fall -- and they won't be fooled again.

Is Shunning Halloween Ammunition for Quashing Christmas?

Does anyone know when it became taboo to celebrate Halloween in public schools? It seems it started in certain private Christian schools that didn't want to celebrate a pagan holiday that involves dressing up like devilish characters.

This was new to me with my Catholic up-bringing. Growing up, it was always considered good fun. In fact, I just learned that a Vatican-appointed exorcist in Rome has said, "...to dress up as witches and devils on one night of the year, that is not a problem. If it is just a game, there is no harm in that."

Now as practicing Protestants, my husband and I agree that it's ok, with a few limitations of course. We don't allow our kids to wear anything too "grown up" (i.e. sexy) or anything too scary or gruesome -- you know, like the boys dressed up as Jason and the Scream murderer at my daughter's kindergarten party a few years back.

=:0 !!!

Our jack-o'-lanterns for this year -- did I pull off the Bat Signal ok?

But somehow this religious belief became P.C. and now Halloween Parties across the nation at our public schools have become Harvest Parties. Which really leaves me scratching my head. Why would public schools acquiesce to the beliefs of conservative Christians?

I think I figured it out, and I think it goes beyond their usual "We are trying so desperately not to offend anyone at the expense of any thought" maneuvers.

Showing sensitivity to the misgivings about Halloween gives them every reason to then turn around come the Yuletide and declare that we have to comply with protests from those who don't celebrate Christmas. (And unfortunately this also can put the kibosh on Hanukkah, too.)

While thankfully some clever teachers have the sense to call celebrations in December a "Holiday Party" that involves many faiths, too often it is relegated to just a frosty fete with images of snowflakes and snowmen.

So while I respect the beliefs of those who steer clear of all things Halloween, they might want to think about whether or not the fuss they raise is fuel for the anti-Christmas fire.

The Shame of Shame

Once upon a time when I was a hippy chick, I was one of those who used to cringe at those who proudly expressed their patriotism. Although I had been raised a proud citizen, for a while I bought into the whole notion that the U.S. was a nation that shouldn't bang its drum so loudly -- that as a nation we overstepped our role, blah blah blah.

There were people in my life -- my father, most prominently -- who did not shy from declaring what a great nation we are. For a thankfully short period of time, I rolled my eyes when he would say how we should proudly display our flag or sang along to songs praising our country.

Of course, I got over all that. Pheee-ew!

But now we have a President whose only show of patriotism is the perpetual flag pin on his lapel. And everywhere you turn, there is someone complaining about others showing their patriotic stripes.

From the firefighter who was suspended for putting a flag sticker on his locker (now reinstated, and allowed to keep the sticker) to the gym owner with clients who complained about a large flag hung in the workout area (says he doesn't care if he loses customers) -- those who say it loud and say it proud are supposedly offending others and are being told they should put a lid on it.

Who are these people who feel we must apologize for being the greatest nation in the history of the world?

Now, I do think there needs to be boundaries. For instance, the latest story is about an employee of Home Depot that was fired because he refused to follow the company policy and remove a pin that said "One Nation Under God."

Wellllllll, here's the thing: Whereas, it is weird that he wore it for over a year with no objections, and it wasn't until he brought a Bible to work that suddenly the pin became a problem...

Still, there is a slippery slope that private companies have to deal with here. Unfortunately, there would be a problem of deciding which pins to allow, and which not to. Would anyone want to be the guy who had to decide which are ok and which are not (we're talking conservative and liberal here)?

I think the fact that HD does allow their employees to wear the single approved non-work-related button -- a flag pin that says "United We Stand" -- is sufficient.

But just as I grew up/ woke up/ got an attitude adjustment / whatever you want to call it -- and realized that we as Americans have no reason to apologize for pride in our nation, those who listen to this song and don't get a lump in their throat, if not a tear in their eye...

Well, maybe they should just go spend about a week in say Cuba, Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea -- and I don't mean as a "special guest" of the government. I mean amongst its oppressed people. And then we'll see if they still deny that the U.S. of A. ain't worth bragging about!

 

Bungling H1N1: Govt Should NOT be in Charge of Health Care

Am I stretching it? I don't think so.

The first cases of swine flu in the U.S. were reported back in March, after there was plenty of time to assess what was coming and make a plan to vaccinate the public. So here we are more than seven months later, and already we're seeing shortages, long lines, and the vaccine not going to those who need it most.

Here's a video from WashingtonPost.com about a shot clinic set up at a school in Maryland: it's basically a comedy of errors, as the school is overwhelmed by the crowd that shows up and has to bring in extra security and port-a-potties. The biggest mistake they make, imo, is not giving the shot to the pregnant women first:

In my county, shot clinics were also inundated with hundreds more people than they had doses for, and no one I know has any idea where to get a shot or when if their doctor might get some in.

The government has also failed in getting the message across how serious this epidemic is. Too many people are ambivalent about getting the vaccine, not recognizing that it can be deadly, even to those in fine health. Imagine if more people took the message to heart, just how much longer all those lines would be.

The good news is the outbreak may have peaked. The bad news -- we're at least weeks away from finally getting around to producing enough vaccine. But the WashPo said it best today, describing the governments efforts as "sputtering."

A glimpse of America under Obamacare? Count on it.

Where, oh where, can the GOP ideas be? Killed by the Dems...

There has been a cry for the GOP's ideas to reform health care . "Where are their ideas?" -- "all they say is no" -- "they don't really want reform" --"they want the status quo" - all sorts of accusations have been bandied about by the left and the Prez.

I think the real problem is that even though the Republicans have similar goals -- we agree on 80% of this stuff, right? -- curiously, when they offer amendments or legislation that will ensure the promises that the Prez and the Dems have made, their efforts are quashed.

Why haven't most folks heard about them? Because the mainstream media isn't reporting on it. Of course, it could be because they feel that bills and amendments shot down by Democratic-controlled committees or blocked from the floor by Nancy Pelosi aren't newsworthy.

But there are plenty of GOP ideas being reported in stories from news outlets that may not be on every leftie's reading list. (I like this article from Real Clear Markets.)

For example:

• Rep. John Shaddeg (R-AZ) presented a bill (H.R. 3217) that would allow purchasing health insurance across state lines, dramatically affecting competitive forces in the insurance market. But the bill lies dormant in the Energy and Commerce Committee. This is puzzling, given that PBO's "guiding principle" relies on market forces and increased competition to relieve problems.

• Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) offered an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee that fell in line with PBO'S promise that "I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need." Gingrey's amendment would explicitly prohibit federal officials from making those type of decisions. Waxman and co. killed the amendment.

• Sometimes the GOP has reservations based on forecasts, so they want to add provisions as a safety net. Republicans fear that the employer mandate will cause a loss of 1.6B jobs. So Reps. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and Wally Herger (R-CA) came up with the idea of suspending the mandate if unemployment reaches 10 percent. Both their amendments were killed in committee. (Another congressman tried the idea of allowing businesses that befall hardship from the mandate to appeal for an exemption -- again, thumbs down from Dems.)

• Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) tossed an amendment in the ring that would allow small businesses to band together to buy health care coverage at a lower cost. Defeated in Ways and Means.

So many other amendments that would have addressed public concerns and help keep PBO's promises -- about no additional deficit, no "comparative effectiveness research" and most notably more than one amendment that would have ensured -- as the President has explicitly promised -- that no funds would be used to provide abortions: One by one, like ducks at a shooting gallery. Blam, blam, blam.

But this has been going on since the onset of this administration, not just since the h.c. bill raised its gargantuan head. Back in January, Senator and physician Tom Coburn (R - OK) proposed legislation that would have provided private health insurance options for families with children enrolled in SCHIP and another that would have provided lower income families a choice of health care insurance options for their children rather than just government-run programs. The amendments were both rejected by a vote of 36 to 62 with no Democrats supporting them.

So who exactly is saying no to everything, who exactly has been opposed to bipartisan cooperation from the beginning?

Some other ideas from the GOP you may not have heard about: They have been calling for insurance portability so you don't lose your insurance when change jobs. Respected former Senator (andphysician) Bill Frist has touted programs that attack our nation's number one health concern -- obesity. Why haven't these ideas been acknowledged?

The Prez did give credit to McCain for suggesting high-risk pools for pre-existing conditions (although McCain wanted them state-based and the Prez wants a federal pool) but everyone continues to declare that there are no ideas coming from the GOP.

But for me the big cahuna is TORT REFORM -- which the Prez has finally given lip service to, mentioning trying out some pilot programs. Well, we already have two huge programs that have had great success in California and Texas. These programs have reduced insurance premiums 20-40%. No need for any further studies -- this aspect of reform which has been on the docket of every GOP member of Congress from the get-go needs to be included now.

There has been political posturing on both sides, and bipartisan obstruction of progress. Big money has been throwing their weight around in their best interests.

There is a lot of work to be done -- I suggest we quit talking about firm deadlines and start over, taking reform in small chunks. But the first notion we need to throw out the door is that the GOP has no ideas and that they are opposed to reform. Then maybe we can start to get something done.

Rush, I Got a Bone to Pick...

Wow, have I been engaging in some lively debates lately! Just so you all know, I'm a racist, fear-mongering liar. At least, that's what friends of friends have called me -- and those are the kindest comments!

And those people also seem to think that Rush Limbaugh is a personal friend of mine or something. As if -- I mean, when it comes to the facts, El Rushbo is usually spot on, because he has to be. He's targeted so much, he knows he has to get it right. It's the analysis you may or may not agree with.

I'll flip by his show to see what he's talking about, but so many times I have to turn him off because he keeps using those goofy voices, making fun of speech impediments, making fun of what women wear, etc. I realize he's an entertainer, but why does the debate have to include derision?

On Wednesday's show (9/16/09), I was ready to throttle him. He was talking about the move by the House to censure Joe Wilson. Now I feel it's unnecessary -- he apologized like he should, the Prez accepted. Move along. But that wasn't good enough for the Dems in Congress -- they had to make an official motion -- cuz, you know, that's what they do. (And maybe they were a bit ticked off that Wilson was right about the absence of a requirement for proof of citizenship, and the Prez had to add a provision.)

So Rush brings up the fact that the House has official guidelinesfor what you can and cannot say about the POTUS. (Apparently, the Senate only has rules for what you can say about fellow senators.) If you look them over, some seem silly and others arbitrary -- e.g. you cannot call the POTUS a liar or a hypocrite, but you can call him a disgrace or a nitwit. (Elsewhere in the guidelines, the word "damn" has been ruled out of order, whereas "damnable" is permitted.) It seems like ma-a-aybe someone had a little too much time on their hands -- too much time wasting taxpayers' money -- but I can see where things could get out of hand, so someone had to put an ix-nay on the ad-bay ords-way.

Well, Rush voiced his grand opinion that these sort of guidelines were because of the "chickification" (I think I got that right) of our government. That it's because of the women in the House that there are these "mom rules" that "may as well be put on the refrigerator with a magnet."

Well, I don't know Millie Limbaugh, but I do have family in Cape Girardeau (that's "Ger-AH-duh" to the folks back there) and the moms there have refrigerators, and they put house rules on them with magnets.

What the heck is wrong with that? What's wrong with stating "A Member may refer to political motives of the President in debate. However, personal criticism, innuendo, ridicule, or terms of opprobrium are not in order." (Yeah I had to look up that last one: "reproach incurred by conduct considered outrageously shameful.")">Nothing. Someone has to limit the towel-snapping in Congress. It sure ain't going to be a man. It takes women to insist upon behavior appropriate of a gentleman.

For that sexist, no... MOM-ist commentary, it's a timeout for you, young old man. Sit down and write out one thousand times:

I will not make fun of women or moms, or their need to create some decorum and boundaries when there are MEN around.

And I will be counting those -- you don't want me to take your microphone away.

I'm sending this refrigerator magnet to my favorite Congresswomen!

9/11/2001 -- Time Immemorial?

Are we already forgetting the horrid events of that day? Are we already relegating it to only being worthy of recognition every five years? Neither the L.A. Times nor the Chicago Tribune had any front-page stories commemorating the anniversary.

The Washington Post -- which only had a single ad in remembrance (a full-page tribute from Lockheed-Martin) -- did have this article above the fold on its cover which was titled "9/11 a Distant Memory for Teens: Eight years later, the Sept 11 attacks have become relegated to history books for a generation that's too young to remember." 

The bad news: It contains an anecdote about a class that groans when they are handed the nine-page packet their teacher is using to study the events of that infamous day.

"This is going to take us forever," complained a boy in the back.

The good news: It also tells the story of Anthony Gardner who lost his brother, Harvey, that day. When he realized that his children -- who never knew their uncle -- needed to be taught to remember the events of this day, he started the Sept. 11 Education Trust, which has already conducted 100 hours of video interviews with survivors, firefighters, politicians and relatives of the victims.

The videos are the core of a curriculum which Gardner intends to "remind everyone that 9/11 was a collective experience, affecting everyone, everywhere."

When I ask my middle children, aged 9-14 what they remember, mostly they recall me crying and not really understanding what was happening that day. They don't remember the youngest of them, just 16 months old, pointing at the tv screen. As yet another replay of one of the towers falling was running, she pointed and said, "Uh oh! Uh oh!" Indeed.

But we are teaching them to never forget what happened, to remain vigilant, and do what they can to defend freedom from those who would tear it down.

Arlington September 11th Memorial - Arlington Cemetery Washington, D.C.

A five-sided granite marker inscribed with the victims' names (including ranks where appropriate).  The unidentified remains from the Pentagon are buried here.

What Levi & the Left Don't Get about Sarah Palin

Levi Johnston -- from Object of Ridicule to Mainstream-Media Darling. Hmmm... what changed since November? Oh yeah, that's right: Now he's trashing Sarah Palin.

We're supposed to take the word of a disgruntled, dazzled-by-the-limelight word of a teenage boy as gospel? Ha! But I actually want to address some of the gossip that Johnston dished to Vanity Fair. The fact that these slanted stories were included in their latest issue says so much more about Levi -- and the Left --than the Palins.

How shocking that Palin's children do chores and cook for themselves! That's right, there's no nanny, and their mom isn't chained to the stove as they sit and play video games or chat on Facebook. These must be alien concepts to the author of the article and the editors. Why else should it be considered newsworthy?

And the fact that Sarah sometimes didn't sleep with Todd? Are they kidding? I can't count the number of times my husband and I haven't shared a bed due to the dynamics of raising our family. Is this only found in large families? Conservative families? Families that care about their kids and know that the occasional night in a different bed than your spouse in no way reflects on your marriage? Who are these people who find that so unusual?

Oh, the next was a doozy: Sarah suggested that she and Todd could raise their grandchild -- no one would have to know! Shocking! Assuming this is true, the Palins wouldn't be the first to pull this off. (Jack Nicholson, everyone?) But again -- it just shows the thinking of the Left.

There is no outcry, no screaming headlines when, in order to hide a pregnancy from everyone:

• underage girls sneak off to Planned Parenthood abortion clinics and are told to lie about their age by the counselors

• PP counselors ignore the ages of the much older boyfriends of underage girls and don't report suspected sexual abuse as required by law

• PP counselors have any adult sign off for permission for an abortion when it's not the 14-year-old girl's family member but actually oops! the 21-year-old soccer coach that impregnated her

But when a loving parent -- who probably was just trying to shield her daughter from embarrassment -- in what was probably a weak moment, suggested that it was okay to hide a pregnancy and deny parenthood -- yep, to the salivating liberal press, that is hot ink.

Here was the worst account from Johnston: "I couldn't believe it when she would come over to us and sometimes say, playing around, 'No, I don't want the retarded baby -- I want the other one' and pick up Tripp."

So unusual for a grandmother to dote on a grandchild for a few minutes, when she spends hours every day with her own child. But what really is outrageous is the suggestion that Sarah was pushing aside Trig because he is mentally challenged -- that perhaps she was unhappy with having to rear a child with Down's syndrome.

Sarah Palin acknowledged that she had a fleeting moment of doubt about having her son. But have him she did, unlike 90% of other women in the same position. And like so many of the 10% who have the courage to recognize that Down's syndrome is a journey with challenges and triumphs, not a millstone one is burdened with --Sarah Palin clearly cherishes her son Trig.   

Although there are testimonials about how Sarah has met with families with a child who has Down's, and despite what Palin declares in public, championing the value of the lives of these children -- Vanity Fair deems Johnston's quote worthy of inclusion. Why? To insinuate that Palin secretly regrets her decision and harbors thoughts like theirs -- that these children should not be brought into the world, and that they aren't as worthy of attention as "normal" babies? Who knows what they were thinking at VF?

You know, I don't care if Johnston get 15 minutes of fame or 15,000. And it doesn't matter to me if Palin makes it to the White House. No matter what that young man says, or how much the MSM tries to bring her down, Sarah Palin is destined to play a very important role in some capacity that will mean a helluva lot more to this world than any one of them ever will.

As a speaker, as a fundraiser, as a shining example -- I imagine she will fill the void left by the valiant pro-lifer Eunice Kennedy Shriver as she becomes a champion for those with Down's syndrome, autism and other mental challenges. No one will be able to stop Sarah Palin, whatever her future holds.

The side of Levi Johnston I choose to remember...

Another Idea How Parents Should React to Obama Nation

I've got to side with the libs on this one -- but only to a point.

When I heard that the President was going to address school children next Tuesday, my first thought was "Ok, he can impart some wisdom about the value of education." This is something I have talked about before -- how I think BO can have a real impact on a certain sector of students who might otherwise throw away the opportunities available to them.

After all, Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 also addressed school children, albeit without any "Menu of Classroom Activities" distributed by the Dept of Ed. And whereas I'm sure there would have been a lot of eye-rolling and snarky comments -- I highly doubt that any liberals would have pulled their kids out of class if W. had made an address. (Yeah, yeah -- the schools are already so liberal, what would they be worried about?)

After hearing more about this speech and the accompanying materials, and how schools are handling the event, I have to say I have my reservations -- especially how this was just presented without any type of input from or consultation with local school district officials. But I believe the knee-jerk reaction by some conservatives is short-sighted.

Some have talked about taking their children out of school that day or having their children "opt-out" of listening to the speech. Yeah, that's one way to go about it -- and there are times when I think that is totally appropriate --but in this case, what does it really accomplish? You teach your child that if they disagree with our President that they should just tune him out. Meanwhile, their classmates who stay have no one to balance the conversation afterward.

I think the better approach is to first look over the materials provided by the Dept of Ed and know what you find objectionable. (Apparently, the officials there have already removed one of the more questionable activities that conservatives raised objections to in the past few days.)

Second, contact your school and find out whether or not they will even be participating -- many are not as it is the first day of school, and they feel it will be hectic enough. Then find out exactly how they will handle the event. Will all students be watching? Will all teachers be following the "Menu" afterward? How much time is being devoted to these activities?

If you don't like the responses, ask if you can sit in the back of your child's class -- don't take no for an answer. You have every right to be there. If you can't be there yourself, find another parent who can. If you don't know another parent who would do this -- you should. Identifying like-minded parents can be crucial to ensuring that your children retain your family's values.

If you were not able to take the opportunity to meet your child's teacher -- do so as soon as you can. Feel them out as to where they stand -- look around the classroom. You can get a real sense of what your child will be exposed to under his or her tutelage.

But most importantly, you need to sit down with your children and talk through exactly what you object to regarding the President and what he espouses. It may be hard for little ones to absorb it enough to be able to speak up at school in the presence of such overwhelming adulation -- but you can teach them to keep their ears open and pay attention so they can tell you what was said in the classroom.

You can then go over it all again, and instill in them a sense of discernment, not just abject opposition. And if what they report to you about their class seems to go outside the realm of what is appropriate, then you can make a call to the school to voice your concerns.

I have a feeling the address will be available on-line afterward, and we can then go over it with our children. I'm willing to bet that there will be very little to worry about within the speech itself. It is the discussions afterward in the classrooms that may be problematic, so you have to hope that you prepared your child sufficiently.

Yeah, I know -- closing the barn door. Unringing the bell. Closing Pandora's box. Whichever. It screams out as another validation for school choice. But until that happens -- for those of us who have very limited options for private schooling -- vigilance is the way to go, not simply abstention.

We all need to be plugged into our child's education. Take the steps today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw

At least we got some warning about this speech. Apparently some school children were shown the above video without parents' knowledge. While it has some good ideas in it, there are some that are way off base -- and the whole presentation seems a little... indoctrinating. On the off-chance that one of my kids' teachers will show this to them, I sat them down to watch it and discussed it.

Do I Honestly Think? Yes, but Apparently that Makes Me a Liar

Count me in -- someone I consider a friend relentlessly attacked me on a message board regarding the health care bill. In all my years as an ardent pro-lifer, I have never been as disrespectful to anyone who disagreed with me. But this President, and his agenda, seems to bring this out in so many of his supporters. They choose politics over friendships.

I said that Barney Frank was condescending for asking a woman "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" at his town hall meeting. Yeah, she was the woman who made a hu-u-uge stretch by comparing what she feared could happen under the proposed health care plan to the practices of Nazi Germany.

Okay -- whereas I do agree with those who said there was a possibility that something resembling a death panel -- if only in the virtual form of bureaucrats making life-and-death decisions by turning to "QALY" (Quality-Adjusted Life Year) standards to set health care policy, and that could be looked at as choosing the fit over the weak -- I feel that making any comparison to Hitler does a disservice to those who suffered at the hands of that monster.

I tried to say that by attacking this woman, Frank was just fanning the flames of distraction from the debate, rather than attempting to reach consensus.

I suggested that Frank could have said something like "I detest any comparisons to Hitler, or Nazi Germany -- I think that is a ridiculous comparison -- but in the interest of putting these accusations to rest, I can assure you that any legislation that we pass will very clearly spell out that bureaucrats will not be making life and death decisions. No one need fear anything even resembling a death panel."

But rather than admit that Frank had skirted the issue, this friend felt I was defending the woman (who it turned out was a LaRouchie not a conservative, as had been suggested) and declared that I was just another "vicious and hurtful liar." Yep, for saying that this bill is so unclear and that so much seems uncertain -- I'm a liar. And for mentioning the V.A. pamphlet without expressly saying first that it isn't a death panel, but it does have questions within it that make me uncomfortable and fearful -- I was spreading even more lies. (Nothing like giving a friend a chance to explain herself, eh?)

Here I was trying to help him understand our concerns, and instead of saying oh, something along the lines of, while he doesn't agree such concerns are valid, perhaps there should be language prohibiting such practices added to the bill -- nope, instead he calls me names and says "Do you honestly think that Congress and Obama would stoop to that?"

(This from the guy who -- after saying that no President deserved to be compared to Hitler -- in the very same post suggested that he could see why some people think that "a scum like Bush" was at least a bit deserving of the comparison.)

Do I honestly think that about Congress and Obama? Yes, I do.

Because this is the same Congress whose leaders think it is more humane to suck the brains out of an "unwanted" or "imperfect" child just inches away from birth than let it be born and adopted by the countless couples aching to do so.

Because this is the same man who lied about his Illinois congressional record, denying that he voted against a bill to try to save babies who survive abortions. When his voting record was found, he then lied by saying that he voted against it because he felt there was already sufficient legislation. When the record of his comments on the floor of the Illinois House were discovered which revealed that he opposed the bill because he felt the infant -- even though alive and separate (outside the body) of his or her mother and also capable of being adopted -- was an undue burden on the mother, what did he do?

Did he apologize to the people who had challenged his cover-up for calling them "sleazy liars"? No.

Silence. He was counting on most people not to learn the truth. He was counting on the MSM not to press the issue. And it came to pass, and he was elected. 

So now the counter-attacks by Obamacare proponents ensue. They think the old tactics will still work. But everyone has wised up to Obama, Pelosi, Frank, & co. and they can no longer hide when their deceptions are revealed. These attempts to call us the liars isn't working and the truth is coming to light for all to see.

So while it hurt that this friend attacked me, and I don't expect he will apologize for letting his passion get in the way of respecting me enough to have a true debate, I find solace that the public at large isn't buying the "it's all lies by racist Astroturfers" subterfuge and is demanding an alternative plan.

I honestly think so.

Compassion for One Remorseless Terrorist or Victims' Families?

Should Scotland be compassionate? Let's boil it down to that simple question and say, yes they should.

But any act of compassion has to be examined as to exactly what effect it will have for all those involved. If showing compassion for one murderer results in gut-wrenching strife for countless others -- how is that taking the high road?

Apparently, some of the victims' families -- kind (but sadly misguided) souls that they are -- have said that they agree that this terrorist should be freed.  I'm afraid that their need to let go of any hatred and to not give in to the evil that affected their lives has led to that erroneous notion.

The Lockerbie Murderer (I will not speak his name, for I hate to contribute to the reknown for those who commit atrocities) has already been shown compassion. He was spared his life by not receiving a death sentence, and he has been receiving treatment for his illness -- more than likely at the expense of someone else in Scotland. (At least now, maybe someone else will move up in line.)

If he received a life sentence, that should mean spending the rest of his life -- to the last second -- in jail. Even if we can see the end of that life approaching much sooner than expected, even if he is at death's door, that sentence should be carried out, to the bitter end.

Some actions should result in a complete surrender of any benevolence.

The absolute clincher in this case? This cretin has never expressed any regret for what he did, and would likely do it again. If he had the chance to bring down the plane that took him home today and crash it into any U.S. embassy they fly over, I imagine he wouldn't have hesitated.

And will those in Libya bow their heads when he arrives, quietly welcoming a sick family member, humbly acknowledging that a mercy has been bestowed upon them they didn't deserve? No -- they will celebrate and welcome him home as a hero who has performed valorous deeds.

While the victims' families and friends will be suffering yet another assault upon their trampled spirits, a murderer's family and friends and countless others will dance in the streets.

It is obvious that compassion was lost in this imprudent injustice to release a murderous monster. The truly compassionate act would have been to spare the victims' loved ones further pain. 

Remember, 279 people aboard that plane -- 178 Americans -- and 11 people on the ground died at the hands of this remorseless assassin.

Hey BO -- Forget FedEx -- Have a Look at Safeway and Whole Foods

FedEx and UPS compete with the US Postal Service?! Come on, Obama. Everyone knows that overnight service is just one aspect of mail delivery. You can't walk up to a FedEx box with a letter that has a stamp that cost you only 44 cents and send it to the other side of the country in just a few days.

Rather than grasp for these poor examples of how private industry competes with the government -- why not switch it up altogether? Rather than continue beating the dying horse known as Obamacare (you know, that 1000+ pages bill that you haven't actually read) -- why not have a look at other successful models in the private market?

Two CEOs have stepped forward to present their own ideas for health care reform. Op-eds by Steven Burd, the CEO of Safeway, and John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, have appeared in the Wall Street Journal in which they explain the plans that their respective companies use to secure health care for all their employees who wish to have coverage -- while also cutting costs. They make a case that these methods can be applied to health care reform for the whole nation.

The proposals they make are similar to those presented by conservative pundits, but these two men have the advantage of showing that these models work, as their own employees are benefitting from these plans without bankrupting their companies in the process.

But are these men's proposals being given due consideration by liberals? To the contrary -- rather than actually examine these plans, and perhaps make suggestions about tweaks that can be made... Nope, instead there has been a call to boycott Whole Foods. For the crime of suggesting that there is another way -- even though it's a way that has been successfully put into practice (actually more likely the crime of daring to disagree with their Beloved Leader) -- the President's supporters are going to look elsewhere for their organic milk and alfalfa sprouts.

Now, I think we have to remember that these plans are working with healthy, employable people. Many of the uninsured in the U.S. don't fall into that category -- people with severe health problems that prevent them from being gainfully employed. But that doesn't apply to the vast majority of the citizens of this country.

If the supporters of Obamacare used these examples as a starting point, certainly we can come up with a system that will work for everyone. If they just use those open minds of theirs and actually look these ideas over, they may see another way that will still meet their goals without raising the ire of over half of the country, that can be paid for, and that won't turn into yet another bureaucratic boondoggle.

Joker... Joker... JOKER!

First there was the original, Heath Ledger. His performance was praised by one and all. Then came the George W. Bush cover on Vanity Fair and the Right shrugged and said that was rude -- but inaccurate. We all knew that W. was actually Batman.

                                                    

So now there's the ubiquitous Obama as Joker poster and the Left is up in arms. Immediately they started sputtering -- how terrible! Why.. why... it's RACIST!

Well, despite eloquent and empassioned arguments by legitimate commentators, like the article by Philip Kennicott in the Washington Post yesterday -- I'm sorry but it's a stretch. A huge one.

 

First they tried to argue that it was a black man in white face. Oh, wait. It's nothing like the opposite of a white man in black face, where a white man is performing a denigrating portrayal of a black man. No it's a man in a clown face. An evil clown.

 

So, they try to say things like, as in the article above,

 

"He is black and he is identified with the inner city, a source of political instability in the 1960s and '70s, and a lingering bogeyman in political consciousness "

WHAT?!!

 

Ok, raise your hand if you looked at that poster and thought to yourself -- yes, he's like the Joker because he is black and therefore urban and therefore dangerous.

 

Yup. NOBODY!

 

Now raise your hand if you thought -- yes, he's like the Joker because of the things he has done. He is single-handedly trying to take down our way of life with his reckless and dangerous actions.

 

Yup. IT"S UNANIMOUS!

 

 

 

 

Why the White House "Fishing" Really Stinks

The White House is being blasted for asking supporters to send "fishy" information about the health care reform bill that they have received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail address -- the now infamous flag@whitehouse.gov.

I was all set to say -- ok, ok, we made our point. This is what liberals would have said if this had been tried during W's administration. No one seriously believes that this is going to create problems for any individual. There isn't going to be an "enemies list" or any such nonsense. There is no need to be paranoid.

But then I recalled how individuals in California who had made contributions in support of Prop 8 were targeted by those opposed. The San Francisco Chronicle published the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of the marriage initiative and some of those donors were harrassed with a deluge of emails and in other menacing ways.

So who's to say this couldn't happen with people who voice concerns about a sweeping, unnecessary overhaul of an imperfect system? When they point out that the few million who are in a medical care crisis can be helped (and changes that can benefit everyone can be made) without the government taking over and without costing us trillions of dollars that we don't have -- should this be made a permanent public record?

The White House knows all the counterpoints being made to their proposals. They can simply respond to them. Why do they feel it's necessary to ask their supporters for specific people's names and/or email addresses? Maybe it's all innocent enough. Maybe the White House had no ulterior motive. But who knows what would have become of that list? What could happen if it gets into the wrong hands?

It's one thing for a blogger to go on record and put herself out there. I accept the consequences. But people shouldn't have to worry that their random conversations at the water cooler, the soccer game, or the neighborhood block party could lead to trouble.

I wouldn't have believed it. But it has happened. The conservative reaction to this move by the White House is not paranoia. It's an all-too-real concern about potential payback.

Linda Douglass, White House Communications Director for the Office of Health Care Reform

Is this woman Big Brother? Probably not, but why is she asking Americans to report on their neighbors?

The New "B" Word -- "Birther"

I've never really been called a "Broad" -- but I've been told that once upon a time it was actually a compliment. A Broad could hold her liquor, make a guy laugh, comment about a ballgame... Think Maclaine or Dickinson in the Rat Pack days. I like to think I'm a Broad. (Ok the liquor thing -- not so much anymore. I'm a lightweight now. Practically a teetotaler.)

Shirley Maclaine when she was a fun broad -- not a New Age quack.

And I've managed seldom to be called a "Witch with a B" -- to my face anyway. I deliberately chose a husband who does not use such language. A lesser man would probably use it a lot -- I can be rather... well, I act in that manner that is called "aggressive" when a man does it, but "b-witchy" when a woman does. If so, yeah, that's me.

I've never been called a "Breeder" to my face ever. But I know there's a group out there who refers to me as one. Oh yeah? Badge of honor! I'll gladly bring the children into this world who will be paying your Social Security. You're welcome, you ingrates! A--hem.

They actually sell shirts with this on it -- what the heck?!

So now some folks are going around calling themselves "Birthers." Not the most accurate appellation, I think. It sounds as though it refers to women who have kids, just like "Breeders." But, whatever, there it is -- another "B" word.

The mainstream media -- other than Lou Dobbs -- has given no credence to the questions raised by this bunch. Even conservative media like Bill O'Reilly and The National Review -- heck, even Ann Coulter -- have backed away from it, claiming it is a non-issue. Although they do believe that Obama is probably hiding something.

But I imagine they smell a set-up. It will turn out that there was some small detail that may be a bit of an embarrassment, and oh won't everyone who was screeching for proof of his birth look stupid? And then any calls for the release of his other records will never happen, out of sympathy for Obama and out of contempt for the huge amount of egg on the faces of the Birthers.

So do I think Obama was born in Hawaii? Chances are he was. But I can't say I know for sure. And I think it's amazing that everyone who supports BO says that he has already produced a birth certificate. That anyone who thinks he hasn't proven he is a natural born citizen is crazy -- that the State of Hawaii confirmed it.

Have they not ever heard that there are other more complete birth documents that Obama is keeping secret? That he has spent $800,000 (an amount, I admit I can't find the source for, but is the number that crops up everywhere) blocking what the "Birthers" are calling for? Why doesn't that raise red flags with the MSM? The same media that went berserk when someone else spent $150,000 on clothes that Sarah Palin never even asked to be purchased?

The same media who clamored over the eligibility of John McCain last year? The same media that raised a ruckus about unsealing the divorce records of Obama's opponent for his Senate seat in 2006?

Jack Ryan -- the first man run over by the Obama Media Love Train.

What was he hiding in those divorce records, they bellowed? They insisted they be made public and did not let up until the records were unsealed and a man was ridiculed and called a liar for not wanting the world to know that he propositioned his own wife in a bar.

So now we have sealed birth records, sealed college records, and sealed law school records -- from a man who championed transparency... and the media has no issue with that whatsoever? If it were not this man, whom they adore so much, they would be rabidly foaming at the mouth for the release of these records. And they are calling the Birthers kooks?

 So, if someone who thinks

A) that Obama should be held to the same standard that every other candidate was -- most notably, his own opponents 

B) that he should stop giving lip service to transparency and actually practice what he preaches and

C) that since he is not above anyone else's standard and touts transparency then he should therefore release all these records

is a "Birther" -- then yeah, count me in. Badge of honor.

[And if you believe A and B, it should also be C -- and then you're a Birther, too.]

Do Ask Congress, Do Tell the Military... It's Time for a Change

The WashPo had an article that focused on one particular Air Force pilot, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who is awaiting a policy change regarding gays in the military. The airman -- who has nine Air Medals, including one for heroism under fire during an enemy ambush near Baghdad in 2003 --was outed by a civilian. 

He faces dismissal which means he will lose nearly $50,000 a year in retirement pay as well as medical benefits. Fehrenbach is more disappointed that he will be unable to serve the country in a time of war. "It doesn't make sense to throw out someone who's ready, willing and able," he said. 

He was hopeful with Obama's election that the policy would change, but the President has backed down from campaign promises. He's probably shrinking away for political reasons. He doesn't want more controversy with everything else going on right now.

The President has mentioned conducting a study. Which according to this article, has already been done -- more than once -- with the conclusion that changing the policy will not adversely affect morale.

An excerpt:

Professor Diane Mazur, a former Air Force officer who teaches at the University of Florida and who has published widely on gays in the military, added that “every research study published over the last fifteen years has concluded that military readiness is not harmed — and may be strengthened — when all qualified Americans can serve and no one has to live in secrecy.”

The article also points out that "conducting a study" is usually code for "delaying and killing."

I believe BO should not make an executive order, but he should urge Congress to take action soon. Because this is a change that should not be a mandate from any President. It should come from Congress --those who represent the citizens of this nation -- which will give it more legitimacy.

Yes, I know there are still strong opponents. Yes, I recognize that the military brass should generally be the ones who make policy decisions. AND it's about time that everyone acknowledges that a person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with their ability to serve.

The argument is that gays in the military are a disruption. In fact, the airman was charged with "damaging good order and discipline." How is that so, when he served in an exemplary manner for 18 years? It seems the supposed disruption only happened when his orientation was revealed by an outsider.

Nothing changed except the presumed reaction of those around him. Seems to me -- if any problem even exists --it's their problem -- they are the source of the disruption, not Fehrenbach.

If the compromise needs to be that it's taken on a case by case basis -- I think that's fair enough. But the burden of proof should be on the military to prove that the person's behavior or actions was the problem -- not the biases of those who serve with them. Anyone who has a problem can be reassigned.

There's no compelling reason to dismiss good men and women who just want to preserve our freedoms. It's time for Congress to act and change this archaic policy.

Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach

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.

 

 

 

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.

La XX-Chromosomed Femenino Female Latina Woman

Yes, I'm feeling rather hope-less today...

Your English and Spanish lesson for the day: "Latina Woman" is redundant. So is "very liberal Obama nominee" -- but I digress.

When Sarah Palin burst on the scene, I often used shorthand and said how great it was to see a woman on the ticket. But what I really meant -- and said at other times -- was how great it was to see a candidate that has stood up to the status quo and worked to make some real progress and is a servant of the people who doesn't bow to party politics (etc, etc)... who also happens to be a woman.

People on the left argued that Palin wasn't the best choice, and that she was only chosen because she was a woman.

When Miguel Estrada was up for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals -- did the Democrats laud his "great personal story" of coming to this country at 17 from Honduras with nothing to his name, barely speaking English? No, they were too busy filibustering a Court of Appeals nominee for the very first time. They had to, because they knew if he were approved, Estrada was one step away from the Supreme Court. He had the "correct" pedigree, but alas, the wrong judicial view for the Democrats. They had failed to "bork" Clarence Thomas, and they weren't going to let it happen again with Estrada.

So how does the left respond to the nomination of Sotomayor for the SCOTUS? Suddenly, one's chromosomal make-up and heritage is essential to one of the most important jobs in our nation.

BO is no dummy -- he knew that there'd be a buzz about a nominee who was a Latina. And because of a single decision upholding a ban on the use of government funds for abortions, he believes he can pass her off as a "moderate." How could anyone stand in the way of letting this fabulous story -- fit for Hollywood -- play to the happy ending?

Well, it won't be by challenging her decisions, her intellect, or her disposition -- which apparently are not up to par. It could only possibly happen by asking her this simple question: Can you uphold the oath of the position?

She must be challenged as to whether or not she will be able to stand up and say,"I, Sonia Sotomayor, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Judge S. has already made it very clear that she will not be able to uphold that oath. She intends to judge with empathy. Justice isn't blind to her. It peeks out from under that blindfold to see your color, gender, social status -- or whichever personal obstacle you've had to overcome -- as you stand before the court.

(And despite that one decision on funding, I'm guessing her empathy only extends to those who can actually stand before her -- not the innocent masses crying out for justice from the hidden refuge of their mothers' wombs.)

We all know how SS should answer that question, but I suspect that the lawyer will rise from within and espouse fanciful legalese to obscure the truth -- and there will be no stopping her appointment. And every future nominee from Obama can be a half-step less to the left and will be declared "even more moderate" than she -- and they will be approved as well.

They will sit on that court decade after decade as tens of millions more preborn lives are slaughtered in the name of "empathy."

I think of all those pro-life voters who cast their ballot for Obama with the unsubstantiated, blindly bestowed belief that he would bring some new kind of approach to government, and incomprehensibly the issue of abortion, and wonder if they realize the most grave error they made.

So while pro-abortion women, Spanish voters, and diabetics can celebrate this nomination, I mourn it as the continuation of a very dark time in our nation. While the former aspect will be another footnote in what is supposed to be a post-racial, post-gender world, don't be fooled into believing it is anything but the latter.

*supremely monumental sigh*