I know, I know, all same-sex marriage, all the time, huh?
Well, sorry to disappoint those who want this post to be a screed one way or the other about the issue of SSM itself.
No, it is about the rank hypocrisy of the new found support for SSM from every crook and nanny of the Democrat party. Oh, throw in at least one Republican that exposed himself really badly and voila!
According to the Leftywhore media, support for SSM is rising as high as the tides due to Globaloney Warming. The same Leftywhore media that all but ignored this recent huge protest in Paris, France against SSM.
So, while the supreme court is about to decide two cases regarding SSM,
lets take a look at the very Democrat and some Republican pols that were against SSM before they found out that, never believe, they were for it.
Thanks to Ed Morrissey over at HotAir.com, he presents a short but sweet compendium of Democrat senators, led by then-Sen. Hillary Clinton and how because of her cheatin' creep of a husband, one William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and her staying with him somehow made here a paragon of virtue in the marriage world.
Uh, not so much.
Speaking of the creep, Mr. Clinton, remember how he signed the now-dreaded Defense of Marriage Act of 1996? You know, DOMA as it is now known? Because after all, he wanted to let you know that he too, cheatin' creep that HE is still believed that, when not cheatin', marriage was between one man and one woman.
And there are all these sanctimous Democrats now so fully "evolved" on the subject of same-sex marriage, they are falling all over themselves to now come out, so to speak, in favor of same-sex marriage.
Let go down that list, again courtesy of Hot Air.
As of this writing, North Carolina Democrat senator, Kay Hagan, is all cool with it. Now she is the one who has taken the biggest risk as she is up for reelection next year in a state that just passed a constitutional amendment, you guessed it, upholding traditional marriage. FTR, I don't think that she is running for reelection.
Before that, why Virginia's Democrat senior senator, Mark Warner, he jumped on the Democrat same-sex marriage freight train. And in the link, Missouri's Democrat witch Sen. Claire McCaskill, she's on the train. Montana's junior Democrat senator, Jon Tester. Check.
This so reeks of total political pandering and also how stupid these dim bulbs think voters really are.
In the case of Sens. McCaskill and Tester, they just won reelection. If they really "evolved", why not then? After all, the grossest of the bunch, our Dear Leader, President Obama, had already for a second time come out, again so to speak, for same-sex marriage before the election. Why not these two? Maybe because they were trying to win reelection in two Red states? Uh, yep, I'm going with that.
For these gutless Dems, this is the kind of hypocrisy we can expect. In 1996 when DOMA was passed, they said it was enough. That we who favor traditional marriage have nothing to worry about. That there was not going to be a rush to same-sex marriage.
And fast forward 17 years later and the same people that said, nothing to worry about can't come out fast enough supporting same-sex marriage.
But I save my Hypocrite of the Issue award for one of my own.
Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman gets the extra push to the finish line.
Like his Democrat friends, he too was considered a supporter of traditional marriage. After all, he was in congress in 1996 and voted for DOMA.
But, last Christmas, his son, Will, told Mrs. Portman and the senator that he was gay. In and of itself, that is a good thing that he was able to do so. And that his parents did not react in a horrible way. But what Sen. Portman did in response was decide as a direct result of Will's revelation, he would be a REPUBLICAN to jump on that same-sex marriage freight-train.
Why does Sen. Portman earn my particular ire?
Because when he announced his position change, he cited that he did a lot of research and spoke with his Methodist pastor about this.
So, did he do any of this when he was for upholding traditional marriage?
My guess is not at all.
See, then Congressman Portman represented the Ohio 2nd congressional district. Very conservative and very Republican. There were just those certain issues that to win election and subsequent reelection, you have to check off that box. And I think without any thinking, he checked off the box to uphold traditional marriage.
Until it was inconvenient when Will said he was gay.
Then he supposedly really gave it some thought and came around.
Now I will say this in a bit of defense of Sen. Portman.
There is something bordering on the no-win on this. I mean, he could have said that he is glad that Will told them as parents that he is gay. He could have still done some soul-searching and come to a position of civil unions, yea. After all, it is not just about him and his family.
Some of us, including your humble blogger, have had pretty close to this situation. I do not choose to divulge the details because that is a family matter and I am not running for office. I also believe in letting people tell their story, not me possibly clouding it. However, I admit I have evolved to accept that civil union is acceptable and while a compromise that should be decided at the state level is a way to see if the concept really does work. After all, in reality this was nowhere on any radar in 1992, a mere 21 years ago. And only in Massachusetts in 2004 when a divided state supreme court said that the state had to recognize and perform same-sex marriages have we had this issue thrust upon us.
Now this is about hypocrisy, not what I think on the subject so let me go on to you people, many of you, friends of mine on Facebook. Really, I don't care if you have your red equal signs as your photo. But come on, admit that this is an attack of the Sheeple! Your blindly putting your red equal symbol may make you feel that you have evolved and are just so wonderful in supporting same-sex marriage. But how many of you have had to face what a Sen. Portman has had to when his son came to him to tell him he was gay? How would you really handle it? Would you really be totally cool about it? Those are the questions you have to ask yourself.
And last but not least the reason my ire is not on the Dear Leader, President Obama, is because he is the easiest mark of all.
He really was for same-sex marriage before he was against it. While running for Illinois state senate in 1996, he said that he favored not civil unions but full on same-sex marriage. But when he ran for federal senate? Uh, not so much again. He did his best to lie right in the eyes of Pastor Rick Warren when discussing the subject in 2008. And he had to be cowed into coming clean by his chump of a Vice-President, Joe Biden, in the months before the 2012 reelection campaign began in earnest. And yet the proponents seem to think that it is cool that he is not on their side. People, he was ALWAYS on your side. But he could not say so because he wanted to win election. And he did not say so on his own but had to be pushed by the morons of morons, Vice-President Biden.
My frustration in this serious debate is how our politicians play us for fools and yet we seem to let them get away with it.
Does anyone care the hypocisy of these people?
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Federalism Is A Messy Business, But The Best Way To Govern The United States
UPDATE:
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz makes the case to leave the issue of same-sex marriage to the states. Maybe the supreme court will split the difference and uphold Prop 8 and strike down the Defense of Marriage Act based on federalism grounds? Hmm.
Yes, the United States of America is not a democracy but it is a federal republic and while that seems to be lost more and more every day, it bears a little bit of understanding.
Today, the supreme court finally heard the arguments in regards to Proposition 8, the 2012 measure passed by the California voters that the state recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman.
Understand that Prop. 8 did not take away any rights that same-sex couples. It simply affirmed that in the state of California, traditional marriage would be recognized.
But, the same-sex marriage advocates could not win at the ballot box, albeit it was close, so they took their case through the courts. And today is where a decision will be made as the nine-member supreme court decided yeah, we would like to figure all this out.
Why?
California voted as it did in 2012. If the advocates of same-sex marriage really wanted to, it could have taken the case to the voters again in 2010. Or 2012. Remember, the vote against Prop 8 was 48%. Which means that it is very possible if put to the voters once again, as it was written, it could lose.
But you see, this is what federalism is all about.
State by state the voters and or legislatures are deciding this issue. At this point, the reality is that in the just concluded election, three states either rejected traditional marriage amendments or supported same-sex marriage.And this year, New York state and Maryland's legislatures voted for same-sex marriage and it is the law of those states.
Either the tide is turning or they are winning in parts of the United States that are more willing to be supportive of same-sex marriage.
But what I do not think is good is when courts, as the case in Massachusetts, get involved and become super-legislatures and divine rights rather than let the process work in the court of public opinion or through the legislative process.
Especially when these kind of matters can very well be decided by only five people in black robes.
So many issues have been usurped by the federal government or the federal courts.
Abortion is a prime example.
In many ways, some states were already liberalizing their abortion laws. California had some of the most liberal ones and that credit, or black mark, goes to one Ronald Reagan as governor who signed then the most sweeping law that all but legalized abortion. Of course it turned out to be the largest regret of his two-terms as governor. But the point is that the debate was more than likely going the way of liberalizing abortion in a great swath of the nation. And some states would have toughened their laws.
But the supreme court took that away from the states, nationalized legal abortion across the land in the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. And believe me, that did nothing to end the debate only it began the resurgence of, for lack of a better term the religious right.
And as history shows, courts do not always get big decisions right. The most grievous being the horrible Dred Scott decision of 1857. That is one of the catalysts of the Civil War. So courts are not always saviors.
And one other thing that I wrote on my Facebook page today is that one of the most significant civil rights gains was not at the mercy of a court but in the hallowed halls of congress.
It was there that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. And with significant Republican support and strident opposition of Southern Democrats. And the courts, well they were nowhere to be found.
The most sweeping act was by the people through their representatives.
That is the way a federal republic works.
Some opposition by Republicans such as Sen. Barry Goldwater was not to preserve the evils of segregation but to not see the over reach of the federal government. The Southern Dems, not so much. They wanted to preserve their seats and a terrible way of life for Southern Black Americans.
The fact is that change does happen. Sometimes not fast enough for some. That is what is happening now in the whole same-sex marriage debate. Proponents keep using the courts when they can't win over the public and legislatures. And when they win it creates a backlash because the people do not like that courts make these important decisions over the people and their representatives.
To me, that is what the real debate is in all of this.
Federalism. And the continuing erosion thereof.
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz makes the case to leave the issue of same-sex marriage to the states. Maybe the supreme court will split the difference and uphold Prop 8 and strike down the Defense of Marriage Act based on federalism grounds? Hmm.
Yes, the United States of America is not a democracy but it is a federal republic and while that seems to be lost more and more every day, it bears a little bit of understanding.
Today, the supreme court finally heard the arguments in regards to Proposition 8, the 2012 measure passed by the California voters that the state recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman.
Understand that Prop. 8 did not take away any rights that same-sex couples. It simply affirmed that in the state of California, traditional marriage would be recognized.
But, the same-sex marriage advocates could not win at the ballot box, albeit it was close, so they took their case through the courts. And today is where a decision will be made as the nine-member supreme court decided yeah, we would like to figure all this out.
Why?
California voted as it did in 2012. If the advocates of same-sex marriage really wanted to, it could have taken the case to the voters again in 2010. Or 2012. Remember, the vote against Prop 8 was 48%. Which means that it is very possible if put to the voters once again, as it was written, it could lose.
But you see, this is what federalism is all about.
State by state the voters and or legislatures are deciding this issue. At this point, the reality is that in the just concluded election, three states either rejected traditional marriage amendments or supported same-sex marriage.And this year, New York state and Maryland's legislatures voted for same-sex marriage and it is the law of those states.
Either the tide is turning or they are winning in parts of the United States that are more willing to be supportive of same-sex marriage.
But what I do not think is good is when courts, as the case in Massachusetts, get involved and become super-legislatures and divine rights rather than let the process work in the court of public opinion or through the legislative process.
Especially when these kind of matters can very well be decided by only five people in black robes.
So many issues have been usurped by the federal government or the federal courts.
Abortion is a prime example.
In many ways, some states were already liberalizing their abortion laws. California had some of the most liberal ones and that credit, or black mark, goes to one Ronald Reagan as governor who signed then the most sweeping law that all but legalized abortion. Of course it turned out to be the largest regret of his two-terms as governor. But the point is that the debate was more than likely going the way of liberalizing abortion in a great swath of the nation. And some states would have toughened their laws.
But the supreme court took that away from the states, nationalized legal abortion across the land in the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. And believe me, that did nothing to end the debate only it began the resurgence of, for lack of a better term the religious right.
And as history shows, courts do not always get big decisions right. The most grievous being the horrible Dred Scott decision of 1857. That is one of the catalysts of the Civil War. So courts are not always saviors.
And one other thing that I wrote on my Facebook page today is that one of the most significant civil rights gains was not at the mercy of a court but in the hallowed halls of congress.
It was there that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. And with significant Republican support and strident opposition of Southern Democrats. And the courts, well they were nowhere to be found.
The most sweeping act was by the people through their representatives.
That is the way a federal republic works.
Some opposition by Republicans such as Sen. Barry Goldwater was not to preserve the evils of segregation but to not see the over reach of the federal government. The Southern Dems, not so much. They wanted to preserve their seats and a terrible way of life for Southern Black Americans.
The fact is that change does happen. Sometimes not fast enough for some. That is what is happening now in the whole same-sex marriage debate. Proponents keep using the courts when they can't win over the public and legislatures. And when they win it creates a backlash because the people do not like that courts make these important decisions over the people and their representatives.
To me, that is what the real debate is in all of this.
Federalism. And the continuing erosion thereof.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Another Reason For The Decline Of The United States
Before we delve into the latest chapter of the PC police running amok, even with all of the havoc that they wreck on our Great Land, this is still a Great Land. It still is the greatest nation evah on God's green earth.
But stories like this do make me pause, as I am sure it does you.
In Ipswich Middle School in Ipswich, Massachusetts (where else?!), the principal, one douchebrain named David Fabrizo, has decided that the best and brightest students should not have their own special Honors Night.
No, no, no.
Now we have to think about those poor kids that did work hard yet did not achieve the same as some of their classmates. Because according to Mr. Fabrizo, it just would ruin their self-esteem.
Well, let me share Mr. Fabrizo in his own words:
"The Honors Night, which can be a great sense of pride for the recipients' families, can also be devastating to a child who has worked extremely hard in a difficult class but who, despite growth, has not been able to maintain a high grade point average."
Well, here it goes.
Screw 'em!
Sorry loser kids, but the lesson that you should be taught is two-fold.
One, there are better students than you. And what better time for the lower-achievers to learn that there are kids that just get it better than you. Which leads to point number two. For the lower-achievers to not give up. When you are in middle school and yes high school, you have a set number of years to work hard and to maybe by the time they are seniors get recognized on Honors Night.
And one last thing is that learning never, ever ends, for lower-achievers, middle-of-the-road and the smart kids.
Look, what principal douchebrain, Fabrizo, is doing is making those that did make an honest effort and the reward is special recognition feel bad. The ones that he is trying to protect are wondering if when the have their turn, will the same thing happen to them.
In reality, incentive motivates almost everyone. That is why people try hard. Whether it is in school, work, organized groups and the like. And yes, some people do come up short. But often times other opportunities often come up and people gravitate towards what they find they are good at.
This movement to dumb-down the smart to the level of the not-so-smart is not a good thing. We need to desperately move away from this warped, unrealistic mentality among the left. And make not one mistake, this is the left in full glory. No conservative would support such crap.
Although I should like to think this is not a right vs. left issue, the truth is that is has become such a thing.
School should at its best prepare children for one of life's sad realities.
That one is not always the best at everything. That we are good at some things and that we should discover those God-given talents and or gifts. That there is this reality called competition.
And school is just that.
Whether it be in the classroom, in sports, in extracurricular activities, competition is a good thing. It keeps the mind fresh. Maybe the body. And it is a great way to meet people.
In this case, there are some great students that have done great work and should be awarded with special recognition. Not made to feel like they did something wrong by, well trying and succeeding.
Without this, the United States becomes a nation on the decline. A nation that values false self-esteem over good, honest competition.
And it starts with people like Mr. Fabrizo and this kind of let down for students that did what they should be doing. Striving to be the best.
Parents should be outraged enough to force Mr. Fabrizo to change his mind and restore Honors Night.
For those of us watching this kind of thing going on all over the United States, it is but a sign that our decline is coming not from al-Qaeda from from within.
Maybe, just maybe the good guys can win this one and a minor victory can be had for the Honors students of Ipswich Middle School.
But stories like this do make me pause, as I am sure it does you.
In Ipswich Middle School in Ipswich, Massachusetts (where else?!), the principal, one douchebrain named David Fabrizo, has decided that the best and brightest students should not have their own special Honors Night.
No, no, no.
Now we have to think about those poor kids that did work hard yet did not achieve the same as some of their classmates. Because according to Mr. Fabrizo, it just would ruin their self-esteem.
Well, let me share Mr. Fabrizo in his own words:
"The Honors Night, which can be a great sense of pride for the recipients' families, can also be devastating to a child who has worked extremely hard in a difficult class but who, despite growth, has not been able to maintain a high grade point average."
Well, here it goes.
Screw 'em!
Sorry loser kids, but the lesson that you should be taught is two-fold.
One, there are better students than you. And what better time for the lower-achievers to learn that there are kids that just get it better than you. Which leads to point number two. For the lower-achievers to not give up. When you are in middle school and yes high school, you have a set number of years to work hard and to maybe by the time they are seniors get recognized on Honors Night.
And one last thing is that learning never, ever ends, for lower-achievers, middle-of-the-road and the smart kids.
Look, what principal douchebrain, Fabrizo, is doing is making those that did make an honest effort and the reward is special recognition feel bad. The ones that he is trying to protect are wondering if when the have their turn, will the same thing happen to them.
In reality, incentive motivates almost everyone. That is why people try hard. Whether it is in school, work, organized groups and the like. And yes, some people do come up short. But often times other opportunities often come up and people gravitate towards what they find they are good at.
This movement to dumb-down the smart to the level of the not-so-smart is not a good thing. We need to desperately move away from this warped, unrealistic mentality among the left. And make not one mistake, this is the left in full glory. No conservative would support such crap.
Although I should like to think this is not a right vs. left issue, the truth is that is has become such a thing.
School should at its best prepare children for one of life's sad realities.
That one is not always the best at everything. That we are good at some things and that we should discover those God-given talents and or gifts. That there is this reality called competition.
And school is just that.
Whether it be in the classroom, in sports, in extracurricular activities, competition is a good thing. It keeps the mind fresh. Maybe the body. And it is a great way to meet people.
In this case, there are some great students that have done great work and should be awarded with special recognition. Not made to feel like they did something wrong by, well trying and succeeding.
Without this, the United States becomes a nation on the decline. A nation that values false self-esteem over good, honest competition.
And it starts with people like Mr. Fabrizo and this kind of let down for students that did what they should be doing. Striving to be the best.
Parents should be outraged enough to force Mr. Fabrizo to change his mind and restore Honors Night.
For those of us watching this kind of thing going on all over the United States, it is but a sign that our decline is coming not from al-Qaeda from from within.
Maybe, just maybe the good guys can win this one and a minor victory can be had for the Honors students of Ipswich Middle School.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
The RNC Does Not Need To Do Autopsies But It Does Need To Stand And Fight For Something
I do not know about you, but reading this Republican National Committee "autopsy" of the 2012 election read way to much like a nuanced report put together by. . .campaign consultants!
First, why the hell is the RNC calling this an "autopsy"? That is what is done after someone dies! The Republican party did not die on November 6, 2012. It sure got a good, ol' fashioned ass-whooping. But one must remember that politics and what people think and believe is cyclical. And the fact is that the Republicans did keep control of the House of Representatives. There are now 30 state governors that are Republicans. Twenty-four state legislatures under Republican control.
That is the good news.
The bad news is this report.
There is way too much about demographics. I mean, yes the United States is changing in many ways. But we can't be overwrought over it. We do not need a report. I can tell you living in one of the demographically changing parts of the nation, California, it is really simple. Outreach only goes so far. Republicans need to be engaged all the time and everywhere. We can't just send in people under the guise of outreach close to an election and wow the name-the-group crowd. No, we need to be working to find leaders in these communities and have them not just engage but run for that school board seat. That city council seat. We need to be willing to sit down as individual Republicans and talk about what we believe and why with our lefty friends and neighbors. Sorry, but we do not need a whole section and wasting $10,000,000 on perpetual "outreach".
Whenever I read about broadening the party, I fear that means jettisoning some basic positions.
Illegal immigration is one. Same-sex marriage is another. Maybe being open to new taxes. Basically becoming Democrat Lite.
In reading this report, it kinds of does that on the edges. No, it does not come out to gut basic Republican positions. But it does seem to suggest soft-selling them.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Michael Walsh, a go to guy over at National Review Online, is spot on with the simple title of his post.
Fight!
You must read the whole thing because trust me, most of it is better than this report from the RNC.
I want to highlight this in particular:
Put them on defense for a change and see how they like it. Create your own version of Media Matters — tax exempt! — and cut their bylined operatives and apparatchiks off at the knees. Revamp Fox News’s prime-time lineup — I said this on the most recent NR Cruise, so I might as well own it — by redeploying Sean Hannity (who’s already got plenty of exposure on the radio) and Bill O’Reilly (whose Factor has devolved into a parade of tired hacks and buy-my-stuff hucksterism) and replacing them with some fresh new faces before their ratings start to slide. Hey, MSNBC’s doing it.
YES! Now I don't necessarily agree about how to redeploy certain people on Fox News Channel, the thrust of putting the other side on defense is important because the Democrats have been doing that to Republicans for many a moon now.
This is what is so frustrating. That the Democrats seem to always catching the Republicans off and are able to define them rather than the Republicans defining the Democrats.
Say what you will about one George W. Bush, but he did show how it is possible to lead. To stay on message. To stay on offense. And of course, Ronald Reagan was the master of what it meant to lead on the message and to always be on offense. Not that there are not some roadblocks.
A massive report that focuses on failure only leads to more failure. It makes the grand poo bahs even more panicked. And that means the grassroots must unite behind a person that is on offense and will to fight for and not lead from behind.
First, why the hell is the RNC calling this an "autopsy"? That is what is done after someone dies! The Republican party did not die on November 6, 2012. It sure got a good, ol' fashioned ass-whooping. But one must remember that politics and what people think and believe is cyclical. And the fact is that the Republicans did keep control of the House of Representatives. There are now 30 state governors that are Republicans. Twenty-four state legislatures under Republican control.
That is the good news.
The bad news is this report.
There is way too much about demographics. I mean, yes the United States is changing in many ways. But we can't be overwrought over it. We do not need a report. I can tell you living in one of the demographically changing parts of the nation, California, it is really simple. Outreach only goes so far. Republicans need to be engaged all the time and everywhere. We can't just send in people under the guise of outreach close to an election and wow the name-the-group crowd. No, we need to be working to find leaders in these communities and have them not just engage but run for that school board seat. That city council seat. We need to be willing to sit down as individual Republicans and talk about what we believe and why with our lefty friends and neighbors. Sorry, but we do not need a whole section and wasting $10,000,000 on perpetual "outreach".
Whenever I read about broadening the party, I fear that means jettisoning some basic positions.
Illegal immigration is one. Same-sex marriage is another. Maybe being open to new taxes. Basically becoming Democrat Lite.
In reading this report, it kinds of does that on the edges. No, it does not come out to gut basic Republican positions. But it does seem to suggest soft-selling them.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Michael Walsh, a go to guy over at National Review Online, is spot on with the simple title of his post.
Fight!
You must read the whole thing because trust me, most of it is better than this report from the RNC.
I want to highlight this in particular:
Put them on defense for a change and see how they like it. Create your own version of Media Matters — tax exempt! — and cut their bylined operatives and apparatchiks off at the knees. Revamp Fox News’s prime-time lineup — I said this on the most recent NR Cruise, so I might as well own it — by redeploying Sean Hannity (who’s already got plenty of exposure on the radio) and Bill O’Reilly (whose Factor has devolved into a parade of tired hacks and buy-my-stuff hucksterism) and replacing them with some fresh new faces before their ratings start to slide. Hey, MSNBC’s doing it.
YES! Now I don't necessarily agree about how to redeploy certain people on Fox News Channel, the thrust of putting the other side on defense is important because the Democrats have been doing that to Republicans for many a moon now.
This is what is so frustrating. That the Democrats seem to always catching the Republicans off and are able to define them rather than the Republicans defining the Democrats.
Say what you will about one George W. Bush, but he did show how it is possible to lead. To stay on message. To stay on offense. And of course, Ronald Reagan was the master of what it meant to lead on the message and to always be on offense. Not that there are not some roadblocks.
A massive report that focuses on failure only leads to more failure. It makes the grand poo bahs even more panicked. And that means the grassroots must unite behind a person that is on offense and will to fight for and not lead from behind.
Monday, March 18, 2013
When Classists And Environwhackos Allign
I find myself utterly amazed that people really want to ban an activity that is a natural rite of passage to the So Cal lifestyle but leave it to enviornwhackos, state officials, a cowed city council and classists to try to take the beach bonfire away from some So Cal beaches.
Yet here it is.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District, a state bureaucracy that is supposed to monitor bad air quality is pursing eliminating open burning year round at Los Angeles and Orange county beaches.
Most of these beaches have large firepits with the sole purpose of. . .having a bonfire at the beach.
The reason is because, and I would never have guessed this, health concern of beach goers. Because after all, burning firewood at a beach bonfire smoke is kind of unhealthy. You know?
Well here, let this dude, Sam Atwood, of the SCAQMD, explain it:
"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that smoke is unhealthy and contains many harmful pollutants — some of which can cause cancer. And it doesn't take a costly scientific study to tell you that dozens of these fires in close proximity create very unhealthy levels of smoke for anyone near them, and for residents downwind."
OK Sammy, do you think that these firepits are literally inches apart? At most beaches that have them, they are quite far apart. And they are not all used at the same time if at all.
But Sammy, he just can't control himself and really thinks that eliminating a huge reason so many take in a beach in So Cal will not make a difference to most. Here he is again:
"This is not going to be the end of California's storied beach culture and history. This is to create a healthier experience for those who go to the beach."
Really, dude?! You really think that this does not got to the heart of a part of that beach culture and history?
This Sammy guy must be an East Coaster. Seriously.
You know what else can ruin a day at the beach, Sammy?
Hey, how about when a surfer has a wipe out and say tha board hits him on the head? What about a body boarder? How about someone just in the water and gets caught in rip current and can't swim with it? I mean, to take Sammy's first pearl of wisdom, smoke has harmful pollutants. Water can be dangerous even for the most experienced body boarder, surfer and swimmer.
This is why this "logic" is rather silly.
But really, you have to go further into the story to see what this is really about.
Newport Beach is a pretty upper-crust beach community. The type that you have north of million dollar homes practically on the beach. a public beach, that barely can fit a family of four. This community wants to remove all firepits from their precious beaches. Because some of the neighbors just can't hack the smoke from these bonfires.
Now understand, Ol' Sammy says it ain't cool for the Newport Beach city council to use them as a cover to remove the firepits. And the California Coastal Commission, which is usually overly draconian it it's pronouncements, is correct is this. That it would deny people a form of entertainment on public land.
In which these beachfront homeowners seem not to understand. The firepits were there before many of the homes were built.
The real issue is classism.
The beach people, they really don't want anyone on "their" beach. No, they do not want even the locals if they can help it. They want the bodyboarders, the surfers, pretty much anyone that they do not like to stay away. But most of all us people from the dreaded valleys, the San Fernando valley and the San Gabriel valley to stay the hell away. Take a look at the photo below.
Yet here it is.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District, a state bureaucracy that is supposed to monitor bad air quality is pursing eliminating open burning year round at Los Angeles and Orange county beaches.
Most of these beaches have large firepits with the sole purpose of. . .having a bonfire at the beach.
The reason is because, and I would never have guessed this, health concern of beach goers. Because after all, burning firewood at a beach bonfire smoke is kind of unhealthy. You know?
Well here, let this dude, Sam Atwood, of the SCAQMD, explain it:
"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that smoke is unhealthy and contains many harmful pollutants — some of which can cause cancer. And it doesn't take a costly scientific study to tell you that dozens of these fires in close proximity create very unhealthy levels of smoke for anyone near them, and for residents downwind."
OK Sammy, do you think that these firepits are literally inches apart? At most beaches that have them, they are quite far apart. And they are not all used at the same time if at all.
But Sammy, he just can't control himself and really thinks that eliminating a huge reason so many take in a beach in So Cal will not make a difference to most. Here he is again:
"This is not going to be the end of California's storied beach culture and history. This is to create a healthier experience for those who go to the beach."
Really, dude?! You really think that this does not got to the heart of a part of that beach culture and history?
This Sammy guy must be an East Coaster. Seriously.
You know what else can ruin a day at the beach, Sammy?
Hey, how about when a surfer has a wipe out and say tha board hits him on the head? What about a body boarder? How about someone just in the water and gets caught in rip current and can't swim with it? I mean, to take Sammy's first pearl of wisdom, smoke has harmful pollutants. Water can be dangerous even for the most experienced body boarder, surfer and swimmer.
This is why this "logic" is rather silly.
But really, you have to go further into the story to see what this is really about.
Newport Beach is a pretty upper-crust beach community. The type that you have north of million dollar homes practically on the beach. a public beach, that barely can fit a family of four. This community wants to remove all firepits from their precious beaches. Because some of the neighbors just can't hack the smoke from these bonfires.
Now understand, Ol' Sammy says it ain't cool for the Newport Beach city council to use them as a cover to remove the firepits. And the California Coastal Commission, which is usually overly draconian it it's pronouncements, is correct is this. That it would deny people a form of entertainment on public land.
In which these beachfront homeowners seem not to understand. The firepits were there before many of the homes were built.
The real issue is classism.
The beach people, they really don't want anyone on "their" beach. No, they do not want even the locals if they can help it. They want the bodyboarders, the surfers, pretty much anyone that they do not like to stay away. But most of all us people from the dreaded valleys, the San Fernando valley and the San Gabriel valley to stay the hell away. Take a look at the photo below.
Now look at that. What it looks like is a family of Black people enjoying a bonfire. In fact, it is. But it can be any race doing exactly the same thing. But while this photo is of a family at a Los Angeles county beach, it could very well be any beach anywhere in So Cal. The reason that I use the word classism and not racism is because it is what it is. Many of the beachfront homeowners are non-White. And quite a few are celebrities.
In California, there is always a battle between people that live on the beach and their property rights. However, the reality is that most of their homes are on public beaches. Thus there is always a battle of accommodation. And as I note, most of the time the Coastal Commission is way to far the other way.
But this seems to be a no brainer.
The firepits are on public beach land. And for all of us not just the few fortunate to be lucky to be in a beachfront home. The people looking for a way to get rid of them are beyond disingenuous. You can't want people to come into your town, spend their hard-earned cash and leave. Yet that is what they really want.
Hopefully the proponents of this will not prevail and a rite of passage in So Cal, the beach bonfire, will be saved.
But this is what happens when classists and environwhackos allign.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
What's Wrong With CPAC?
Well, it is no so much what's wrong with the Conservative Political Action Committee's recently completed confab in a Washington, D. C. suburb.
Wait?! A Washington, D. C. suburb?!
I just found a huge problem.
That CPAC is held almost every year in Washington, D. C., the belly of the leviathan of the political beast.
This year, one consideration is that many more people wanted to attend the three-day conservative festival.
So, they moved it to Oxon Hill, Maryland. Not exactly all that outside the Beltway considering that this community used Washington D. C. as until 1960, it was considered a part of the District of Columbia.
So, what's the problem?
Well, perception is one.
Why do we as conservatives fall into the same trap as liberals and look to Washington as the end all, be all?
It smacks on insiderism if you ask me. Sure, it is where many politicians are. And after all, this is a political conference. But what strikes me is why this is not taken on the road if you will? Why does it always have to be in Washington and no place else?
Well, there is Western CPAC, but it is nothing like the American Conservative Union. It is a different organization.
But what if CPAC was held mid-January in Washington, and a second one held in a place in mid-June like Los Angeles? Or Boston? Or Chicago? In other words, get many of these same folks outside the rarefied air of Washington and in other parts of the United States that such a conference would garner a great deal of coverage? Is that not one way to get the conservative message out there to a broader audience?
Yes, I know some of those will not be able to get to another location to speak to conservative masses. But this is where one should put their money where there mouth is, so to speak.
There are a lot of conservatives in So Cal, but many just do not have the time or the expense to trek back to Washington. But I sure would make it to all three days of CPAC if it took a similar show on the road. And many other people in other parts of the United States, some I have mentioned and many that I have not, will do the same. CPAC needs to take the message directly to the people. It needs to go on the road.
Now there is not doubt that this CPAC was one of the most successful in the 40 years that it has been put on. But it can expand and do better.
One way it can also do better is to not shut out reasonable conservative voices.
CPAC has to extend invites not only to groups like GOProud, a group within the Republican party of gay and lesbian conservatives, as well as anti-Jihadists like Pamela Geller. The irony is that by not inviting GOProud, they have caved into a sort of conservative political correctness. By not inviting Mrs. Geller, they cave into left-wing and the dominant PC force. Both GOProud and Mrs. Geller go against the grain of what is supposed thought in the United States. That there are gay conservatives. And yes, there are despite what Cliff Kincaid wrote on the Accuracy in Media blog this week. Sorry Cliffy, but I just don't think these people are part of the Commie plot. And Mrs. Geller is not what passes for Jewish today in the United States. A leftist stereotype perpetuated by the Hollywood crowd. She is Jewish and a solid conservative and most important, willing to put herself out there to expose the Jihadist war against the West.
For me conservatives have to hear those that may not be what we think should be conservatives, or even those that are not left-wing PC makes us not one bit better than those we accuse of being intolerant.
We can't be afraid of talking with each other. After all, that was what Reagan was about. We as a movement will draw our own conclusions.
CPAC is needed more than ever. But it needs to expand beyond Washington, D. C. and also be willing to have honest dialogue and critique of each other.
Wait?! A Washington, D. C. suburb?!
I just found a huge problem.
That CPAC is held almost every year in Washington, D. C., the belly of the leviathan of the political beast.
This year, one consideration is that many more people wanted to attend the three-day conservative festival.
So, they moved it to Oxon Hill, Maryland. Not exactly all that outside the Beltway considering that this community used Washington D. C. as until 1960, it was considered a part of the District of Columbia.
So, what's the problem?
Well, perception is one.
Why do we as conservatives fall into the same trap as liberals and look to Washington as the end all, be all?
It smacks on insiderism if you ask me. Sure, it is where many politicians are. And after all, this is a political conference. But what strikes me is why this is not taken on the road if you will? Why does it always have to be in Washington and no place else?
Well, there is Western CPAC, but it is nothing like the American Conservative Union. It is a different organization.
But what if CPAC was held mid-January in Washington, and a second one held in a place in mid-June like Los Angeles? Or Boston? Or Chicago? In other words, get many of these same folks outside the rarefied air of Washington and in other parts of the United States that such a conference would garner a great deal of coverage? Is that not one way to get the conservative message out there to a broader audience?
Yes, I know some of those will not be able to get to another location to speak to conservative masses. But this is where one should put their money where there mouth is, so to speak.
There are a lot of conservatives in So Cal, but many just do not have the time or the expense to trek back to Washington. But I sure would make it to all three days of CPAC if it took a similar show on the road. And many other people in other parts of the United States, some I have mentioned and many that I have not, will do the same. CPAC needs to take the message directly to the people. It needs to go on the road.
Now there is not doubt that this CPAC was one of the most successful in the 40 years that it has been put on. But it can expand and do better.
One way it can also do better is to not shut out reasonable conservative voices.
CPAC has to extend invites not only to groups like GOProud, a group within the Republican party of gay and lesbian conservatives, as well as anti-Jihadists like Pamela Geller. The irony is that by not inviting GOProud, they have caved into a sort of conservative political correctness. By not inviting Mrs. Geller, they cave into left-wing and the dominant PC force. Both GOProud and Mrs. Geller go against the grain of what is supposed thought in the United States. That there are gay conservatives. And yes, there are despite what Cliff Kincaid wrote on the Accuracy in Media blog this week. Sorry Cliffy, but I just don't think these people are part of the Commie plot. And Mrs. Geller is not what passes for Jewish today in the United States. A leftist stereotype perpetuated by the Hollywood crowd. She is Jewish and a solid conservative and most important, willing to put herself out there to expose the Jihadist war against the West.
For me conservatives have to hear those that may not be what we think should be conservatives, or even those that are not left-wing PC makes us not one bit better than those we accuse of being intolerant.
We can't be afraid of talking with each other. After all, that was what Reagan was about. We as a movement will draw our own conclusions.
CPAC is needed more than ever. But it needs to expand beyond Washington, D. C. and also be willing to have honest dialogue and critique of each other.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Pope Francis
This is a slew of firsts.
This is the first non-European Pope since Pope Gregory III, who was born in Syria. This is the first Pope ever from the Western hemisphere. This is the first Pope that will be known as Francis.
An aside note to self. When making a reference to NOT thinking of Francis the Talking Mule, make sure that wife knows what I am talking about.
This is the first of the Society of Jesus or the Jesuits to be elected Pope. And, correct me if I am wrong, the first Pope to have one lung.
Pope Francis will probably be a huge disappointment to those who oppose traditionalist teachings that the Roman Catholic church has on sexual issues, including and especially abortion and homosexuality. And probably will not see women in the priesthood anytime soon.
For me, as a Protestant Christian, I will say that this whole process is a lot more interesting that the recent ascent to the See of Canterbury of the Anglican Archbishop Justin. No black smoke or white smoke on that one. However, a whole lot of politics in how the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen than the Pope. I mean, it is the governing British political party and the reigning monarch and the approval of parliament to gain the head of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. Again, no smoke signals.
YAWN!
Back to issues Pope Francis faces.
Pope Francis is a strong advocate for Roman Catholic social justice. He has spoken about what he believes is income inequality and poverty.
One area that I am very interested in is his view on child abuse. And according to this from Wikipedia, he is probably going to be a strong advocate for victims of child abuse.
Which leads this Protestant to believe that this Pope will be able to cleanse the church of those that were accomplices to allowing the abuse of children to occur under their reign. One that comes to mind is the current Roger Cardinal Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. There is way too much to go into here, but Cardinal Mahony should not have been allowed to participate in the just concluded conclave that elected Pope Francis. Like it or not, if Cardinal Mahony were not in his position and wearing a Roman collar, he more than likely would be tried as a co-conspirator in covering up the scandal of pedophile priests within his jurisdiction.
To me, when one does not protect the innocence of children, he or she not only loses any respect, but may in fact be suspect themselves.
It would send a very positive signal to RC's and non RC's in this blogger's opinion.
My last thought is this.
I hope that there is a future Pope that will take the name of. . .Mark. Pope Mark. It does have a nice ring to it, doncha think?
Until then, I will watch the new Pope of the Roman Catholic church, Pope Francis, with great interest.
We Have A New Pope!*
Well, it did not take long for the Cardinals of the Roman Catholic church to vote on a new pope.
The white smoke billowed from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel and it is official. Now we wait for who it is and what name that he will take.
Now I put as asterisk because as a Protestant Christian, while I have respect for the pope, he is not my spiritual center. But it is what the church officially announces.
And FWIW, I would like this pope to take as a really biblical name, Pope Mark. Why not?
I am not being flippant on that one.
It will be important to know who will lead nearly 1,000,000,000 Christians that are followers of the Roman Catholic church.
Will the new pope follow the traditionalism of the last two popes, Benedict and John-Paul II? Or will the gates of hell and or modernism invade the Vatican City?
All to wait and see.
And one more thought.
The former Archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, should NOT have been able to vote. His taint is his role in the horrific sex abuse scandal that taints the Los Angeles archdiocese to this day.
More thoughts later and maybe the name of the new pope.
The white smoke billowed from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel and it is official. Now we wait for who it is and what name that he will take.
Now I put as asterisk because as a Protestant Christian, while I have respect for the pope, he is not my spiritual center. But it is what the church officially announces.
And FWIW, I would like this pope to take as a really biblical name, Pope Mark. Why not?
I am not being flippant on that one.
It will be important to know who will lead nearly 1,000,000,000 Christians that are followers of the Roman Catholic church.
Will the new pope follow the traditionalism of the last two popes, Benedict and John-Paul II? Or will the gates of hell and or modernism invade the Vatican City?
All to wait and see.
And one more thought.
The former Archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, should NOT have been able to vote. His taint is his role in the horrific sex abuse scandal that taints the Los Angeles archdiocese to this day.
More thoughts later and maybe the name of the new pope.
Friday, March 08, 2013
Hey Mayor Booberg, Leave Us The Hell Alone!
I agree with Erika Johnsen at HotAir.com on this one as to why do the people of New York City vote for truly the most loathsome person in politics today, Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
And from here on in this post a.k.a., Mayor Booberg.
And now from the man that has banned the Big Gulp soda, trans-fat in restaurants, making restaurants also post in plain sight calorie counts, banning smoking in outdoor public places, and I am sure that there is more, now is setting his sight and claws into. . .earbuds!
Yup, Mayor Booberg wants to, first by "education" of course.
But what if that $250,000 program fails? Actually, the real question is how to define whether it is successful or not?
The reality is that it is too open-ended. In other words, it will be easy for Mayor Booberg, Busy-Body or whatever he is, to say gee, I think that we have to actually go further and police how loud you listen to whatever with your earbuds.
What?! I can't hear you Mayor Booberg! I'm sorry but writing this inspires me to listen very loudly to Black Sabbath Vol. 4 right about now. It is quite honestly one of the heaviest metal albums, evah! And yeah Mayor Booberg, I WANT to listen to it loud! Yes, I want my frickin' ears to bleed! And maybe as I go off to sleep in a bit, I'll just settle down by going off to dreamland with KROQ radio.
See, I kind of get the other things Mayor Booberg is trying to do. But this, telling me how loud I should or not listen to something with earbuds in my ear?
The more that this guy opens his trap about all these nanny-state initiatives, the more he reminds me of a dictator trying to build some mythical type of man. It was a big deal in Nazi Germany. All the communist nations have tried similar things.
What is stupid about all of this is that the things he is making illegal or close to it is the responsibility of, get this, parents.
That's right, parents.
Parents to teach their children about all things in moderation.
But maybe an actual real problem is that many of said parents have not even been able to help their children read. If this report is accurate, a full 80%, that eighty percent of New York City's high school graduates can NOT read. CAN NOT READ, OR WRITE OR DO BASIC MATH!!!!!
And if the want to actually get in a local college, they have to take remedial classes. IN COLLEGE!
But hey, Mayor Booberg really cares about all because he wants you to tone down that earbud.
This is what is maddening about the people of big cities that elect these morons.
Real and pressing problems are often kicked to the curb and or ignored while non-existent ones are suddenly front and center.
Under the reign or terror of Mayor Booberg, he felt he was so above all that he concocted a scheme to lift term limits so he could run and eventually win a third term. One that he almost lost because his quest to keep the mayor's job was so disgusting. And this third term has been more or less a lesson in why people like him should not be in such an elective office.
Instead of leading the way that former mayor Rudy Giuliani did, Mayor Booberg has been spending the last 12 years all but undoing what Mr. Giuliani had reformed or was trying to reform.
So he has decided to become the Jack LaLanne-in-chief instead of the mayor that maybe reformed city spending, transportation issues, real quality of life issues (like how to bring real jobs to New York City), and at least using his bully pulpit to advocate for real and serious education reform. No, it is really more important that you know, those earbuds are really dangerous to you. Like Coca-Cola. Like trans-fat. Like smoking.
Duh! Most people really do know that.
But people, individuals, make choices all the time. Whether they are overloaded with information or not.
The thrust if what this post is about is simple.
It is about people like Mayor Booberg, et al, to do all of us a favor.
LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE!
And from here on in this post a.k.a., Mayor Booberg.
And now from the man that has banned the Big Gulp soda, trans-fat in restaurants, making restaurants also post in plain sight calorie counts, banning smoking in outdoor public places, and I am sure that there is more, now is setting his sight and claws into. . .earbuds!
Yup, Mayor Booberg wants to, first by "education" of course.
But what if that $250,000 program fails? Actually, the real question is how to define whether it is successful or not?
The reality is that it is too open-ended. In other words, it will be easy for Mayor Booberg, Busy-Body or whatever he is, to say gee, I think that we have to actually go further and police how loud you listen to whatever with your earbuds.
What?! I can't hear you Mayor Booberg! I'm sorry but writing this inspires me to listen very loudly to Black Sabbath Vol. 4 right about now. It is quite honestly one of the heaviest metal albums, evah! And yeah Mayor Booberg, I WANT to listen to it loud! Yes, I want my frickin' ears to bleed! And maybe as I go off to sleep in a bit, I'll just settle down by going off to dreamland with KROQ radio.
See, I kind of get the other things Mayor Booberg is trying to do. But this, telling me how loud I should or not listen to something with earbuds in my ear?
The more that this guy opens his trap about all these nanny-state initiatives, the more he reminds me of a dictator trying to build some mythical type of man. It was a big deal in Nazi Germany. All the communist nations have tried similar things.
What is stupid about all of this is that the things he is making illegal or close to it is the responsibility of, get this, parents.
That's right, parents.
Parents to teach their children about all things in moderation.
But maybe an actual real problem is that many of said parents have not even been able to help their children read. If this report is accurate, a full 80%, that eighty percent of New York City's high school graduates can NOT read. CAN NOT READ, OR WRITE OR DO BASIC MATH!!!!!
And if the want to actually get in a local college, they have to take remedial classes. IN COLLEGE!
But hey, Mayor Booberg really cares about all because he wants you to tone down that earbud.
This is what is maddening about the people of big cities that elect these morons.
Real and pressing problems are often kicked to the curb and or ignored while non-existent ones are suddenly front and center.
Under the reign or terror of Mayor Booberg, he felt he was so above all that he concocted a scheme to lift term limits so he could run and eventually win a third term. One that he almost lost because his quest to keep the mayor's job was so disgusting. And this third term has been more or less a lesson in why people like him should not be in such an elective office.
Instead of leading the way that former mayor Rudy Giuliani did, Mayor Booberg has been spending the last 12 years all but undoing what Mr. Giuliani had reformed or was trying to reform.
So he has decided to become the Jack LaLanne-in-chief instead of the mayor that maybe reformed city spending, transportation issues, real quality of life issues (like how to bring real jobs to New York City), and at least using his bully pulpit to advocate for real and serious education reform. No, it is really more important that you know, those earbuds are really dangerous to you. Like Coca-Cola. Like trans-fat. Like smoking.
Duh! Most people really do know that.
But people, individuals, make choices all the time. Whether they are overloaded with information or not.
The thrust if what this post is about is simple.
It is about people like Mayor Booberg, et al, to do all of us a favor.
LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE!
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Why Sen. Paul's Filibuster Matters
I know that some people are grousing that Sen. Rand Paul's epic filibuster of yesterday was kinda sorta meaningless yet I am here to write that it not only was not meaningless but maybe a serious turning point for the Republican party.
What righteously rankled Sen. Paul is that the Dear Leader, the Obama administration with Attorney General Eric Holder hemming and hawing, would not say outright that this administration would not target American citizens here in the United States for drone strikes.
To me it is not a minor matter.
Look, I may be accused of splitting hairs on this, but I have no problem in the Obama administration taking out Anwar al-Awlaki as it did in Yemen. Mr. al-Awlaki was conducting his terror war against the United States in a foreign nation. We do not know with absolute certitude that Mr. al-Awlaki was not aided possibly by members of the Yemeni armed forces, such as it is, or the government itself. The fact that he was a naturalized American citizen does not bother me. Nor if he was a multi-generational descendant from the Mayflower.
But yes, it does bother me the possibility of such an event happening here on American soil.
While some mocked at Sen. Paul for suggesting that one could be sitting at a coffee bar or an outdoor cafe and suddenly a drone takes out not only a suspect, but many others. It is called collateral damage. The greater good is that it saved lives because that suspect could not carry out a horrific terrorist act.
Oh, as it turns out in that scenario they had the wrong guy and he and those enjoying their coffee drinks also taken out did nothing wrong at all.
Now, I would be for this option.
Same situation but instead of a drone strike, how about said suspect being arrested and tried in a military tribunal? I have not one problem with that. It is a compromise that should please both sides.
So let's get back to the Sen. Paul filibuster.
Sen. Paul decided to block the senate from taking up voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama's CIA director nominee, John Brennan. Mr. Brennan is considered one of the chief architect's of the current administration's drone policy.
Sen. Paul is a libertarian type and sees this potential policy that does not rule out entirely using drones on American citizens in the United States as a bad thing. He said that if a Republican president was considering the same thing, he would be against it as well. One should believe him on that score.
And let me go a step further.
I supported the Patriot Act when it was implemented.
But, with the passage of time, there is time to see what good it has or not done. And if necessary, make revisions. It is a law passed by congress, signed by a president. Meaning it can always be scrutinized. Scrapping it entirely would be a huge, huge mistake.
Having said that, Sen. Paul put an administration that ran against such things as the Patriot Act and drone attacks and the like on notice. They are being watched. And Sen. Paul had not just Republican support but some rather left-wing Democrats ended up in support of what he was saying.
Republicans were watching how one should deal with the Democrats in general. Stick to issues. If even one that is not all that glamorous as whether or not drone strikes within the United States against American citizens are OK. Sen. Paul was focused and never went into the gutter about his serious concerns.
And as an aside, too bad two of his "Republican allies", Sen. Lindsey Goober Graham (R-SC) and Sen. John "F--- you" McCain showed what douchbrains they really are.
Instead of seeing what a serious debate can do, in which in the end the Obama administration assured Sen. Paul that is not and will not be administration policy to use drones against Americans in the United States, both not only attacked him but on the floor of the senate.
Face palm and here.
Rather than realizing what Sen. Paul was bringing up is a legitimate issue, Sen. Goober went so far to say this amazing statement in regard to as to if it is legitimate to question whether the president has the right to kill Americans by drones:
“I do not believe that question deserves an answer.”
Hey Sen. Goober, you're wrong! It sure as hell does deserve an answer because it is a legitimate question.
And of course Sen. "F--- You" McCain, man of such decorum, said that the filibuster was a disservice to the American people and that Sen. Paul was misinforming the public about the use of drones.
Oh yeah, and where were these two douchebrains last night?
Dinning with the Dear Leader, President Obama rather than actually being able to maybe help their colleague get that answer that took him close to 13 hours of talking on the senate floor to eventually get.
No, Sen. Paul is not a disservice to the American people. You two douchebrains are.
In fact, Sen. Paul showed poise, composure and moxie that Republicans need to show in dealing with not only the Dear Leader, President Obama, but in relating to the American people.
What righteously rankled Sen. Paul is that the Dear Leader, the Obama administration with Attorney General Eric Holder hemming and hawing, would not say outright that this administration would not target American citizens here in the United States for drone strikes.
To me it is not a minor matter.
Look, I may be accused of splitting hairs on this, but I have no problem in the Obama administration taking out Anwar al-Awlaki as it did in Yemen. Mr. al-Awlaki was conducting his terror war against the United States in a foreign nation. We do not know with absolute certitude that Mr. al-Awlaki was not aided possibly by members of the Yemeni armed forces, such as it is, or the government itself. The fact that he was a naturalized American citizen does not bother me. Nor if he was a multi-generational descendant from the Mayflower.
But yes, it does bother me the possibility of such an event happening here on American soil.
While some mocked at Sen. Paul for suggesting that one could be sitting at a coffee bar or an outdoor cafe and suddenly a drone takes out not only a suspect, but many others. It is called collateral damage. The greater good is that it saved lives because that suspect could not carry out a horrific terrorist act.
Oh, as it turns out in that scenario they had the wrong guy and he and those enjoying their coffee drinks also taken out did nothing wrong at all.
Now, I would be for this option.
Same situation but instead of a drone strike, how about said suspect being arrested and tried in a military tribunal? I have not one problem with that. It is a compromise that should please both sides.
So let's get back to the Sen. Paul filibuster.
Sen. Paul decided to block the senate from taking up voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama's CIA director nominee, John Brennan. Mr. Brennan is considered one of the chief architect's of the current administration's drone policy.
Sen. Paul is a libertarian type and sees this potential policy that does not rule out entirely using drones on American citizens in the United States as a bad thing. He said that if a Republican president was considering the same thing, he would be against it as well. One should believe him on that score.
And let me go a step further.
I supported the Patriot Act when it was implemented.
But, with the passage of time, there is time to see what good it has or not done. And if necessary, make revisions. It is a law passed by congress, signed by a president. Meaning it can always be scrutinized. Scrapping it entirely would be a huge, huge mistake.
Having said that, Sen. Paul put an administration that ran against such things as the Patriot Act and drone attacks and the like on notice. They are being watched. And Sen. Paul had not just Republican support but some rather left-wing Democrats ended up in support of what he was saying.
Republicans were watching how one should deal with the Democrats in general. Stick to issues. If even one that is not all that glamorous as whether or not drone strikes within the United States against American citizens are OK. Sen. Paul was focused and never went into the gutter about his serious concerns.
And as an aside, too bad two of his "Republican allies", Sen. Lindsey Goober Graham (R-SC) and Sen. John "F--- you" McCain showed what douchbrains they really are.
Instead of seeing what a serious debate can do, in which in the end the Obama administration assured Sen. Paul that is not and will not be administration policy to use drones against Americans in the United States, both not only attacked him but on the floor of the senate.
Face palm and
Rather than realizing what Sen. Paul was bringing up is a legitimate issue, Sen. Goober went so far to say this amazing statement in regard to as to if it is legitimate to question whether the president has the right to kill Americans by drones:
“I do not believe that question deserves an answer.”
Hey Sen. Goober, you're wrong! It sure as hell does deserve an answer because it is a legitimate question.
And of course Sen. "F--- You" McCain, man of such decorum, said that the filibuster was a disservice to the American people and that Sen. Paul was misinforming the public about the use of drones.
Oh yeah, and where were these two douchebrains last night?
Dinning with the Dear Leader, President Obama rather than actually being able to maybe help their colleague get that answer that took him close to 13 hours of talking on the senate floor to eventually get.
No, Sen. Paul is not a disservice to the American people. You two douchebrains are.
In fact, Sen. Paul showed poise, composure and moxie that Republicans need to show in dealing with not only the Dear Leader, President Obama, but in relating to the American people.
Monday, March 04, 2013
Jim Brulte Cali GOP Chair, Now What?
Over this past weekend, California Republicans chose former state senator and senate minority leader, Jim Brulte, to be the new chair of the CRP.
It was one of the best moves that the state party has made in recent times.
Lets face facts, the Cali GOP, well it is in a state of major suckage.
The party is in debt, losing registered voters, and losing legislative seats pretty quickly. In fact the Democrats control both houses of the state legislature with super majorities. The Democrats hold every statewide elected constitutional office. And both federal senate seats. And a staggering 40 of the state's 55-seat congressional delegation.
Clearly, priorities need to be put in place.
One thing that Mr. Brulte is going to do is get the party finances in order. Without money that can help candidates down the ballot to win elections, the crash-and-burn of the last several election cycles just continues. So that is where I think Mr. Brulte will spend the next several months.
Another area that is important is not just the ol' outreach but actually recruiting non-White candidates for office.
Honestly, that will be the tough nut to crack in this state.
But it is not impossible.
The fact is that the best chance for non-White candidates to win is where the party still has strength. That would be the Central Valley, Inland No Cal and of course Orange County. And there has been some success in Orange County especially among the Vietnamese community.
One thing to realize is that it will not be a marked turnaround in one election cycle. It is a long term project. And to me, it is no out of necessity but fulfilling what the Republican party stands for.
Speaking of which, the party also showed that it is moving in the right direction in electing Harmeet Dhillon as Vice-Chair of the party. OK, I know, she is from San Francisco. And yeah, I think it kind of sucks that she actually supported the current state Attorney General, Kamala Harris, in one of her races for San Francisco District Attorney. But those are my only issues, per se. Anyone who opposed her on the basis of her being a Sikh, as this ignorant woman did, is a fool and just feeds into the Leftywhore media narrative of those crazy Cali Republicans. The fact that she unified moderates AND conservatives makes it a great first step in showing non-Whites that this party will not tolerate fools like Vera Eyzendooren and her ignorance of the Sikh religion.
Now, I have my issues with Karl Rove, but I think here he makes a great deal of sense when he told Cali GOP activists this:
"We have great principles, but we sometimes talk about those principles in a way that makes it sound like it's 1968, 1980 or 2000."
I must say that he is spot on. In some ways the basic issues are the same, but what needs to be recognized is how fast big government has taken hold at all levels. That we need to speak to those that have been left behind in a changing economy. We need to speak to those people not about government dependence but how and why it is better to have the freedom to make one's own choices to improve their lot. In that I think of the late, great former Congressman Jack Kemp. That is what we need to begin doing not just here in Cali but all over the United States.
One other thing.
I read this somewhere a while back, but that when the national party writes off so many states, it does have an effect as to their strength a the state and local level.
Think of New York state, Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Washington state.
What Mr. Brulte needs to do is take the Republican National Committee Chair, Reince Preibus, up on his word that the national party will not leave any part of the United States untouched. He needs to get a guarantee that whoever the Republican presidential nominee is in 2016 will actually campaign in California. Not just come here for cash from big fat-cat contributors and leave. Real campaigning and yes, in areas that maybe, just maybe are not exactly Republican friendly.
Mr. Brulte did kind of allude to that in this he said to convention delegates:
"If we are going to be successful at winning elections, we have to get out of our comfort zone and stop only talking to the choir and going and talking to the people who don't necessarily share our views, because if we share not only our head, but we share our heart, we will make converts."
And I would add make sure to get our presidential candidate to restore the party not just to be competitive, but a winner once again.
That is the overall task of Chair Brulte. To make the Cali GOP a winner once again.
It was one of the best moves that the state party has made in recent times.
Lets face facts, the Cali GOP, well it is in a state of major suckage.
The party is in debt, losing registered voters, and losing legislative seats pretty quickly. In fact the Democrats control both houses of the state legislature with super majorities. The Democrats hold every statewide elected constitutional office. And both federal senate seats. And a staggering 40 of the state's 55-seat congressional delegation.
Clearly, priorities need to be put in place.
One thing that Mr. Brulte is going to do is get the party finances in order. Without money that can help candidates down the ballot to win elections, the crash-and-burn of the last several election cycles just continues. So that is where I think Mr. Brulte will spend the next several months.
Another area that is important is not just the ol' outreach but actually recruiting non-White candidates for office.
Honestly, that will be the tough nut to crack in this state.
But it is not impossible.
The fact is that the best chance for non-White candidates to win is where the party still has strength. That would be the Central Valley, Inland No Cal and of course Orange County. And there has been some success in Orange County especially among the Vietnamese community.
One thing to realize is that it will not be a marked turnaround in one election cycle. It is a long term project. And to me, it is no out of necessity but fulfilling what the Republican party stands for.
Speaking of which, the party also showed that it is moving in the right direction in electing Harmeet Dhillon as Vice-Chair of the party. OK, I know, she is from San Francisco. And yeah, I think it kind of sucks that she actually supported the current state Attorney General, Kamala Harris, in one of her races for San Francisco District Attorney. But those are my only issues, per se. Anyone who opposed her on the basis of her being a Sikh, as this ignorant woman did, is a fool and just feeds into the Leftywhore media narrative of those crazy Cali Republicans. The fact that she unified moderates AND conservatives makes it a great first step in showing non-Whites that this party will not tolerate fools like Vera Eyzendooren and her ignorance of the Sikh religion.
Now, I have my issues with Karl Rove, but I think here he makes a great deal of sense when he told Cali GOP activists this:
"We have great principles, but we sometimes talk about those principles in a way that makes it sound like it's 1968, 1980 or 2000."
I must say that he is spot on. In some ways the basic issues are the same, but what needs to be recognized is how fast big government has taken hold at all levels. That we need to speak to those that have been left behind in a changing economy. We need to speak to those people not about government dependence but how and why it is better to have the freedom to make one's own choices to improve their lot. In that I think of the late, great former Congressman Jack Kemp. That is what we need to begin doing not just here in Cali but all over the United States.
One other thing.
I read this somewhere a while back, but that when the national party writes off so many states, it does have an effect as to their strength a the state and local level.
Think of New York state, Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Washington state.
What Mr. Brulte needs to do is take the Republican National Committee Chair, Reince Preibus, up on his word that the national party will not leave any part of the United States untouched. He needs to get a guarantee that whoever the Republican presidential nominee is in 2016 will actually campaign in California. Not just come here for cash from big fat-cat contributors and leave. Real campaigning and yes, in areas that maybe, just maybe are not exactly Republican friendly.
Mr. Brulte did kind of allude to that in this he said to convention delegates:
"If we are going to be successful at winning elections, we have to get out of our comfort zone and stop only talking to the choir and going and talking to the people who don't necessarily share our views, because if we share not only our head, but we share our heart, we will make converts."
And I would add make sure to get our presidential candidate to restore the party not just to be competitive, but a winner once again.
That is the overall task of Chair Brulte. To make the Cali GOP a winner once again.
Saturday, March 02, 2013
Say, Wanna Learn How To Pick Locks? Only In Oakland Kids, Only In Oakland
I don't know if I should really be all that amazed or saddened by this story in the Left Angeles Times that the city of Oakland, California is sponsoring a workshop by the title, The Introduction to Lock-Picking.
Many things come to mind. Many unspeakable words come to mind.
First, why would the office of the mayor, the mayor in this case being the clueless Jean Quan, actually include this on her personal newsletter? Does this not by inclusion give the Mayor Quan seal of approval on such a class?
Oh, BTW, did I mention that burglaries are up a staggering 44% since 2011? Yup, they are.
And I guess in the mind of Mayor Quan, lets mention that there is a workshop on lock-picking taking place today in an event known as Workshop Weekend.
Oh, and do check out the Workshop Weekend website. It offers such other workshops as Create Wet Felted Flowers, Sew with Electronics and my personal favorite, Farm in Space.
From what I can tell on the website, it is thescam, brainstorm of a couple of techie bros named Zamfirescu.
So far, I have not seen a workshop on How To Rape A Gal Without Getting Caught. Or maybe How to Commit Grand Theft Auto Without Getting Anyone Killed.
But somebody, the one sane person in Oakland, did have the termidity to write Mayor Quan that er, maybe this was not such a great idea.
From the Times article:
Of all the incredibly unbelievable things I've witnessed in my life, this tops the list," one resident wrote in a letter that asked Quan to cancel the class.
And another offered a potential future course offering in an online chat forum:
"What next?" another wrote on a neighborhood chat forum. "The fundamentals of armed robbery?"
And I do not know what is worse, Mayor Quan's distancing from this "workshop" or one of the sponsors of the weekend's defense of the offering.
Here is Mayor Quan's feeble "apology" on the matter. That it was an "inappropriate listing". No, really?! Ya think?! But it gets better as the good mayor decides to throw some volunteers under the bus. She blamed some volunteers that put together the newsletter for a bad cut and paste job. They must have not been teaching the workshop on cut and paste to help 'em out. And here is Mayor Quan's clincher:
"It strikes the wrong note when we're doing everything we can to bring down crime," she said.
Again, no, really?!
But event organizer, Gil Zamfirescu, actually explains the value in knowing how a lock is picked so that you know how to protect yourself better. No, really. Here it is in Mr. Zamfirescu's words:
"We recognize there is a lot of community concern. But the best way to combat crime is to educate yourself, to understand locks so you know how to protect yourself better."
Oh, OK, that makes sense.
So, may I offer that defense to the couple of course offerings I suggested above? I mean, to nail a rapist, one must know how to do it first, right? To avoid getting one's car stolen, one should know the inner workings on how it is done. Again, right?
Oh, did I mention that burglaries are up a staggering 44% since 2011?
This kind of workshop under the guise of education is amazingly stupid.
What I would like to know is what law-enforcement thinks about such a thing? There is nothing from that perspective in the article.
And really, doesn't this just undermine the already awful job that it is to be a policeman in Oakland?
Of course it does.
And what I want to know is will anyone keep stats on if burglaries do increase and if any will be traced to any of the participants? That is important because it will totally undermine Gil Zamfirescu's argument that all it is about is making people aware of how lock-picking is done.
I don't think that showing how criminal acts are committed is going to help bring down a very increasing rate, in this case, of burglaries. It is clearly an innovative way to show a future crook willing to plop down $40 bucks how to commit a crime.
And another thought.
How many burglaries do not end well? By that I mean what happens when a crook is caught in the act? What if that crook is armed and shoots the person or persons that surprise a burglar in the act? And again if that crook took this workshop? Who will be liable then?
This is not something that should be offered anytime, anywhere. It is a disgrace that it is being offered at all.
But this is what Oakland hath wrought.
Only in Oakland, kids. Only in Oakland!
Many things come to mind. Many unspeakable words come to mind.
First, why would the office of the mayor, the mayor in this case being the clueless Jean Quan, actually include this on her personal newsletter? Does this not by inclusion give the Mayor Quan seal of approval on such a class?
Oh, BTW, did I mention that burglaries are up a staggering 44% since 2011? Yup, they are.
And I guess in the mind of Mayor Quan, lets mention that there is a workshop on lock-picking taking place today in an event known as Workshop Weekend.
Oh, and do check out the Workshop Weekend website. It offers such other workshops as Create Wet Felted Flowers, Sew with Electronics and my personal favorite, Farm in Space.
From what I can tell on the website, it is the
So far, I have not seen a workshop on How To Rape A Gal Without Getting Caught. Or maybe How to Commit Grand Theft Auto Without Getting Anyone Killed.
But somebody, the one sane person in Oakland, did have the termidity to write Mayor Quan that er, maybe this was not such a great idea.
From the Times article:
Of all the incredibly unbelievable things I've witnessed in my life, this tops the list," one resident wrote in a letter that asked Quan to cancel the class.
And another offered a potential future course offering in an online chat forum:
"What next?" another wrote on a neighborhood chat forum. "The fundamentals of armed robbery?"
And I do not know what is worse, Mayor Quan's distancing from this "workshop" or one of the sponsors of the weekend's defense of the offering.
Here is Mayor Quan's feeble "apology" on the matter. That it was an "inappropriate listing". No, really?! Ya think?! But it gets better as the good mayor decides to throw some volunteers under the bus. She blamed some volunteers that put together the newsletter for a bad cut and paste job. They must have not been teaching the workshop on cut and paste to help 'em out. And here is Mayor Quan's clincher:
"It strikes the wrong note when we're doing everything we can to bring down crime," she said.
Again, no, really?!
But event organizer, Gil Zamfirescu, actually explains the value in knowing how a lock is picked so that you know how to protect yourself better. No, really. Here it is in Mr. Zamfirescu's words:
"We recognize there is a lot of community concern. But the best way to combat crime is to educate yourself, to understand locks so you know how to protect yourself better."
Oh, OK, that makes sense.
So, may I offer that defense to the couple of course offerings I suggested above? I mean, to nail a rapist, one must know how to do it first, right? To avoid getting one's car stolen, one should know the inner workings on how it is done. Again, right?
Oh, did I mention that burglaries are up a staggering 44% since 2011?
This kind of workshop under the guise of education is amazingly stupid.
What I would like to know is what law-enforcement thinks about such a thing? There is nothing from that perspective in the article.
And really, doesn't this just undermine the already awful job that it is to be a policeman in Oakland?
Of course it does.
And what I want to know is will anyone keep stats on if burglaries do increase and if any will be traced to any of the participants? That is important because it will totally undermine Gil Zamfirescu's argument that all it is about is making people aware of how lock-picking is done.
I don't think that showing how criminal acts are committed is going to help bring down a very increasing rate, in this case, of burglaries. It is clearly an innovative way to show a future crook willing to plop down $40 bucks how to commit a crime.
And another thought.
How many burglaries do not end well? By that I mean what happens when a crook is caught in the act? What if that crook is armed and shoots the person or persons that surprise a burglar in the act? And again if that crook took this workshop? Who will be liable then?
This is not something that should be offered anytime, anywhere. It is a disgrace that it is being offered at all.
But this is what Oakland hath wrought.
Only in Oakland, kids. Only in Oakland!
Tweaking This Blog
I do not know what it is, but lately the blogger in me has been, well not in me.
There is so much to comment on, yet maybe the dreaded factor of time has an effect. There is only so much time and thus, I guess I feel overwhelmed to narrow down what I want to comment on.
Thus, I thought, maybe tweaking the appearance of the blog might, just might, get me back into sharing my thoughts on the current events of the day.
I hope that you enjoy the new appearance.
And yes, comments are welcomed.
There is so much to comment on, yet maybe the dreaded factor of time has an effect. There is only so much time and thus, I guess I feel overwhelmed to narrow down what I want to comment on.
Thus, I thought, maybe tweaking the appearance of the blog might, just might, get me back into sharing my thoughts on the current events of the day.
I hope that you enjoy the new appearance.
And yes, comments are welcomed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)