There is no good way to go about this, so I will just plunge in:
Merry Christmas!
Yes, that's right, I said Merry Christmas. Oops, I did it again!
The link above points to a November 25, 2005, Reuters story regarding the official renaming of the Boston, Massachusetts Christmas Tree to a "Holiday Tree". 'Tis the season for political correctness to run amok. Citing a clause that does not exist in the Constitution, liberals and misguided troublemakers take to the courts this time of year to inflict there ignorance and bigotry upon the rest of us.
The "separation of church and state" does not exist, per se, within the Constitution. What does exist is the requirement that "Congress shall pass no law establishing any religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Not a terribly complicated sentence, or murky in its meaning. No government sponsored and enforced religion will exist in this country, period. This is a clear and direct reference to the Church of England, not to the erection of an internally lighted Frosty the Snowman in Central Park. Also, Congress refers to - - - Congress! It is not a Founding Father euphemism for "Every federal government entity, derivative or subordinate governmental unit, agency, or any individual or entity funded or even involved either directly or indirectly with some element of the federal government".
Far more troubling than the prodigious efforts to remove Christmas from the national lexicon, except of course when used in reference to revenue generating Christmas Sales, is the refusal to object to the public presentation of non-Christian religions and holidays and indeed the demand in many instances that our children be compelled to study other religions within a classroom setting in order to foster greater understanding of those cultures. Islam is taught in California classrooms, including the reading and memorization of verses from the Koran and recitation of Islamic prayers. U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled this was just fine, since it was "taught" in a history and geography class and was merely enabling students to learn about Islam. What is the likelihood that a seventh grade class about Christianity, including Christian prayers and readings from the Bible, would last beyond the first day? Not every student in a public school is Christian. Shouldn't those who are not have the opportunity to learn about Christianity in a controlled, scholarly environment instead of having to rely on flawed information derived from their friends or contacts on the street?
Mangers in the public square threaten the fabric of our society. A fat (or should that be Atkins Deprived?) old man in a red suit is a clearly religious symbol that must be eradicated at every turn. Songs referencing Christmas, Santa, Reindeer, or even hint that they might support notions of a peculiarly Christian Winter Festival must be censored in the interests of preserving weak minds unable to defend themselves from an evil universe and unfortunate enough to lack parents with the concept of personal responsibility for themselves or their offspring.
Yet, when is that last time a big stink was made over a publicly displayed menorah? Whose son or daughter hasn't come home endlessly singing "Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel" until you wanted to either throttle them or at least convince them to start a rousing chorus of "999,999,999 Bottles of Beer on the Wall"?
So until all you self serving publicity hounds with far more time on your hands than true conviction develop enough intellectual honesty to fight any expression of religion in any guise, including those that do not fall beneath the umbrella of Christianity, I will continue to reject your childishness.
I will sing Christmas carols. Not only do I enjoy them, they have the added benefit of annoying you.
I will put up a Christmas tree. And decorate it. And stand it in my front window to inflict upon any who may happen to drive by my home.
And I will not succumb to the pressure to use phrases such as "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays". I am not ashamed of the fact that I was raised in a Christian denominated household, nor that I retain at least a few of the values of my upbringing.
The taboo phrase of December is offered as a pleasantry, in a spirit of fellowship and good cheer. It is not an epithet hurled against another. Any offense is drummed up by the recipient rather than offered by the giver.
So, and please accept this in the spirit it is delivered, Merry Christmas to all.
And to all, a good night.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Friday, November 25, 2005
America - Look Abroad for commute Cures
Any citizen who lives within or drives near a municipality of any size is well aware that compared to the daily commute root canal is a pleasant diversion. In a culture that prizes the freedom of the personal automobile over nearly all else, it is somewhat mystifying that almost universally the needed infrastructure to handle those millions of vehicles has not been anticipated and the existing capacity not sufficiently maintained.
Enter Kuwait, with all the solution that could possibly be needed.
A recently passed measure limits drivers licenses for foreigners to those who are university graduates and draw a monthly salary of not less than $1,370. Let's take that criteria and apply it to US highways and byways. Rather than make it applicable solely to foreigners though, lets make that the gold standard for anyone to drive. Heck, I'm even willing to grant illegals with a university degree drawing the minimal salary to drive. At least until the deportation hearing is complete and they have been properly expelled from the country - but that is another rant.
The roads would be ours again! No longer would a forty-five minute drive require two hours or more to complete. Millions of gallons of gasoline would not be burnt each year by idling vehicles mired in stop and stop longer traffic. Potholes could be repaired and highway budgets dramatically slashed.
Sure it's a fantasy - but nothing worthwhile ever got started without an unrealistic dream.
Enter Kuwait, with all the solution that could possibly be needed.
A recently passed measure limits drivers licenses for foreigners to those who are university graduates and draw a monthly salary of not less than $1,370. Let's take that criteria and apply it to US highways and byways. Rather than make it applicable solely to foreigners though, lets make that the gold standard for anyone to drive. Heck, I'm even willing to grant illegals with a university degree drawing the minimal salary to drive. At least until the deportation hearing is complete and they have been properly expelled from the country - but that is another rant.
The roads would be ours again! No longer would a forty-five minute drive require two hours or more to complete. Millions of gallons of gasoline would not be burnt each year by idling vehicles mired in stop and stop longer traffic. Potholes could be repaired and highway budgets dramatically slashed.
Sure it's a fantasy - but nothing worthwhile ever got started without an unrealistic dream.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Trying Out a New Toy
Trying Out a New Toy
My resident editor forwarded the following link for a Blogger/Word tool that might be useful for those who sometimes find themselves to be spelling challenged.
http://buzz.blogger.com/bloggerforword.html
If this first post works satisfactorily and I don’t seem to have any problems with it I will continue to use the product. If there is no retraction following this entry, then this can be considered an endorsement of Blogger for Word.
My resident editor forwarded the following link for a Blogger/Word tool that might be useful for those who sometimes find themselves to be spelling challenged.
http://buzz.blogger.com/bloggerforword.html
If this first post works satisfactorily and I don’t seem to have any problems with it I will continue to use the product. If there is no retraction following this entry, then this can be considered an endorsement of Blogger for Word.
H Res 571 - November 18, 2005
House Resolution 571, to no one's surprise, went down to resounding defeat last night. The resolution was titled and pretty much read word for word "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately"
The surprise is not that it was defeated. The surprise is that three Representatives actually recorded their support.
Cynthia McKinney - Georgia.
Jose Serrano - New York.
Robert Wexler - Florida.
You guys do realize that there is an election that will be held for your seat less than a year from now?
The surprise is not that it was defeated. The surprise is that three Representatives actually recorded their support.
Cynthia McKinney - Georgia.
Jose Serrano - New York.
Robert Wexler - Florida.
You guys do realize that there is an election that will be held for your seat less than a year from now?
Murtha's War
Representative John Murtha believes that now is the time to turn tail and run. Of all the possible lessons a Viet Nam veteran could have learned, why is it that this least satisfying lesson is the one that sticks with him?
Murtha called for a withdrawal because "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region."
In this speech, and in subsequent comments on the matter, Representative Murtha went on to express concerns that our troops are ill equipped and underfunded. In this assessment he is correct. His error is in concluding that the solution is leave the theater and retrench and rebuild here at home where it is "safe".
The proper conclusion is for congress to discover the will to inform the American people that we are at war. War imposes costs upon the participants. Those costs are not only financial, but also come in the form of self sacrifice to achieve the collective objective. No American not wearing a uniform or related to a soldier has been asked to sacrifice anything since this war began.
The debate at this time cannot be about whether we should or should not have entered into this war, or even if we were misled to get us there. The only debate is how we are going to win it now that we find ourselves engaged.
The mistake in this war, much as was the case in Viet Nam to vastly oversimplify matters, has been a failure to commit the necessary resources to achieve the only legitimate objective in a war: victory. War should in all cases be the last possible avenue taken, but once undertaken the effort should never have less than the full support and commitment of every person in this country. Whatever resources are deemed necessary, they should be doubled. At least. If our troops are sent into battle they need to be sent not only with the resources to win, but with the permission to do so. Political correctness and cultural sensitivity are tools for the diplomats and politicians. If we are at war then those tools have already been proven insufficient. Once the enemy has been compelled to lay down his arms, then the time returns for the implementation of the tools of peace and amity.
The surest way to keep our troops from needing to face the dangers of the battlefield is to make it absolutely clear to all potential foes that if they take it to that extreme there will be no quarter given and we will not falter until the mission has been accomplished. Once an enemy knows that as a fact encountered in the field rather than political and patriotic posturing then we will be safer.
We've cut back on oil consumption some, but not as a result of the war effort. That sacrifice has been due to rising prices brought on by expanded global demand especially by such explosive economies as China and India, as well as disruptions in refining and delivery of final product caused by natural disasters. Many of us eat less beef now, again due primarily to increased costs since the war began. Those costs went up not because cattle products were diverted to the support of our troops ; they rose primarily through the twin goads of Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution and fears generated by mad cow disease. Once again no war sacrifice there.
Ask any American what specific meaningful step they've taken to support this war effort, and unless they wear a uniform or have someone in their family who does, the only response you are likely to get is a blank stare. The yellow or American flag ribbon on the back of the SUV doesn't count.
For all practical intents and purposes, Americans have not been at war. Until we collectively realize that, agree with the motivations or not, once at war we are all at war and every effort possible must be expended to quickly and completely achieve military victory then we are going to continue the losing tradition started in Viet Nam and will continue to lose respect and credibility around the world.
John Murtha made that sacrifice personally. He more than most should know that victory and retreat are not synonyms.
Murtha called for a withdrawal because "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region."
In this speech, and in subsequent comments on the matter, Representative Murtha went on to express concerns that our troops are ill equipped and underfunded. In this assessment he is correct. His error is in concluding that the solution is leave the theater and retrench and rebuild here at home where it is "safe".
The proper conclusion is for congress to discover the will to inform the American people that we are at war. War imposes costs upon the participants. Those costs are not only financial, but also come in the form of self sacrifice to achieve the collective objective. No American not wearing a uniform or related to a soldier has been asked to sacrifice anything since this war began.
The debate at this time cannot be about whether we should or should not have entered into this war, or even if we were misled to get us there. The only debate is how we are going to win it now that we find ourselves engaged.
The mistake in this war, much as was the case in Viet Nam to vastly oversimplify matters, has been a failure to commit the necessary resources to achieve the only legitimate objective in a war: victory. War should in all cases be the last possible avenue taken, but once undertaken the effort should never have less than the full support and commitment of every person in this country. Whatever resources are deemed necessary, they should be doubled. At least. If our troops are sent into battle they need to be sent not only with the resources to win, but with the permission to do so. Political correctness and cultural sensitivity are tools for the diplomats and politicians. If we are at war then those tools have already been proven insufficient. Once the enemy has been compelled to lay down his arms, then the time returns for the implementation of the tools of peace and amity.
The surest way to keep our troops from needing to face the dangers of the battlefield is to make it absolutely clear to all potential foes that if they take it to that extreme there will be no quarter given and we will not falter until the mission has been accomplished. Once an enemy knows that as a fact encountered in the field rather than political and patriotic posturing then we will be safer.
We've cut back on oil consumption some, but not as a result of the war effort. That sacrifice has been due to rising prices brought on by expanded global demand especially by such explosive economies as China and India, as well as disruptions in refining and delivery of final product caused by natural disasters. Many of us eat less beef now, again due primarily to increased costs since the war began. Those costs went up not because cattle products were diverted to the support of our troops ; they rose primarily through the twin goads of Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution and fears generated by mad cow disease. Once again no war sacrifice there.
Ask any American what specific meaningful step they've taken to support this war effort, and unless they wear a uniform or have someone in their family who does, the only response you are likely to get is a blank stare. The yellow or American flag ribbon on the back of the SUV doesn't count.
For all practical intents and purposes, Americans have not been at war. Until we collectively realize that, agree with the motivations or not, once at war we are all at war and every effort possible must be expended to quickly and completely achieve military victory then we are going to continue the losing tradition started in Viet Nam and will continue to lose respect and credibility around the world.
John Murtha made that sacrifice personally. He more than most should know that victory and retreat are not synonyms.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Umm . . . Babs? Your Reality Check Has Bounced
Barbara Boxer, not one to often be confused with the intellectual equal of a turnip, continues to step in it with total abandon.
At approximately 11:00 AM (EDT) she was being interviewed on the Fox News Channel concerning the nomination of Samuel Alito to the position of Associate Justice. Her objection to the nominee on general principles is understandable. After all, he was nominated by the Anti-, I mean, Bush. Fair enough, Democrats have the right to object. However, Senator Boxer attempted to ennoble her objection and raise it above mere politics to the status of Constitutional Philosophy. All she succeeded in accomplishing was to call into question her qualifications to evaluate and vote on any nominee to that position.
In response to the anchor's question, Boxer explained, "What you must understand is that this is the Sandra Day O'Connor seat. It is not just the Rehnquist seat or the Scalia seat it is the O'Connor seat." And she went on.
Senator Boxer, perhaps it is you who is in need of a bit of understanding. There is no O'Connor seat on the Supreme Court. There is no Rehnquist seat. There is no Scalia, Marshall, Ginsberg or Thomas seat. The constitution does not apportion seats on the court by party affiliation or ideology. The power to nominate is accorded to the Executive branch, and the power to confirm to the Legislative branch. (That is the branch you serve in, just in case your constitutional comprehension is cloudy in other areas as well.) Voters know when they enter the booth that those people they place in the White House and the Capitol to represent and enact their interests will quite possibly be called upon to determine future members of the Court. It could be readily argued that those who lack this fundamental understanding of the ramifications of their ballot should not be casting one in the first place. Any reasonable person would conclude that placing a person into office because that candidate shares their views and goals will result in the appointment of individuals who share those same general views. Those who voted for President Bush did not do so because the felt Senator Kerry more accurately reflected their ambitions and would carry them out. Since the Democratic party seems incapable of grasping the meaning of losing an election though, beating that dead Donkey further would just be an exercise in futility.
In an ideal world, political considerations and personal world view would have no bearing upon who sits on the Supreme Court. Or any lower court for that matter. Jurists would render decisions based on the Constitution as it exists and on the laws as they are written, not as a few vocal individuals with a platform to speak from would have them be.
There is a mechanism already in place for making the Constitution conform to how we think it and the world at large should be. That is called amendment. Women couldn't vote, because the Constitution specifically accorded that privilege to men. It wasn't up to a judge to find that the Constitution should allow women to vote so they can anyway. Instead, it was up to legislators and the nation at large to determine that the Constitution as it existed was not sufficient to the world we as a nation now wanted it to be. Of course it's more difficult to change the constitution than it is to get the agreement of a handful of judges. That's the way it should be. No legal system can endure if its foundation is little more than the political fad of the moment. If a change is truly warranted, there are enough reasonable citizens in this country to recognize that need and enact that change. It has happened before, and when the need truly arises in the future will happen again.
And when it does, it will not be because one party or another is ascendant at the moment. It will be because an idea that transcends party has been recognized and preserved for the benefit of all.
At approximately 11:00 AM (EDT) she was being interviewed on the Fox News Channel concerning the nomination of Samuel Alito to the position of Associate Justice. Her objection to the nominee on general principles is understandable. After all, he was nominated by the Anti-, I mean, Bush. Fair enough, Democrats have the right to object. However, Senator Boxer attempted to ennoble her objection and raise it above mere politics to the status of Constitutional Philosophy. All she succeeded in accomplishing was to call into question her qualifications to evaluate and vote on any nominee to that position.
In response to the anchor's question, Boxer explained, "What you must understand is that this is the Sandra Day O'Connor seat. It is not just the Rehnquist seat or the Scalia seat it is the O'Connor seat." And she went on.
Senator Boxer, perhaps it is you who is in need of a bit of understanding. There is no O'Connor seat on the Supreme Court. There is no Rehnquist seat. There is no Scalia, Marshall, Ginsberg or Thomas seat. The constitution does not apportion seats on the court by party affiliation or ideology. The power to nominate is accorded to the Executive branch, and the power to confirm to the Legislative branch. (That is the branch you serve in, just in case your constitutional comprehension is cloudy in other areas as well.) Voters know when they enter the booth that those people they place in the White House and the Capitol to represent and enact their interests will quite possibly be called upon to determine future members of the Court. It could be readily argued that those who lack this fundamental understanding of the ramifications of their ballot should not be casting one in the first place. Any reasonable person would conclude that placing a person into office because that candidate shares their views and goals will result in the appointment of individuals who share those same general views. Those who voted for President Bush did not do so because the felt Senator Kerry more accurately reflected their ambitions and would carry them out. Since the Democratic party seems incapable of grasping the meaning of losing an election though, beating that dead Donkey further would just be an exercise in futility.
In an ideal world, political considerations and personal world view would have no bearing upon who sits on the Supreme Court. Or any lower court for that matter. Jurists would render decisions based on the Constitution as it exists and on the laws as they are written, not as a few vocal individuals with a platform to speak from would have them be.
There is a mechanism already in place for making the Constitution conform to how we think it and the world at large should be. That is called amendment. Women couldn't vote, because the Constitution specifically accorded that privilege to men. It wasn't up to a judge to find that the Constitution should allow women to vote so they can anyway. Instead, it was up to legislators and the nation at large to determine that the Constitution as it existed was not sufficient to the world we as a nation now wanted it to be. Of course it's more difficult to change the constitution than it is to get the agreement of a handful of judges. That's the way it should be. No legal system can endure if its foundation is little more than the political fad of the moment. If a change is truly warranted, there are enough reasonable citizens in this country to recognize that need and enact that change. It has happened before, and when the need truly arises in the future will happen again.
And when it does, it will not be because one party or another is ascendant at the moment. It will be because an idea that transcends party has been recognized and preserved for the benefit of all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)