About Me

Name: The Hermit Crab
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

If You Never Read Me Again, Read This

The passing of the cap-and-tax bill (Waxman-Markey, text available here) by the House on Friday brings us a long step nearer to a catastrophe.  If you oppose this bill, which will cause a huge increase in energy costs and strangle economic growth for years, if not decades, you have to use the one weapon we have against misbehaving legislators -- your vote. 
 
That's what's been missing in the many online petitions and site-generated e-mails we've been signing for the last few weeks.  Many of these present logical scientific and economic arguments against the proposal, all of them ignored by too many congressmen.  We have forgotten the old truism -- "A politician is a hog!  You cannot reason with him; you can only hit him on the snout with a stick!"  Many of the "yea" votes are no doubt raking in donations from environmentalist groups and others who would profit if the bill becomes a law.  We cannot hope to compete with them in cash donations, but there is one thing we can do.  We can out-vote them. 
 
Most politicians place their own re-election above all other goals.  Write to your senators.  Tell them that if they vote for Waxman-Markey, you will never vote for them in any election ever again.  Tell them you will support their opponents in all elections, primary and general.  Tell them that no matter how much money they collect from special interest groups, you will not be swayed from your opposition.  Tell them you will support their opponents financially -- whether you can afford to or not.
 
(I would like to caution New York residents about the responses you may receive from your senators.  From responses I have received on other matters, I have discovered that Kirsten Gillibrand will lie to you about the contents of bills, and that Charles Schumer will lie to you about the fate of proposed amendments.  He will tell you that amendments were proposed, but he won't tell you that they were defeated.  Don't trust - verify!)
 
Next, contact your House member.  If they voted against this bill, commend them, and ask them to stand fast if a conference-committee version of the bill returns to the House for another vote.  If they voted wrongly, follow the procedure outlined above.  Tell them you will only consider them in the future if they vote to kill this job-killer at the earliest opportunity.  Ask them to move to reconsider -- they are allowed to do that if they voted "yea" the first time.  Do not let their treachery be forgotten!
 
Remember the words of William Randolph Hearst:  "A politician will do anything to keep his job, even become a patriot."  (Hat tip to BrainyQuote.com)
 
This fight isn't over, and we can't afford to lose it.  We must act now.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Pro-Life Movement and the Death of George Tiller

I didn't think I'd have to write this post.  However, when I sent this article on the life and misdeeds of abortionist George Tiller (recently murdered by a man named Scott Roeder) to some friends and family members, two of my best friends assumed that this meant that I approved of the murder of Tiller.
 
This was stunning.  This also lead me to believe that certain misunderstandings about the pro-life movement are more widespread than I had believed.  As a pretty typical example of the rank-and-file of the movement myself, I thought I would write a few words about our reaction to the death of the infamous abortionist.  It is not what some misinformed observers think it is.
 
First, the full disclosure.  I regularly contribute to the National Right to Life Committee, the New York State Right to Life Committee, the Life Legal Defense Fund, Carenet, and Compass Care. (The latter two are pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.)  I have also in the past contributed to Birthright of Rochester (NY).  I am a Knight of Columbus, and the Knights are explicitely pro-life.  I know the people of the movement well, having participated in many pro-life activities.  So I do know what I'm talking about.
 
I expressly condemn the murder of George Tiller, without hesitation or reservation.  I condemn it as a violation of the laws of both God and man.  The fact that the murder occurred in a church makes it all the more appalling.  If Scott Roeder is indeed Tiller's murderer, then I want him to be tried fairly, convicted, and punished according to Kansas state law.  I condemn the murder not despite the fact that I am pro-life, I condemn it because I am pro-life.
 
Furthermore, many members of the movement (such as this one) mourn the death of George Tiller because, to the best of our knowledge, he never repented his evil deeds.  Good Christians want all souls to go to heaven, but we know that some don't.  We didn't want Tiller to become another Dr. Bernard Slepian, an Amherst, NY abortionist murdered by anti-abortion fanatic James Kopp in 1998.  (It is worth remembering that Kopp was condemned by America's most prominent pro-life groups then just as Roeder is now.)  We had hoped and prayed (yes, we prayed for him) that he would become another Bernard Nathanson or Norma McCorvey.
 
What I do object to is the whitewashing of George Tiller's activities after his death.  George Tiller did abominable things for money, and 60,000 babies died at his hands.  Moreover, as the article I forwarded to friends pointed out, even as an abortionist he was a poor practitioner, which fact caused many women to be rushed from his clinic to hospitals to receive emergency care after his attempts to provide services went wrong.  In fact, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts was investigating Tiller for multiple allegations of lawbreaking performed by and at his clinic.  He was in danger of losing his medical license.
 
Ambrose Bierce in "The Devil's Dictionary" defined "Saint" as "A dead sinner, revised and edited."  The attempts by the media to posthumously declare Tiller a hero and a defender of women's health was disgraceful, and all defenders of truth, pro-life or not, ought to have objected to this propagation of falsehood.  Reporters described him as a "mild-mannered man" and a "good family man".  Joseph Mengele was described by his associates in the same terms.  That does not change what he did.  Or what Tiller did.
 
 All of this does not mean that the pro-life rank-and-file cannot condemn the killing of such a man.  As a pro-life Christian, I condemn it because it may have sent a soul to Hell without a chance of redemption.  As a former pro-life atheist, I condemn it because of its lawlessness.  Even if Roeder declares at trial that he was driven to his act by the fact that the authorities of the State of Kansas repeatedly protected Tiller from having to pay the legal price for his crimes (which is true), it is no defense, and ought to be rejected by the courts. 
 
Many men, in many ages and situations, have faced the question of what to do about evildoers who are protected by those in power.  The answer is to work legally to replace the leaders who defend and promote the evils of the times.
 
John Brown chose wrongly in  1859 at Harper's Ferry.  Scott Roeder did no better in 2009.  Good ends never justify evil deeds.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On the Mysterious April Stock-Market Surge

Many people have commented on what they believe was behind the "surge" in stock prices and market indexes in April.  One theory I immediately thought of has been mentioned nowhere that I have seen, so I thought I'd note it here for your consideration.
 
Personally, I thought the rise in prices was caused by the realization in financial circles that with all of the new, inflationary "pump-priming" of new spending coming through the government's pipelines, we're in for an inflationary period the likes of which few of us have seen in our lifetimes.  We may indeed be in for a period like that of Weimar Germany or the Confederate States of America.  A wag with brains said during the CSA's 4+ year life that eventually an oak leaf would have the same value as the Confederate dollar.  This did happen, but The CSA's Treasury Secretary, Christopher Memminger, had far better excuses that the Obama Administration has for its policies now.
 
When hyper-inflation hits, the one asset you do NOT to be caught holding is cash.  When commodity prices soar, the price of securities is taken along for the ride, but the dollars' purchasing power plummets.  I think the buying on Wall Street merely reflects logical investors behaving logically, the way they generally do when they are not being forced to act illogically by government.
 
Actually, maybe I'd better redistribute my asset allocation in my 401k tonight.  The Street may be onto something...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Some Thoughts While Listening to Laura Ingraham

I was listening to Laura Ingraham on the way home from church, and she mentioned the fan-mail type reporting on Michelle Obama that publications like the Washington Post are passing off as journalism.  Day after day, the drive-by media writes worshipfully about her beauty, grace and style.  (I assume the fan magazine "M!" will be coming along in due course.)  A few Crab notes:
 
Condeleeza Rice is easily better-looking than Michelle Obama.
 
Laura Bush is at least as good-looking, and infinitely more attractive.  There is a difference.  For attractiveness, you have to add in the personality.  This makes Mrs. Bush pull away from Mrs. BO like the Road Runner dusting Wile E. Coyote in a Warner Brothers cartoon.
 
 
 
The most chilling thought of an otherwise fine morning came when she used the phrase "...businesses should be able to set executive's salaries without Barney Frank breathing down their necks."  To a hetero male like the Crab, the thought of Barney Frank breathing down your neck is among the most terrifying thoughts that one could have a nightmare about....  (Don't bother commenting that I'm being insensitive.  The last time I looked, TownHall blogs are protected by the First Amendment.  The Barackites haven't managed to repeal it...yet.)
 
 
 
Unrelated thought -- if the solons of our legislature were serious about "sharing the sacrifice" of these times which require such massive deficit spending, they would pass a law requiring them to sacrifice one percentage point of their salaries and perks for every percentage point of the budget which is deficit spending.  The sacrificed portion of their compensation would go back to the Treasury for use in closing the budget gap.  How's that for feeling our pain?
 
Upon reflection, the above wouldn't work.  They would simply make up the difference by accepting more bribes and illegal gifts...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sister Judi's Stimulus Plan


My sister Judi, who in her crusty independence of thought and disregard for the opinion of others is more Vermonter than the native Vermonters around her, has written her own stimulus plan in response to the insane plans coming from the White House and the Congressional Democrats.  I have asked her permission to reprint it here, and she has obliged.  I think that my sister's proposal makes more sense than anything our Capital Hill Democrats and Teleprompter Boy have suggested, or are likely to.
 
 
 

The other day I read a letter from Mark Harriman of Claremont, NH to the Eagle Times. His math was off, but it's the idea that counts, and the more I think about it, the more I realize it's brilliant. My variation and thoughts follow this excerpt.

"I'm writing in regard to the stimulus package signed by our president. God bless home and our country but this package, if it works at all, has no real relief in the near future, at least where we need it - in our pockets.

Honestly, the biggest issue I see is the wealth is held up in certain places and not distributed equally in any sense of the word. They, the government, keep saying...it's the American people's money. Then give it to us.

Here's my stimulus package… give all those people that make less than $100,000 a year, give $1 million to each and every person in this category. Look at what it would do almost instantly.... Mr. Obama could change everyone's life once and for all...Please write to your senator and president."

Now, I would make it half a million for every adult American citizen making less than $200,000 a year. (I'll talk about the minors later)

Think about it! Poverty - gone! Homelessness - gone! Recession - over! Possible depression - averted!

Money would flood into every sector of the economy! People would pay off their mortgages, buy or build new homes, remodel and repair. Great for the housing market and for those in the skilled trades.

They would buy new vehicles - I guarantee at least half of the individuals receiving this stimulus would buy at least one new vehicle. Great for the auto industry, better in the long run and more respectable than a bailout.

People could afford their own medical and dental care and prescriptions. Great for the health care sector, as well as their health and well-being.

They would buy everything they need and most or all of what they want. This would be great for manufacturing, retail, the entertainment and travel industries, etc.

They can go to college, business or technical school, start, grow or save a business, leading to increased income in the future. And it would be great for the elderly, who would no longer have to fear poverty, outliving their money or going broke due to health problems.

It would not only be great for Americans' finances, but for their well-being. More people will be able to feel proud, sleep easier, worry less, and look forward to the future. Money may not buy happiness, but it can sure help ease your mind.

I also propose giving every American under the age of eighteen $100,000. Parents or guardians would have to hold at least 80% of that in a tax-free account until they turned eighteen or graduated high school, whichever comes first, when they can use it for college, trade school, starting a business or the like. No one would have to forgo higher education because they could not afford it or be forced to take on crushing debt. It will also save the state and federal governments a fortune in loan and grant money for decades.

Of course, politicians would have to resist temptation and be strong enough to not do two things:

1. NOT TAX THIS AS INCOME. People would have to know this is theirs to do with as they think best, and not have to worry about government taking half of it right back. It must flow directly into the economy, not directly back into government's coffers. All levels of government will still profit hugely, due to everything from increased revenues from fees, sales tax and property tax, to the enormous savings on programs like welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment, etc.

2. NOT BE NANNIES. People must be able to buy anything legal that they want, not what politicians want them to have. For example, if some politicians want to offer an incentive to buy Priuses or anything else they approve of, that's fine, but it shouldn't be required.

I could, however, live with a couple of limits: that people would have to pay off their existing loans, debts, and credit card balances before spending stimulus money, and that anything bought with stimulus money would have to be paid for in full. Good for them, good for the banks and other creditors. All in all, its good for everyone, including the people making $200,000 and more, who will still benefit from the booming economy.

The positives are countless and far outweigh the potential negatives, which are few and manageable - for example, we might put a temporary cap on prices of +2% of what they were before the economy went bust, avoiding soaring inflation.

Think about it. Unlike the other stimulus package, this will actually stimulate the economy and bring prosperity to all Americans. Good for the present, good for our future.

Please pass this on. If enough of us demand that government do this, maybe they'll actually listen.

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

St. Obama's New Name?

My libertarian lawyer friend Tony has sent me a link to a story about the selling of votive candles with a saintly figure of President BO on them.  (For the strong of stomach, the link is here.)  After my initial revulsion, it occurred to me that sometimes saints had their names changed on their way to sainthood (Simon became Peter, Saul became Paul, etc.)  Given Obama's nearly psychopathic devotion to abortion (even supporting the gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortion, which even the NARAL declined to defend), I venture to suggest that a good "saint name" for Obama would be St. Abattoir*.
 
 
 
 
 
*  For victims of our public school system, abattoir means slaughterhouse.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sir Ted Kennedy and Citicorp

As far as I can tell, the British are knighting Ted Kennedy to prove to the Muslims that their knighting of Salman Rushdie was a joke.  It's their way of saying "If knighthood meant anything, we wouldn't be giving it to this porcine half-wit trust fund baby."  Oh, well.  Three cheers for the British Empire's newest knight, Sir Drinkalot.  I realize that that isn't the snappiest of titles, but it's shorter than Sir Criminally Negligent Homicide.
 
 
 
I heard on the news this evening that at points during the day that Citicorp stoock was trading at less than $1.00 per share.  Perhaps for the near future we should all refer to the company as Citicorpse.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Isn't It Just a Little Rich...

... of the Left to get so upset about the NY Post's cartoon of a police-shot chimpanzee perhaps representing President Barack Obama after they've spent 8 years calling President George W. Bush epithets like "Chimpy McHitler"?  I can't even estimate how many times I've seen the vilest of political cartoons picturing Obama's predecessor as a monkey.  Just another example of liberal fair play...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Of Princess Caroline, Prince Andrew, and His Accidency Governor Patterson

Poor Prince Andrew Cuomo.  He really thought he had a chance to succeed Mrs. Bill Clinton in the US Senate representing New York.  He's an actual New Yorker (I think), which would have helped, I think.  He has an actual resume, unlike Princess Caroline of Kennedy.  However, Andy forgot that he's a Democrat.  He forgot that Democrat Governor His Accidency David Patterson could not be expected to appoint a man to a Senate seat held by a woman, especially radical feminist icon Hillary.  Too bad, Andy.  That's what you should expect when you're a member of the EGG Party.*
 
 
 
In a way, it's too bad that the Accidental Governor didn't appoint Princess Caroline to the Senate seat.  It would have been a rare case of trying to fill a vacancy with a vacancy.
 
 
 
* For those of you who don't know this Billy Jeff Clinton administration chestnut, EGG stands for Ethnicity, Gender, and Geography.  It's how the (first) Clinton administration (we're at the start of the second now under President BO) fillled many of its appointive posts.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Shall Not Be Celebrating Obama

I will watch none of the Inauguration festivities and solemnities tomorrow.  I shall spend most of the day alone with my wife, who understands my feelings about the ascension of Barack Obama to the highest executive position in the free world.  I believe that the election of this President, at this time, is nothing for our country to be proud of.  I do not say this because I do not believe a black man should never be President, far from it.  If the Democrats had nominated a man like Roy Innes (or his son Niger, assuming he's old enough), I would have voted for either of them above John McCain.  It isn't just that I feel that Barack Obama is grossly unqualified by experience, temperament, or ideology for the office, although I firmly believe that he is deficient in all of these areas.
 
No, the main reason that I shall refrain from any but ill feelings toward the raising of Barack Hussein Obama to the Presidency is that I believe that the majority of voters who voted for him did so for the wrong reasons.  They elected a symbol, not a man.  The Cult of Personality has come to America.  Let me elaborate.  I'll begin with a riddle:
 
What do you get if you take away Barack Obama's black skin?
 
Dennis Kucinich, but with a thinner resume.
 
Ideologically, there isn't much to chose from between our 44th President and the lefty fringer who kept us amused for months by insisting that he could be our President.  I do not think that an honest, intelligent person truly believes, deep down inside, that a white man (or woman, Hillary) could have been elected with Obama's thin resume, soda-pop speeches, questionable associations, and consistent hopscotching of the line of truth.  From the trickery involved in only promising to use the public-financing-of-campaigns system until Republican opponent John McCain said he would, and then quickly reversing his field by announcing that he would accept all of the domestic (and foreign) money that people could contribute on, or under the table, to the unnecessary lies and "corrections" regarding contacts with the Senate seat selling Rod Blagojevich, he proved himself to any fair-minded witness to be a man with no regard for the truth.  Why lie about contacting the Governor of Illinois about his successor in the Senate.  There is nothing inappropriate about that, and yet he lied instinctively ... unnecessarily.  This is Clintonian behaviour.  Do we really need to go through that again?
 
Anyone who watched the campaign saw Barack Obama reveal himself to be a cold, arrogant, humorless man who showed no great mental agility when forced to speak "off the cuff".  He could deliver a speech in a rich tone of voice that sounded authoritative, but his speeches were very often merely platitudes strung together to form a sonorous, semmingly dazzling message of ... of ... what?  Mostly nothing at all.  He counted on the American electorate to be too dim or too dazzled to notice that he had told them nothing of substance, and he also relied on the media not to give the game away by pushing him for direct answers to important questions. 
 
He was right on both counts.  Generation X-Box, which is what I call our youngest voters these days, was too dazzled by the craftily-manufactured youthful tone of the Obama campaign to notice the contradictions and occasional blatant deceptions of the daily messages they received.  They at least have the excuse of their youth, although I can't help remembering that I knew more about how the world works at 13 years of age then they do now.  The media has no such excuse.  Indeed, they would not use it if they had it.  Their role in this campaign was, to my crabby old eyes, the most disturbing facet of this whole campaign.
 
I am forty-nine years old.  I have been watching political campaigns since 1968, and this was the first time I ever watched the major media outlets chose their candidate for President four years in advance, build him up for three years, blatantly campaign for him for 18 months (there is some overlap there, obviously), and carry him into the White House.  For example, do you remember what event first brought him into the national spotlight?  That's right, it was his brilliant speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.  Do you remember anything he said?  Neither do I.  So how do we know that his speech was "brilliant"?
 
Because the media never ceased telling us that it was.
 
 Many of us kept believing that the American voter would eventually be tipped off to the suspicious nature of the story the media allies of the Obama campaign were selling by its sheer volume of repetition and exaggeration.  We had, however, a crucial error in our thinking -- we measured the average voter's attention to politics by our own.  To us, watching with critical eye, the endless repetition of Barack BS was a reason to suspect its accuracy; to the average voter watching only 10% as closely as we, that 10% was quite convincing.  The Barry boosters were canny enough to avoid too much detail in their pitches, as modern Americans confronted with the challenges of data and logic will usually wander back to their video games or "reality" TV shows.  They just told the viewers and audiences "Barack Obama has the answers", and the voters said "Great.  I'm voting for him!"
 
On my old website, I once predicted that America would be the first great nation to fall not by external invasion or internal corruption, by by the sheer dead weight of its citizens massive ignorance.  Thomas Sowell once predicted that the greatest threat to America's future was its populations of economic principles.  I still think we're both right.
 
What is most frightening to me about Barack Obama is his total inhuman coldness on the "life issues".  A recent nationwide poll revealed that 92% percent of the American people want abortion to be restricted or banned outright.  (Of course, the media hid this fact throughout the campaign, asking about his beliefs and his record on abortion nearly never.)  Thunderous majorities want the hideous "partial-birth abortion" procedure to be banned outright.  Even the National Abortion Rights Action League (or whatever NARAL claims that their initials stand for these days) refused to defend the outlawing of the gruesome practice, but Senator Obama did.  With near-unanimity, the people want so-called "live-birth abortions" (in which the baby is delivered, and then left to die) to be banned.  Please note that I said "near-unanimity".  After a courageous Chicago nurse named Jill Stanek publicly revealed the existence of the shocking practice, the Illinois State Senate considered legislation that would make the brutal practice illegal.  One guess who the only Senator to speak against this bill was? 
 
During the early months of the campaign, Obama proved himself just as callous at the end of life.  In answer to the question "What do you think the worst vote you have cast in the Senate was?" (or some such; I do not guarantee I have the wording exactly correct), our incoming Chief Executive named the vote he cast to protect the life of the helpless, disabled Florida woman, Terry Schiavo.  Terry Schiavo was threatened with death by starvation, by court order, despite the fact that she was neither brain-dead or on life support.  Poor Terry eventually died this unnatural death, at the request of her estranged husband Michael Schiavo and by the order of the inhuman Judge George Greer, after the frenzied efforts of her natural family (I use this word with the obvious implication) and good hearted people across the country had failed.  (Full disclosure -- I was a financial contributor to the legal efforts to save her life).  I find it most alarming that the man whom American voters elected to "the highest office in the land" on the repeated media testimony that he was an almost "Christ-like" figure, would reserve his greatest regret for a vote he cast to save the life of a disabled woman.
 
Many observers have tried to tell us that the election of Barack Obama is at least a partial fulfillment of Dr. Martin Luther King's dream.  I believe that it is nothing of the kind.  Dr. King dreamed of a day when his children would not be judged by the color of their skin.  Great black leader Malcolm X (whom my father remembers and respected) would not have rejoiced at seeing a black man elevated to the White House not as a man, but as a painless expiation by guilty white liberals of a crime committed by white oppressors long dead.  My father told me that Malcolm X would have spit on Affirmative Action programs; his attitude was "I don't want your help, just get out of the way!"  I do not believe, from what I have read of Frederick Douglass, that he would have rejoiced to see a black man exalted for any reason other than as due justice for his merits and acheivements.
 
So you will excuse me when I do not join the celebrations.  The people have elected a symbol for a post which must be filled by a man (or woman, of course).  Instead of a qualified candidate being refused a position simply because of the color of his skin, we have now elected an unqualified candidate simply because of the color of his skin.  We are still not achieving Dr. King's dream -- we are just missing it to the other side.
 
(I apologize for the poor structure and quality of this post.  The demon insomnia has had me in its grip for two weeks now, and I am getting tired of being fatigued.  I did desire to post these thoughts before Inauguration Day.  I nearly succeeded.  God bless America.  We're going to need it.)
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lessons My Father Taught Me

I promised my best friend that I would refrain from politics during the 12 days of Christmas, which is not easy for me to do completely.  I come from a very political family, in which in many cases your political principles are more or less attained by your ninth birthday.  At least mine were -- that was the age at which I worked on my first Presidential campaign.  (By the way, I worked for the election of Richard Nixon, and don't expect an apology.  I still think he was a better choice than either of his opponents.) 
 
Given the promise I gave, I guess this would be a good time to write of some of life's lessons that I learned from my parents.  Some of these have political overtones, but hey -- it's the best this crab can do.  (This item concerns lessons learned - often imperfectly - from my father.  Mom will get her own item soon.)
 
 
 
My father taught me early on that we, and we alone, are responsible for our own actions.  My Dad smoked for over twenty years -- until he was diagnosed with cancer when he was in his late forties.  This led him to immediately quit smoking, but it did not lead him to blame the "evil" tobacco for his illness, and it certainly never led him to even consider suing them.  To this day, his opinion of the "big tobacco" lawsuits is one of severe contempt.  He tells anyone who asks that "We knew back in the '40s that smoking was bad for you.  No-one misled us.  Anyone who smoked and got ill is responsible for their own illness, and has no (moral) right to sue anybody."  You see, my father comes from another, better time.  Both of my parents come from the Depression era, and know what adversity and responsibility really mean.  A historical parallel would be the immigrants who came to America in the late 1840s and 1850s, who came here to escape the brutal suppression of the pro-democracy rebellions in Europe.  These immigrants (many from Germany, Poland, and Ireland) viewed concepts like "freedom" and "liberty" with deadly seriousness, since unlike many of the Americans living at the time, they knew what life was like without them.  An Irish rebel, Thomas Meagher, would go on to command the Army of the Potomac's Irish Brigade in the Civil War.  Today's Americans are just as ignorant of words like "want" and "poverty" as the native-born Americans of that period were of words like "suppression" were then.
 
 
 
My father also taught me that the concepts of equality before the law and affirmative action are inherently contradictory, and would have been rejected by people like Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X.  The latter, whom my father greatly respected, wold have spit on affirmative action.  My father told me that his reaction would have been along the lines of "I don't want your help; just get out of my way!"  Nothing I have read since then about Malcolm X has led me to question my father's judgment. 
 
I also learned from my father the invaluable lesson that most journalists are liberal, and that most of them are liberals first, and journalists second.  Throughout Watergate, my father informed his children that President Nixon and his associates had done little or anything that was unprecedented; in fact, many of the so-called "abuses" he and they were accused of had in fact been performed by others against him.  For example, after RN graciously declined to dispute the apparently stolen election of 1968 (stolen from Nixon himself, I hasten to add), the ungracious Kennedys responded by having the IRS audit Nixon's tax returns in 1961, 1962, and 1963.  Somehow, however, using the IRS against political opponents only became evil when Nixon tried it.  Small wonder that the media stayed mute when President Bill Clinton sicced the IRS on a dozen or so conservative think tanks during his Presidency.
 
My father taught me that marriage vows are unconditional, and that a man never hits a women, except in the incredibly rare situation that he has to to save his own life or that of another.  Which virtually never happens.  He also taught me that a man who is in the habit of abusing women deserves to forfeit the respect of all decent men, and perhaps forfeit a few teeth as well.
 
My father taught me the very unClintonian Democratic Party value that a man's word is his bond.  He didn't teach me a cliche; he taught me a principle that I have tried to implement in my own life, with some success.
 
I'm out of break time for now; I'm sure I'll remember more soon.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

David Blagojevich Patterson?

Rather overshadowed by the Rod Blagojevich scandal, a Senate seat in New York is also opening up, thanks to Hillary Clinton's acceptance of Barack Obama's offer to be his nominee for the post of Secretary of State.  Since she is certain of approval, the seat will need filling until a special election can be held in 2010.  One of the aspirants to the vacancy is Caroline Kennedy, of the "rich and dirty" family Kennedy  (hat tip to P.J. O'Rourke, I think).  She has no political experience -- ZERO -- and no ties to any part of the state except perhaps New York City.  What she does have, however, is a family with gobs of cash and an established history of willingness to spend it on politics.
 
The vacancy will be awarded by His Accidency David Patterson, Governor of New York.  He owes his office to a fluke of luck, since no-one knew that Eliot Spitzer would blow himself right out of office with a sex-for-pay scandal.  (There's an obvious joke in that last sentence.  Perhaps several.)  He knows that he's going to be needing plenty of campaign cash when the time comes to try to persuade the people of New York to elect him to a vote that no-one voted to elect him to before.  Meanwhile, there's Caroline Kennedy, with a big smile and a bigger trust fund.
 
Is that a Senate seat for campaign cash deal I smell?  Perhaps David Patterson is about to try a little Blagojeviching himself...  After all, he is of the new, Clintonion Democratic Party. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Madness of Governor Patterson

It's almost enough to make you wish Eliot Spitzer hadn't been caught.
 
David Patterson, New York's accidental governor (having succeeded Eliot Spitzer in the wake of his "Trousergate" scandal), has decided to break his "no new taxes" pledge and raise (at last count) 88 taxes and fees.  The prostrate Empire State already forces its citizens to pay the nations highest taxes.  Now, in the midst of an economic slowdown, His Accidency wants to drain the taxpayers of his state of any money they had managed to keep from his Sheriffs of Nottingham.  This is literally insane.
 
If the New York government really wanted to save the state's economy, they would do it by closing the budget deficit strictly with spending cuts.  That would make the state business friendly again.  Fat chance that will happen.
 
Governor Patterson apparently thinks he inherited a crown, and not an office.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Forget the Relief About Obama's Economic Team

Anyone who understands economics was a bit relieved when President-Elect Barack Obama picked a centrist (by Democratic standards, anyway) economic team.  I wish to officially declare the relief over.  It has been released that Baby Barry is appointing Carol Browner (a "global warming" fanatic) and others of her ilk to run the Energy Department and EPA.  Get ready for dozens of absurd, useless, and economically devastating regulations on Americans and American industries.
 
As for economic growth, we may look at 2008 as a good year when this bozo brigade is done.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Grateful for Blagojevitch

Quick question:  Who is the one person who is happiest about the Blagojevitch scandal?
 
Answer:  Al Franken, because now he can go back to stealing the Minnesota Senate seat secretly, since the press and the people are distracted by another crooked pol.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456Next »