About Me

Name: Virginia Daddy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Hellooooo Nurse!

Through finals and finding a rythm since school is done, and splitting time watching the boys, time with the wife, and working part time for school credit at the university, I am ready to go.  Ready to go where, I am not sure, but ready. 
 
Its time to catch up on the news and figure out the state of affairs.  It seems Obama and Co are set to make this a socialist nation, and it seems the GOP is finally getting a pair.  Obama is still Obama, learning on the fly.  Nancy dug herself into a hole, that I think she's still in.  Biden's becoming a liability/joke, and Gingrich is giving conservatives direction.  We have a new nominee for the SCOTUS who has a couple serious question marks.  Beyond that, I don't know much, and look forward to catching up soon. 
 
A quick reflection on this past school year.  First, I survived.  I survived a move, a lonely wife, two kids who need a daddy and a very demanding curriculum.  I tried my best to give each party, because I think family is the most important thing in anyone's life.  Spouses need each other, and little boys need loving parents.  Law school requires a lot of attention and dedication, and it was difficult to fit everything in.  Did I do it well, I don't know.  I can come back to school next year, though I certainly am not top of the class.  My kids still like me, and so does my wife (I think).  I am still in the game, and that is good.
 
Since learning about the law, it has changed how I approach politics.  My beliefs are the same, as are the things I'd like to see happen in society.  But approaching the process to achieving them has changed.  I hope this will come out in future writings.  One thing I have learned is that although there is always a right answer and a wrong answer, the decision will often simply come down to who make the better argument concerning past decisions and existing statutes.  This argument will often include appeals to emotion and policy.  Depending on the judge sitting on the bench, the emotion can play a huge role (a reason why I am concerned that the new SCOTUS nominee may not be the best choice, if she makes her decisions on her experiences). 
 
Anyway, I hope to come back with a vengeance, and look forward to catching up with everyone's work.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A New E-Mail from DNC

Sorry to all those to whome I have not replied or visited, which is pretty much everyone as of late.  Finals push...
 
But here is another email from the DNC.  I do not like the smell of this...  Reeks of things to come.  And it looks like folks there are trying hard to "normalize" high taxes.
 
"Dear...

Earlier this week, President Obama announced a bold set of proposals to crack down on overseas tax havens and encourage job creation at home.

While hard working Americans pay our fair share, some of the largest, most powerful interests exploit tax loopholes that actually reward companies for creating jobs overseas and allow them to use tax shelters to avoid paying their rightful share.

To see the difference between your approach and theirs, check out our new Tax Fairness Calculator.

You can enter what you earn, find out what the average American owes on that amount, and then see what you could pay if you were a multi-national corporation. Try it out!

See what you could pay

Warning: Using this tax calculator may fill you with an irresistible urge to fix this broken system. Fortunately, that's exactly what we can do -- if we act together.

The special interests will fight hard for the status quo, and their lobbyists are already swarming in Washington. Now we have to stand up and show how much support the President's proposals really have out here in America.

After you use the Tax Fairness Calculator, please add your name to our public declaration saying that you stand behind the President's plan for tax fairness and job creation.

Try the calculator and add your name now:

http://my.barackobama.com/TaxCalculator

These proposals are a key part of the President's plan to get our economy back on track, and it's time for us to stand up and help make it happen. Working together to make our country a fairer, more prosperous place is the reason we built this movement.

Thanks so much,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America"

Donate
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Democratic Letter

I received the following email today from the Democratic Party.  Some time ago I had signed up to get emails so I could see what they are putting out.  I don't follow most, but this caught my eye.  See if you can figure out why...
"Dear...

Have you ever had a guest who overstayed his welcome and wondered, "why is he still here?"

After some of his recent interviews, former Vice President Cheney has shown that he clearly doesn't know when to pack it in.

In just the last week, he's gone on national television in an effort to tear down President Obama's agenda -- saying the President's economic programs will be "devastating to our society" and that his foreign policy makes us seem "weak" to the rest of the world.

I don't know about you, but I think it's time for him to stop sniping from the sidelines and let President Obama usher in the changes Americans demanded after eight years of Cheney's disastrous policies. That's why I want Cheney to go back home to Wyoming, and why I want you to help me get him there.

Will you help pay for Cheney's bus fare? A one-way ticket from Washington, DC to Jackson, WY costs $202 -- will you chip in to help us buy one for him?

Make a contribution: Send Cheney home

Normally, when a Vice President leaves office with a disastrous legacy and the support of less than one quarter of the public, I'd expect him to keep out of the spotlight.

But with the Republican "Party of No" out of ideas and without any new leaders to provide real solutions, failed leaders like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have once again taken the helm of the GOP.

While President Obama has been working to tackle America's biggest issues, Cheney has been busy bashing the President in nationally-televised interviews -- warning about a "vast expansion of the deficit" and agreeing with Sean Hannity that the President is "naive."

This all from a man who after eight years in office left the country with two wars, a sky-rocketing deficit, rising unemployment, and an unprecedented financial meltdown.

If there's one person who should understand the crucial need to get this country back on track, it should be the man who took it so disastrously off course -- but he doesn't seem to get the message.

That's why we need to help him off the national stage and back home to Wyoming. Please take a look at the itinerary we put together and then chip in to get him on a Greyhound bus out of town:

https://www.democrats.org/CheneyBus1

Thank you for your help,

Jen

Jen O'Malley Dillon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee "
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (25) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Would Happen if Several States Seceded?

I was watching some of the protests briefly tonight between strudy sessions, but this question occurred to me: what would the liberals do if states seceded from the nation tomorrow? 
 
I mean, really, what would they do?  Raise an army and invade Virginia?  Bomb an island fort off the coast of Texas?  Certainly not from recruiting stations from Berkeley.
 
Might they stick some lawyers on those states and say you can't do that?  More likely, but this is a pretty funny response. 
 
Seriously, I don't know exactly what NY, VT, CA, or MA would do, but I do know it would be a lot of talking, and little action.  Police might be called, and the national guard, too.  But any use of force from the United States on the new nation(s) would go against so much of what the liberals in charge stand for and they would be discredited from the start.  I would think they would know this and act appropriately.
 
Might they work to keep the people from organizing their new nation?  Maybe, but again, such restriction would go against everything they supposedly stand for.
 
Might they libel and slander those leaving?  Absolutely.  That goes without saying.  But so what?
 
I know there are those who say it is illegal to secede, and there may well be laws on it.  There are inferrences in the Constitution, but who cares?  I do not intend to be flippant about the Constitution, but there is a simple proposition to uphold-- if the Constitution is broken and can't be fixed, throw it out.  If others want to keep it, fine, but there is nothing, except the desire for a unified nation, that suggests a state that doesn't want to be a part of it that they have to stay.
 
There is also another proposition to uphold, something liberals love to talk about, we all have a choice.  Naturally, the choice I speak of is much more fundamental than the one they like to talk about.  I speak of a choice to act or to not act.  Everything we do entails at least a chocie between two options.  Even when backed into a corner do we have a choice:  We can fight, or we can cave in. 
 
And we now have at least two choices-- we can fight the liberals to defeat the current governmental trends of expanding the national government at the expsense of the soveriegnty of the state governments, in direct affrontation to the 10th Amendment.  The 10th Amendment states:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibted by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  A second choice is to give in and give up our rights.  A third is to leave it all behind and re-establish the spirit of the Constitution in a new government because Obama, Nancy, Harry and Co. are putting the final nails in its coffin.
 
What will they do?  Of course they will do everything they can to keep it from happening.  If a group successfully leaves their nation it will show them to be failures.  They will spin it that radicals who were against freedom left to create an intolerant and close minded nation.  But to those who care about what the Constitution actually says, the Constitution will be upheld. 
 
I quoted the 10th Amendment above.  It says two things about the powers not delegated in the Constitution.  First, it says the powers not delegated in the Constitution are to be given to the states, and second, if not to the states, to the people.  It is also important to recognize the context of the 10th Amendment.  It is part of the Bill of Rights, that was promised to be voted on after the ratification of the Constitution.  Anti-federalists, those more focused on states rights and wary of a strong national government and the Constitution, wanted them passed to ensure certain freedoms would not be infringed.  The 10th Amendment was a part of these protections that led to the ratification of the Constitution and specifically sought to protect the sovereignty of the states by limiting the federal governments powers by stating what is not in here is entrust to the states and the people.  The 10th Amendment was arguably the area of biggest tension at the Constitutional Convention-- establishing a viable nation while protecting the sovereignty of the states in a time when being from VA was more important than being an American.
 
It is arguable that the Constitution did imply certain powers to the federal government, but these are limited, and now through something known as the rational basis test, Congress has close to a blank check to do what they want.  Basically, the rational basis test states that if a law has a reasonable purpose and the law reasonably helps that purpose be reached, it will be allowed.  This, and under the excuse of implied powers, the federal government has just about rendered the 10th Amendment useless.  It has taken the states rights from them, and the people.
 
After all of that, you may be wondering what that has to do with my thought earlier?  If the spirit of the Constitution has been killed, the document has been murdered.  Some like to talk of a living and breathing document, but in their putting life into it, they have killed what was originally intended to be.  Therefore, it is dead. 
 
And this brings in the discussion of choice.  To those who think we live under a dead document, we have a choice-- to try to resuscitate it or to leave it behind and recreate somewhere else.  Either may work, but in the event the latter is chosen, what can be done to stop it?
 
A final point, many revolutionaries thought there should be a revolution every twenty five years or so.  They wanted them to keep government pure.  I am not necessarilly advocating revolution or secession, but if that is true, we are long over due.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (239) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama-- Our Star In Chief

Off the top of my head, what has President Obama done since being in office?  Besides the normal filling a cabinet, which he had a difficult time with, I am not sure.  I know he addressed Congress in his pseudo-State of the Union speech, but I am not sure what else he has done to govern.  What I do know is that he has given at least two prime time interviews, appeared on Leno, given several speeches to garner support for his policies, and held an online townhall meeting, this on top of his egregiously showlike campaign.
 
People have said that he is still campaigning.  Yes, I agree with that.  I feel he has not really gotten out of campaign mode.  But to me, its become even more fundamental than him constantly campaigning.  Rather, it looks as if he is so intent on being the star that its like governing is an after thought. 
 
Is anyone else as bothered by this precedent as I am?  Does it not raise questions as to how seriously he takes the position?  Does it not show that he may not care about us as much as he led on?  Is it possible that he's more concerned with what people think of him than he is about the state of the economy or the war?  I think to answer these questions, a simple yes would suffice. 
 
I write this open enough to know that we are but 60 days into his four year term.  A lot can happen in that time.  But his early precedent is disturbing as to where his priorities are.  Are they with the country?  Or are they to glorify his name?  He may have done some things I am not aware of.  As a first year law student, there is much I miss out on.  I do know he seeks to put more troops in Afghanistant, and that he supports the stimulus.  But it is fascinating how the first thing I remember, and probably most of the nation, is that he has appeared on Leno and a few other TV spots.  Actually, more people probably know he was on Leno than  his thoughts on Afghanistan or what is in the stimulus, or his failed attempts to fill the Cabinet.
 
It does bother me that Obama is doing so much to cater to and thus encourage this mass stupidity than he is holding up the job of President of the United States.  It bothers me that so many seem to buy it hook, line and sinker.  Sooner or later, when they see nothing coming from the Oval Office, they will wake up and see they've been had.  They've been had by a man too arrogant to care about anything else except seeing his face on TV, and those smiling faces staring back up at him.  How long will the star last?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (89) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Race and Legislating Morality

I just finished reading Grutter v. Bollinger (539 US 306, 2003).   As I read the majority opinion in this sharply divided case as written by Justice O'Connor, I couldn't help but think of the criticism often thrown against conservatives for wanting to legislate morality. 
 
For those who may not be familiar with Grutter, it was the 2003 case at the University of Michigan Law School that allowed it to continue with its amorphous affirmitive action admissions policy that essentially gave 'points' for being a minority, where such a classification was a 'plus' to their candidacy.  This, it was argued by the university, supported the goal to allow a 'critical mass' of minority students. 
 
I do not want to critique the opinion itself, but rather wish to use it as an example of the left's hypocritical stance on legislating morality.  As conservatives, we have all heard the critique that you cannot legislate morality.  However, it occurred to me while reading this case that this is exactly what the left does when they try to legislate various initiatives to reach equality in society.
 
Despite the argument that such measures, similar to what UM instituted, give opportunities to the disenfranchised and also force different racial groups together in order to break down barriers, they seek to force on people and idea that only one way of life is correct.  Now, I do not wish to say that I think racism of any kind is good, for it is not, but my immediate objection is indicative of why the measures in actuality legislate morality.  Morality is something that someone holds true as a way of life, and if the government is dictating that it is wrong to live a life in a given way, it is legislating morality.
 
Personally, I think it is natural and unavoidable that government do so, because government should be reflective of what society deems the appropriate way to live.  Thus, I have no strong objections to government stating, for example, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  I also do not necessarily strongly advocate for that position coming from our government, instead, I think it must first be a decision on a personal level.  So it is with discrimination-- I think it first ought to be a matter of the heart of the individual, not coming down from a governmental imposition.
 
Of course, it must be ceded that a big difference between what the right seeks to legislate and what the left seeks to legislate is based on 'progress' and 'equality'.  But even in admitting these differences does little to change the problems with the criticism coming from the left.  To start with, who does not want to progress and who does not want equality for all?  Sure, we can point to the radicals on either side, but that is fruitless and I will not talk about it here.  It is the vast majority of rational thinkers that grant these two ideas.  However, defining progress and how to achieve equality get us immediately into the realm of morality. 
 
Progress to me is to focus on what got us where we are in the first place, thriving on the principles of virtue, hard work, and responsibility, all driven by faith in a Creator who rewards such behavior.  This is vastly different than many people out there.  To me, equality is only achieved when people recognize others for who they truly are, regardless of any percentage or number, and is only seen when people see with their hearts, not their eyes.  This may be the end goal of the liberals who espouse legislating equality, but they never state how we will get out of the circle, nor when.  O'Connor in Grutter stated that in 25 years "racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the itnerest approved today."  Amazingly absent is a discussion of how that will happen, and it relies on an expectation that people will forget the benefits they recieve from such legislative policy. 
 
I hope she is right, but I must state that such a goal is a moral goal, and allowing such affirmitive action provisions to continue, is just as moral as seeking to legislate that only men and women can marry.  As I close, I thought of but one more difference between these goals-- only one is universally accepted.  For who really objects to the idea that whites, blacks, and any other group is truly more or less capable than another?  So, why do we need Congress or the Supreme Court to tell us that this is so?  Possible answers exist, but that I will leave for another time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (36) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Has Obama Already Failed?

There has been much broo-ha-ha over Rush Limbaugh's comments that he wants Obama to fail.  I say the Dems are playing an obvious game that anyone with half a brain should see through.  Of course, it is probable that most of Americans either don't have half a a brain, or just don't want to use it.  But that's another story.
 
I wonder, though, if Limbaugh is already going to be rejoicing, because I wonder if Barrack Obama, the man who came promising the world on a magic carpet, has already failed.  Lets look at a few things: his ego, his treatment of the media, his delegation, his failures to unite, failure to fill various positions, his thoughts on Gitmo, his other "new" personell choices, and probably most importantly-- the economy.  After all of that, I will raise a simple question, too-- based on these failings, is he even running the show?
 
First, his ego has already been shown to be large.  We knew this from before he was elected, though it has only become more manifest since his inauguration.  He doesn't take kindly to those who disagree, and he has certainly trumped himself up. 
 
Second, he has already shown disdain for the media, cutting them out of much of the process and showing favoritism to those who share certain thoughts...  The attack on Limbaugh is indicative of this tendency, but it goes even farther and closer to the White House.  He is already calling the shots on what will be presented through the 4th branch of government.
 
Third, he has delegated quite a bit.  The stimulus bill is a good example-- he basically seems to have told Congress to go at it, and come back to him with a good plan.  There are other examples, and the results have been less than what the public expected.  Congress is not willing to play the same game he is, yet he is staying out of the firing range.
 
Fourth, he has not united Congress.  At best, it remains as staunchly divided as it was before he took office.  I'd actually say that the GOP will be more vocal and be less willing to comprimise now than before.  At the same time, the Dems will certainly be less willing to work with the GOP since they have less to lose by sticking to their guns.  And because Obama is staying out of the fight, he is doing nothing to bring folks together, beyond saying people should do so.  He is not involved enough to make that happen.
 
Fifth, he has had trouble filling various positions, most notably Commerce Secretary.  In fact, some of his nominees have only called into question his wisdom and trust.  By them failing to pay taxes (not just one), his decisions and appointments have really called into question his decision making abilities. 
 
Sixth, his rush to judgment on Gitmo really is interesting.  He pretty much immediately says we are closing it down in one year, but when asked what he would do with the prisoners, the response is aking to "I dunno."  And unless things have changed, he as having trouble finding alternatives- other nations didn't want them, either.  And then when his advisors go check it out, the response is actually that these guys are treated pretty darn well.  Go figure.
 
Seventh, how much new blood has he brought in?  I think it is well documented how many Clinton holdovers he has, who certainly do not indicate change is a comin'.
 
Finally, the economy.  Isn't interesting how it has not stabilized like most thought since he took office?  Heck, even I held out hope for it to find some bottom and stay there pretty quickly after a) his election and b) after his inauguration.  We have seen a market that is anything but stable, and the bottom continues to drop.  We were just at a 12 year low.  I hate to put something on a president specifically, as to be fair, he typically has limited influence.  But this is different, I'd say.  Businesses are scared and confused as exactly what this man might do to them.  The market reflects this uncertainty, and I think it is fair to place much of the blame on the new president for creating this fear.
 
So, what does all this mean?  It means we have a president who doesn't seem like he knows what he is doing, and that is full of empty promises.  It means he really is an empty suit.  OK, he may well pull things together and save the nation.  But that looks like a distant dream. 
 
Here's why: people rarely change.  Obama has shown some character traits that are likely to dominate his term as president.  His ego and short leash on those who disagree with him are not likely to go away.  He will rush to decisions again, and he will allow Congress to act so he can wash his hands over their policy mistakes.  Despite his lofty rhetoric, he has not instituted an ounce of change, and likely will not attempt to bring it any more than he has.  And despite the rhetoric, he will not be able to change the conservative movement against him (something Bush experienced going the other way). 
 
So, through all of this, I really wonder how much Barack Obama is truly calling the shots.  I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think he is heavilly influenced by his most trusted advisors.  I think many in the Democratic party saw early on a dynamic candidate and a person who could draw a crowd-- to his credit, Obama is a great speaker.  They found someone who perfectly fit the mold as a change candidate-- a "black" man with a Harvard education who came from a poor background, who could speak of unity like few others, and who had no problem bringing attention to himself or doing whatever he needed to win. 
 
And I think they, as much as him, will drive decisions in the White House.  They got him there (I don't think he could have done it without the likes of Axelrod), and they will continue to pull strings.  A great example is the current outcry against Limbaugh.  They cater to the portion of our population who either does not care, or who doesn't know enough to care.  I do think everything has been calculated to this group, and my bet is that when they start to see who they really elected, they will turn.
 
So, do I know that he has already failed?  No.  There is no way to know.  But I think he's heading that direction.  Rush Limbaugh, you may well get your wish.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (24) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Test of Federalism?

In the next few weeks, months, and years, the United States of America has an important agenda on its hands.  This agenda is to push the limits of the Federalist system our government was set up under.  We will get to see its flexibility or lack thereof.  We will get to see if it can withstand the advances in technology that has in many ways made our nation smaller.  We will test the limits of free speech in ways yet unseen.  Perhaps more importantly, we will test the wisdom of those who stepped back from the limitations our Founders put on who could participate the most in our Republican Democracy.
 
What is the situation?  We have a new president who swept into office with promises of hope, accountability, and change.  The promises made by this president carry with them policies and legislation that will push the limits of our system.  This is because they will greatly expand the reach of the federal government in ways never before seen.  The budget, for instance, has already been exanded eponentially beyond previous levels, but there are other changes that will follow that will also cause trouble-- the ability of states to act on their own, the freedom of speech that has acted as a 4th branch of government will likely be restricted, and the responsibility to act on one's own behalf will be trimmed as well.
 
The test of Federalism will come not only in how the public reacts, but how our representatives at all levels of government respond to the expansion of the national government.  Also, I would expect, there to be important cases decided by our courts that will aid in determining the ultimate scope and outer limits of these governmental expansions. 
 
This article will not address how these will come to pass, as those topics are essays (perhaps books) in and of themselves.  But they will happen, at least these battles should happen.  They are brought up as a warning to those who care about our nation, for we are at a cross-road. 
 
The cross-road will not determine the fate of the nation, for it will go on.  But it will determine the type of nation it will be well into the future.  For, the people that pave the path can succomb to the pressure brought by hope and change, or they can overcome the temptation to blindly follow these lofty and idealistic, but hardly realistic, goals.  The decision to follow the emotionally uplifting sentiments of the trend and its easy intellectual foundation will conflict with the seemingly harsh realities that accompany the more logical and time tested policies that made this nation great. 
 
The cross road will require those who are willing to withstand the onslaught of new policies designed to bring people together and uplift all (without, of course, stating how that is to be done, or more importantly, when is it accomplished), to speak critically, loudly, but rationally.  It will require those willing to stand up to act at home and enforce the separation of powers our founders intended to work against the evils of an intrusive national government. 
 
I suspect many things brought by the new president will face challenges due and guaranteed under our Federalist system.  It was desigend to do exactly that-- protect against non-virtuous men and a Federal government that intrudes too much into our lives.  Part of the brilliance of the system is flexibility, but certainly, our founders thought there were limits to that.  Here, we will begin to really see what those really are.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (49) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Politics are the Scourge of Men

In Politics if thou wouldst mix,
And mean thy fortunes be;
Bear this in mind, be deaf and blind,
Let great folk hear and see.
 
--On Politics, by Robert Burns, 1793
 
There's something about politics that brings out the worst in people.  Kind of like discussions or religion, there are few conversations that actually convince another.  Rather, the conversations only dig people in and nothing is ever accomplished, except for some high blood pressures.
 
The Founders realized this, I think, in their desire for a virtuous group of leaders.  They knew some would abuse power, which is why there are so many checks and balances in our Constituion.  But the goal was to have a nation led by people who knew what was right in leading, and who were able to hear and see the big picture.  They did not allow all to vote because they wanted the most virtuous to have that voice, to hear and see.  The wise thing for everyone else was to let these people lead.  The virtuous were those of considerable (but not too much) wealth and education.  Too much wealth and property showed a propensity to abuse power and to act unfairly or unscupulously.  But the acquisition of property showed enough education and wisdom to know how to act appropriately.
 
But the wisdom of that poem, now, I think shows itself in how so many people love to talk about politics, and now have more and more of a venue to do so.  People ought to be slow to speak, to be deaf and blind, if you will.  The old adage about the best thing to say is usually nothing is true in politics as much as any other subject.
 
I am sure I am in the category of shutting up, though I know I will continue to speak.  But I hope to speak slowly and hope that my points will encourage my readers to think more deeply about an issue and not dig in for battle.  It is this latter reason that such conversations are rarely successful.  I will not give in, and I will be honest and forthright.  But I will be open to correction and hopefully well received.
 
But in the landscape of politics now, I see little to motivate.  Far too many mindlessly talk away, and far too little actually listen.  Is it any wonder why people are so upset with the politicians on both sides?  I won't tune out, but it is increasingly hard to really care as long as people won't stop and think.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (50) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Infighting...

"Pride is the root of all evil," many people say.  I believe it.  But what has happened to the conservative movement?  Has it become prideful in and of itself and lost sight of its original goals?  Or have the people that make up the movement become prideful so that they are lost in what they think will best acheive the goals of conservatism, and fail to consider or work with others who share the same outlook on governance?  Or, is not a matter of pride at all but a matter of different points of view on how to make conservatism work?  Or, is it a difference in opinion on exactly what conservatism really is.
 
I don't know the answer to those questions, but would expect its a little bit of all of these things.  The conservative movement that swept the nation in the early to mid 90's looks lost.  It can't seem to find its way, and the group who made it up is now very far apart in how to move forward and win back the government.  Some say "Vote Republican regardless" while others say "Only vote conservative."  Some view comprimise as the solution, and others expect a mass return to conservative values when the public is given a good conservative option, which has been lacking for some time, and thus hope such a leader will arise.
 
This bridge will only grow, though, until one of two things happen-- people lay aside their pride and listen to others within conservatism, or a devestating and drastic event happens to bring the sides together under a common cause.  The first can happen, but it seems unlikely given the chasm between the two sides.  Many conservatives place their principles before the party, and will not budge.  This is a valid position in that following a party just because can quickly become meaningless if the party does not subscribe to those principles held dear.  Contrarilly, the party loyalists have a point to say that nothing positive will happen without the numbers to win elections and get the right people into office.
 
But the problem is not new, and has actually repeated itself often in world history.  Of most importance is the quick split of the founders who began with very consistent and common goals.  However, soon after they achieved the bigger goal (the creation and adoption of the Constitution and its federal system of government), the good will and unity was shattered.  The likes of Alexander Hamilton grew to distrust the likes of James Madison.  These two men had previously written the Federalist Papers, along with John Jay, for the express purpose of convincing the nation to adopt the Constitution.  When they conspired together to write these treatises, they were strong allies, yet after ratification, when it came to the application of the tenets and principles of the Constitution, they found themselves bitter enemies.
 
I wonder if this same phenomonen is what is driving the discord of the Republican party and many conservatives in this great nation.  It is one thing to be united to get to a place to where you are in charge, and to work together to defeat a common enemy.  It is something entirely different to live day to day and rule once you are there.  As Hamilton and Madison discovered, success in achievng a common goal is only part of the equation, for what you do when get there also matters.
 
Is there a solution to this now?  I don't know.  It is possible we could unite again under one of the situations I spoke of before-- a letting go of pride, or another event to bring us together.  But it is also possible that the two sides go their separate ways, as did Hamilton and Madison. 
 
Of course, it is also possible that the Democrats will see a split as well.  Not all Democrats see completely eye to eye, and they, too have been united for the last eight years after they feel the Presidential election was pulled from underneath their feet.  President Bush was their bitter enemy, no matter what.  Despite the brief time after 9-11, they demonized him to no end, and they all joined in the effort.  Now, they have 'defeated' Bush by electing majorities in both houses and the presidency.  The power is now theirs, but will there be a split in how to address this new found power, power they have been dreaming of for years? 
 
I'd imagine their will be.  And what happens will be interesting.  Will it be enough to fracture the Democratic party in the same way the Republican party has been broken?  Will whatever remains of the former organized Right be able to capitalize on a troubled Left? 
 
Whatever happens, my hope is that those of us on the right side of the divide will keep the proper perspective to be able to pounce when we need to pounce, and that will entail not getting lost in our pride.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (70) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Recommended Readings

I think a required reading for any student of American politics ought to be the Federalist Papers.  I have not read them all but am trudging through them now.
 
A couple of things you'll learn: special interest groups were to be feared and freedom of speech was not universally accepted and many thought it unnecssary to have a specific clause in the Constitution about it.
 
Anybody know if they are required reading now in any schools?  For me, they were not.
 
I wonder why?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A True Love's Kiss?

A true love's kiss
Still exists
Yes, it does.
 
Are you looking for it?
Do you believe it?
For it is there.
 
A true love's kiss is there to find
And true content will follow.
But do you see?
 
Or have you forgotten?
I can see why.
Too much to tell for sure.
 
Do you remember?
When being with a love can
Just flutter you away?
 
Do you remember how natural
It was, just to be?
In love?
 
Or did you forget?
Did the expection get too high?
So that now, it cannot be?
 
Can it?  No.  It cannot,
You say.
Too much has happened.
 
Too little love to give, and
Your heart's been broken,
You cannot remember.
 
But you can. 
If you believe in a love's kiss.
And if you seek.
 
But, here's a warning
You don't have to look high.
Just right there with you.
 
You can find a true love's kiss.
And here's some more:
It starts with you.
 
But you must believe.
And you must want it.
Its easy, though.
 
Just look where you don't
Expect to find the magic.
Its there, and everywhere.
 
So, what makes
A true love's kiss?
Openness.
 
Openness to see.
To see what your love's about.
That's makes a love true.
 
Openness to know.
To know what's true.
That love's beyond these moments.
 
And, then, when you see
You will know the true love's
Kiss.
 
MP
2/14/09
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Warning from the Depression?

"Every journey to a forbidden end begins with the first step; and the danger of such a step by the federal government in the direction of taking over the powers of the states is that the end of the journey may find the states so despoiled of their powers or-- what may amount to the same thing-- so relieved of the responsibilities which possess of the powers necessarily enjoins, as to reduce them to little more than geographical subdivisions of the national domain."
 
--Justice Sutherland in Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (298 US 238 (1936))
 
A quick history-- this was dicta from a case overturning a piece of New Deal legislation giving government more power over commerce.  A number of years later, it was overturned.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Movies to Show Your Kids and Expose them to "Real" Culture

Here's a post about nothing, really.  OK, so it is about something, if you want to find something here...
 
But anyway, my family and I thought it would be fun to take some time together and watch a movie.  Since there is little that we have iuin full length form for the boys and what little we have has been seen far too many times.  So, we searched TV and found a classic: Spaceballs.
 
Spaceballs is one of my all time favorite movies-- relatively clean and silly humor, Mel Brooks, right?  So, my wife and I decide we will watch that together.  Of course, the boys were a bit too young to really appreciate the finer humor of Brooks, but they did enjoy Barf the Mawg (part man and part dog--his own best friend).  They enjoyed the little people that helped Yogurt with his merchandizing (is there an S in that word?).  And they really liked the flying school bus that Lonestar called his own.  Although, Pizza the Hut was terrifying to the older as he put a pillow over his face during that seen.  :(
 
Now, they didn't watch the whole thing, but as they started moseying (how do you spell "mosey") off finding balls to kick and throw and whatever else little boys do, I got to thinking...  I wondered what would be the movies that I will want them to see when they grow up and appreciate fine films.  My dad did that to me, and I got everything from Lucille Ball to Monty Python to Rocky Horror Picture Show.
 
So, here goes the start (and its in no particular order) to a list that I welcome additions to:
 
1)  History of the World, Part 1.  Yes, I like Mel Brooks, and who doesn't think its good to be the king?  And who wouldn't think singing about the torchering and converting Jews funny?
2)  Die Hard.  Osta la vista, ...  Oh, the language is foul but its one of the all time classic action adventure movies.
3)  Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  I've been watching for tweny years now and still find something new that's funny.  I mean really, don't you want to know how those coconuts really got to Britain and how Arthur became king?
4)  The Cutting Edge.  Hockey meets skating and its really nothing but a chick flick.  Ultimately, don't ask, but I like that movie. 
5)  Better Off Dead.  French fries and French bread and $5.  Need I say more?
6)  Goonies.  An 80's search for lost pirate treasure to save the neighborhood full of the usual characters, including at least one Corey.
7)  Rad.  If I can ever find the movie, but what fun it was to watch an entire movie about BMX bike racing.  Hey, to a 10 year old boy, that was where it was at.
8)  The Princess Bride.  Princess Buttercup, and Andre the Giant, and Billy Crystal, and a villiam with six fingers.  Oh, and a farm boy become pirate who assists in the revenge bidness.  Inconceivable!
9)  Glory.  Civil war, great movie.  'Nuff said.
10)  National Lampoons Vacation (Summer and European).  Oh, those Griswolds.  They've seen Christmas, and Vegas isn't worth it, but the other two are among my all time favorites. 
 
Now, there are many more.  This is definately not exclusive.  And I welcome your thoughts on movies to show your kids when you have them or if you already had them, what did you show them?
Tags: Movie Fun  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (23) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

As Conservatives, did you know?

...That the idea of free speech was not settled directly by the Founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights?
 
...That the idea of the extent of Congress's power was not settled when they wrote the Constitution?
 
...That the role of the judges is not explicity defined in the Constitution and that many of the powers it has taken today have been inferred from various parts of it?
 
...That the Founders were not necessarily on the same page as to the funstion of the government and its relation to the states?
 
...or that one idea united the performance of those who may be elected, that of virtue, but despite this uniting idea still disagreed on how the virtue would be best ensured as well as the reality of ensuring it?
 
These observations do not destroy Conservatism in the slightest, but since we rely on the Founder's intent, it does change the assumption.  It seems the truth of the matter is that these men really didn't entirely know what was the best way to govern.  What they did know, and I think this ought to be something we press hard today is the idea of virtue-- that government will only work when its leaders are virtuous and seek the common good.  Now, what is virtue and what is the common good?  Well, these both could give rise to lengthy discussions, but virtue must be looked at from the Protestant Christian perspective since that is largely what these men were.  It might be too much to say that they wanted a specifically a Christian nation, but it is probably not too much to say that the virtue was influenced by its values.  The common good is a bit more complex, but probably the biggest factor was property ownership and its protection.  Property ownership usually demonstrated much about the person and was often seen as a sign of being virtuous.  Having too much property was a sign of greed, but having at least some showed industriousness, education, and a propensity to fair dealings.  The inferences from that indicate that the common good meants something other than what liberals say is for the common good.  The Founders, I think, would be appalled to see many of their politics in its application to the common man.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »