Category: Politics

Mob rule isn’t activist?

Not much needs to be said about this vote in the Massachusetts legislature, a follow-up to this post:

Massachusetts legislators approved a measure yesterday that next year could allow voters to overturn a historic same-sex marriage law in the only state in the nation where such unions are legal.

Before I go further, it’s important to note that 62 of 185 legislators voted for the measure, a vote that equal just above 33.5%. Okay, so on to Gov. Mitt Romney, who will be is running for president in 2008:

“This is a huge victory for the people of Massachusetts,” Romney said in a statement. “In a democracy, the voice of the people is sovereign.”

This is what partisan, wedge politics has achieved. A presidential candidate views 33.5% support as “the voice of the people.” Pathetic.

There is one other interesting quote in the story:

“It’s in the best interests of children and society for marriage to be defined as between a man and woman,” said Glen Lavy, a senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which strongly favors banning same-sex marriage. “The battle to preserve marriage in Massachusetts as between a man and a woman is alive and well.”

Sentence one: please provide proof. Sentence two: the battle is now to return marriage in Massachusetts to the definition of a man and a woman. Accept it or not, but marriage in Massachusetts is now between two consenting adults.

Forced at gunpoint to wield a gun. What’s to fear?

I always have been, and always will be, against the military draft. Start with a process that makes demands on only 50% of the population (hey, wait a minute). Then throw in forced servitude for no other crime than being born the correct unlucky sex. Finally, give control over that process to politicians/central planners. It results in a fine constitutional mess of injustice and economic inefficiency. It’s all quite anti-liberty. Thus, it remains in the government arsenal.

In light of recent events the length of time since it last occurred, Selective Service is interested in a dry run of the system. It’s unlikely to happen until 2009, according to the article. Even now I’d be in the tail end of those eligible, so my number would not likely come up for consideration. By 2009, I’ll be pushing the outer range limit even more. All said, I’m not particularly worried for myself. However, I’m qualified to address this anyway:

The Selective Service “readiness exercise” would test the system that randomly chooses draftees by birth date and the network of appeals boards that decide how to deal with conscientious objectors and others who want to delay reporting for duty, said Scott Campbell, Selective Service director for operations and chief information officer.

“We’re kind of like a fire extinguisher. We sit on a shelf” until needed, Campbell said. “Everyone fears our machine for some reason. Our machine, unless the president and Congress get together and say, ‘Turn the machine on’ … we’re still on the shelf.”

We don’t fear the machine itself, but that machine, at the discretion of elected dolts, becomes a weapon designed to send men to fight a war. It has the ability to make life hell for a lot of people, unless we choose to consider involuntary servitude something other than hell. I’m not willing to embrace another definition, which means I can think of “some reason”.

I value your rights. Let’s vote on them.

There is little need to rehash the details, but New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine signed the bill providing equal-but-not-really-equal civil unions to same-sex couples. Of particular note is Gov. Corzine’s statement explaining his willingness to accept the legislature’s reasoning behind the civil union label instead of marriage, creating economic inefficiency on top of the separate-but-equal outcome. Consider:

The New Jersey bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.

Corzine, a Democrat, said that seems to be a reasonable approach, but he said calling the arrangement a civil union rather than gay [sic] marriage is preferable.

“For most people, marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief,” the governor said. “So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law.”

The state constitution of New Jersey presumably requires equal protection. “Democratic” support for the label matters how? Really, the Governor is stating that he believes mob rule is acceptable, in spite of said constitution. Granted, the New Jersey court’s ruling allowed this option, but the future is obvious. Marriage will arrive, whether the broader society wants it or not. Gov. Corzine should lead. If he doesn’t want to lead, he should resign. He should’ve refused to sign the legislation until the legislature gave him a solution that contains equality in practice, not just wishful thinking.

Who should we blame for dereliction of duty?

A dozen years of Republican power, yet if the Democrats perform even the fiscal cleanup reform necessary, they’ll be to blame for any of the pain involved. Consider:

So will the Democratic Congress be any better than the Republican Congress was? A look at half a dozen likely policy proposals makes clear the answer will probably be no:

  • Tax Increases…
  • Spending Increases…
  • Alternative Minimum Tax. A 1969 tax increase that was enacted to soak the rich is suddenly going to seriously soak the middle class. Some 3.5 million taxpayers paid the AMT this year. But unlike the regular tax, the AMT is not indexed to inflation, which means the number of taxpayers the AMT hits is expected to balloon–by some estimates to as many as 23 million in 2007. Less than 5% of families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 are now paying the AMT, but more than 80% may pay it in 2008. Almost no families with incomes of $50,000 to $100,000 pays the AMT today; but as many as 35% of such families will in 2008.

    To eliminate these very unpopular AMT increases would cost about $750 billion over the next 10 years. What taxes the new Congress will raise to solve this dilemma is unclear, but either AMT or other taxes will have to rise.

  • Protectionism…
  • Energy…
  • Social Security. Just 10 years from now Social Security benefits paid out will exceed taxes paid in, so something will have to be done to fix the system. Individually owned Social Security accounts would help by allowing workers to enjoy bigger returns. But Democrats are dead opposed to the idea of turning millions of Americans into owners of stocks and bonds, which will lead to the liberal solution of raising Social Security taxes and reducing benefits. The forthcoming plan will likely be to raise the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes ($97,500 in 2007). That would raise taxes on everyone earning more than this amount, especially the most productive wage earners. If the cap went up to $150,000, for example, it would mean a tax increase of $6,510 on a worker earning that amount.

The Alternative Minimum Tax and Social Security are absolutely problems that must be addressed. The longer we wait, the worse the pain will be. Obviously someone will take the blame. But it’s shameless to acknowledge that the Democrats will have to address the crisis and then blame the unpleasant reality on them.

I don’t seek to absolve the Democrats of any guilt, for they surely must share. Still, I have to come back to the reality that the allegedly fiscally conservative Republicans had six years of complete control over the two branches of government necessary to implement reform on these issues. They did nothing. When the weeds got thick, the party punted in favor of attacking gays and Janet Jackson’s breast.

Both parties are to blame for creating the problem, and I’m certain the Democrats will come up with stupid non-solutions to both. But I know who to blame for letting the problem get this severe.

The Law Is Subservient to Agendas

Can we please get to a point where we’re not battling over which side of the political spectrum has “control” over the courts?

A growing list of vacancies on the federal appeals court in Richmond is heightening concern among Republicans that one of the nation’s most conservative and influential courts could soon come under moderate or even liberal control, Republicans and legal scholars say.
…

Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America, said she and other conservatives are disappointed with Bush and Senate Republicans for not pushing harder to fill the vacancies before losing control of the Senate.

“Now all they’ve done is managed to kick the can down the road, and we’ve lost the majority,” said LaRue, whose group advocates for conservative jurists. “That circuit in the wrong hands could certainly move toward the center-left.”

Whoever is doing the nominating and whoever is doing the confirming should be irrelevant. Babbling against “activist judges” to gain the opportunity to appoint activist judges is shameful. I’d rather have a judge who believes in individual rights. Call that a bias, but the Constitution says what it says. Enough with the partisanship.

You’d Shake Your Canteen and Walk Away

I’m not going to hammer away at the details of New Jersey’s new civil unions for same-sex couples. From what I understand, the basics seem to satisfy the absurd separate exception allowed by the original ruling, while failing to meet the fundamental equal requirement. All in all, a proud day for politicians everywhere.

Instead, this gets to the problem that we’re facing as a civil society: our politicians are allowed to ignore the Constitution(s) they’re expected to uphold.

But Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer, a Republican from Ocean County, said that the bill was an affront to the Bible, and that “this is one time that I cannot compromise my personal beliefs and faiths.”

I’m not familiar with New Jersey’s practices, but I’m willing to guess that Assemblyman Dancer is not sworn to uphold the Bible or his personal beliefs and faiths. Unfortunately, another state legislator understands the true end-game here, so those of us who support equality are busted:

“I believe the foundation of our state is families, marriage, one man, one woman,” said Senator Robert W. Singer, the Republican from Jackson who sponsored the amendment proposal. “Why do you want to crumble that? We’re not taking away anyone’s rights, just sanctifying what marriage is.”

I can’t wait until the day that the foundation of New Jersey and the United States as a whole crumbles because gay Americans enjoy equal rights. I long for it with my very being. I also want the terrorists to win on that day. And I hate children. And puppies. Definitely puppies.

Politicians are stupid.

Does the baby Jesus hate Tofurky?

Speaking of science and kooks, too much soy will allegedly make you gay (Source):

The dangerous food I’m speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they’re all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.

I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you’re also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.

Estrogens are female hormones. If you’re a woman, you’re flooding your system with a substance it can’t handle in surplus. If you’re a man, you’re suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your “female side,” physically and mentally.

With such claims, a few citations of medical data might help. They’re nowhere to be found. But that’s okay. Proof is unnecessary when a child’s sexuality is at stake:

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That’s why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today’s rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because “I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t homosexual.” No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can’t remember a time when excess estrogen wasn’t influencing them.

And so it goes. Instead of scientific proof, or even theories with a scientific basis, we get the basic statement that “homosexuality is always deviant.” Note that the author discusses medical blame rather than explanation. Even if soy is as dangerous as the author claims, his real concern is not physical health. Moral health trumps any reality we face here. Of course, a reasonable person might just as easily attribute the alleged rise in homosexuality to reduced stigma that allows gays to come out of the closet rather than pretending to be straight. Incidence and reporting are different.

Finally, I wonder how the author would explain lesbians? I understand that the real disgust is aimed at gay men, but I wouldn’t expect the bigotry to be this obvious.

Afterthought: As a vegan, I have no stance in this argument. Avoid soy or don’t. I eat soy products and I’m fairly certain it hasn’t made me gay. But I’m just one guy. Here is some information about soy that challenges a few claims. I make no claims about it’s accuracy, but there are citations. That’s instantly an improvement over the WorldNet Daily nonsense.

Why does anyone care?

No doubt this is for the children:

Focus on the Family, a Christian group that has provided crucial political support to President Bush, released a statement that criticized child rearing by same-sex couples.

“Mary Cheney’s pregnancy raises the question of what’s best for children,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, the group’s director of issues analysis. “Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn’t mean it’s the best for the child.”

Of all the issues in the world, this raises the question of what’s best for children? A reasonable person might respond that just because it’s possible to conceive a child inside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn’t mean it’s the best for the child. A reasonable person might also ask Focus on the Family what makes them experts on how to best raise children. What is the ideal situation? Should we find the two most supreme married, heterosexual parents and award them custody of all children? They’re married, they’re straight, so they must be great.

Darwinism is true, but sometimes I wonder if it’s working as fast as it can.

The Partisanship of Omitting Damaging Facts

Wow, what happened to the George Will I enjoyed during the buildup to the election? Instead of that almost libertarian version, today we get a curmudgeonly piece of partisan nonsense related to yesterday’s story about Senator-elect Webb. Consider:

That was certainly swift. Washington has a way of quickly acculturating people, especially those who are most susceptible to derangement by the derivative dignity of office. But Jim Webb, Democratic senator-elect from Virginia, has become a pompous poseur and an abuser of the English language before actually becoming a senator.

Wednesday’s Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb “tried to avoid President Bush,” refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, “How’s your boy?” Webb replied, “I’d like to get them [sic] out of Iraq.” When the president again asked “How’s your boy?” Webb replied, “That’s between me and my boy.”

Will uses this to lead into his depiction of Senator-elect Webb as a boor. Possibly. We’re relying on second-hand reports. He also uses a piece of economic gobbledygook that Webb wrote after being elected as proof that Webb is out of control. To that charge, of course, the simple observation that every politician falls prey to hyperbole. They wouldn’t get elected if they didn’t. Asking for everything is the first step in negotiating for something. Webb is not the first to know this. I suspect Mr. Will knows this.

But more to the point, this is the full exchange between Webb and President Bush:

“How’s your boy?” Bush asked, referring to Webb’s son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

“I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,” Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

“That’s not what I asked you,” Bush said. “How’s your boy?”

“That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President,” Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

We have no idea how President Bush said that line, but the reasonable reading of it is certainly not innocent. Webb may be a boor, but President Bush comes off looking little better. Yet, Mr. Will left this out of his retelling. Why? The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant, I guess. I’d come to expect better from George Will.

Well said, Senator.

Senator-elect James Webb refused to make small talk with President Bush, which is an amusing anecdote. However, it’s not what I enjoyed most in the article. Instead, I offer this:

“He’s not a typical politician. He really has deep convictions,” said [Sen. Chuck] Schumer, who headed the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm. “We saw this in the campaign. We would have disagreements. But when you made a persuasive argument, he would say, ‘You’re right.’ I am truly not worried about it. He understands the need to be part of a team.”

The irony is almost too much to handle.

Back to Senator-elect Webb, I love this anecdote because Washington needs unpolished hacks as much as it has polished hacks. I suspect Webb won’t be overly effective if we get six years of gruff, but that’s for the best if he can change the discussion on Iraq and can’t get his intellectual slop economic policies passed. It’s like Christmas in November.