Politics
Hate Crimes Legislation
03-Nov-09 11:22 AM
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
- Congress makes the following findings:
- (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.
- (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.
- (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.
- (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
- (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.
- (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
- (7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
- (8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
- (9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.
- (10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.
- (a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
- (2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
- (A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
- (i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
- (ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
- title, or both, and shall be subject to the penalty of death in accordance with chapter 228 (if death results from the offense), if--
- (i) death results from the offense; or
- (ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or substantially burdens any exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, association, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to--
- (1) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or
- (2) incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.
- (3) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.
- (4) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
- (5) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration.
|
The Second Bill of Rights
19-Oct-09 08:33 PM
Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union:
"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."
The Rape Amendment
16-Oct-09 10:20 AM
If there was ever an indicator that the republican party is indeed the party of "no" and has literally lost it's collective ability to reason and use sound judgement, then it has to be the recent vote on the Franken amendment in the Senate. All 30 republican senators voted against this amendment which was a simple, straight forward, honest, and morally correct amendment that would prevent the US government from doing business with any contractor that requires it's employees to sign a waiver preventing them to sue if they get raped while on the job. One cannot help but wonder why anyone would oppose and vote against such a common sense amendment. The answer, of course, is for political ideology. Politicians who vote for an ideology over common sense has already checked their brains at the door and has resigned their duty of doing their job. Enough said by me - watch the video to get the full story and Jon Stewart's humorous take on the matter.
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Rape-Nuts Daily Show
Full EpisodesPolitical Humor Ron Paul Interview
CEO's Have No Intentions of Hiring
29-Sep-09 06:32 PM
Yet another article today outlining the fact that some of America's CEO's have no plans to increase hiring despite the fact that the economy appears to be on the upswing. No, they say that even if their sales increase that it will be at least a 12 to 18 months lag before they would make any comittments to start hiring people. CEO's of companies and corporations can just increase the work load on their already under-staffed employees and get them to produce more output without the expense of re-hiring displaced workers.
Personally, I have just about lost all faith in our current system. CEO's are charged with keeping their companies healthy, turning profits, and providing ever increasing wealth for their stockholders and investors. People and employees are only a means to an end to achieve this and they are as expendable and worthless as a loose collection of nuts and bolts and odds and ends needed to temporarily patch something together. The problem, and I am generalizing, is that CEO's of major corporations and businesses today have lost sight of the human factor and have no sight of a moral compass whatsoever. They've lost sight of the fact that one of the main reasons their businesses are not growing and have slow sales is because their customers (their employees) have been kicked to the gutter so they can maintain their ever increasing profit margins with as little discomfort to them as possible. How do they expect sales to begin growing again if people continue to get laid off? Do they not understand that by providing a job to those out of work that it will in turn provide increased sales and activity to their own businesses? Has our society and our culture become so corrupt and greedy that we have now rationalized and accepted the costs of the human suffering and despair as simply the means to an end of keeping our capitalist empires in place? For what gain or purpose does this serve except for the very privileged, wealthy few? What more do businesses want in terms of incentives and perks from the government to encourage them to do business? No taxes at all? Free reign with no regulations or rules of any kind to make an extra dollar by any means possible regardless of the moral or legal ramifications trampled in the process?
As a hard working American professional who has worked my entire life and have strived for the American dream and the desire to provide for my family and my retirement, I am truly disgusted by what I currently see in this country in the form of corporate America. Their inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for the country and the people is disturbing. They rail and complain against any moves by the government to control their actions as unfair and as socialist, yet they are the first ones in line seeking "socialist" handouts for themselves when they fail. They are hypocritical and their only interest is making more money for themselves- at any cost or expense - no matter what they might have to do to obtain it. They have kicked the American worker to the gutter one too many times and many of us are being forced to survive outside the walls of their gleaming ivory towers and I am beginning to care less if those towers crumble. We have truly lost our way if we can't see that there is something wrong with this picture.
Evil (c)ommunism
07-Sep-09 11:27 AM
As the health care reform debates have heated in this country, I have heard repeated usages of both the words "socialist/socialism" and "communist/communism" to describe the health care reform that President Obama is trying to enact. As if socialism and communism were somehow inherently evil systems but capitalism is completely pure and good. I have also heard those denouncing the plan saying it is "forcing" them to help people against their will and that it is unfair because it increases the tax burden on those who work and redistributes it to those who don't (i.e. lazy people is what is implied). And then I see comments by those who are religious and attempt to use scripture to denounce the health care reform legislation. Namely, the one that I've seen used is 2 Thessolonias 3:3-14 which instructs Christians not to associate themselves with people who are "idle" (i.e. lazy people who refuse to work is implied by those who use this scripture).
You have to be careful when you start trying to use scriptures to back one particular theory. I suppose there is a scripture somewhere that can be pulled to represent almost any ideology or principle you can think of. I do find it interesting that quite often those who protest the loudest against socialist or communist ideals are also the ones who claim to be either religious or Christian. They seem to make such claims as though they are totally unaware of the principles and values that founders of the Christian religion embraced. These values were practiced by the apostles and the early church. According to the book of Acts, the early Christian church clearly practiced a form of communism (that is with a small "c" not a capital "C" - there is a big difference between the two). The apostles established a system whereby all early Christians sold their possessions and wealth and gave it to them for redistribution to the community for the common good of everyone. This was also consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the examples he used to suggest followers should give up their personal wealth and give it to the poor. This was obviously not a Marxist form of Communism which promoted class warfare, but it was an economic form of communism that was based on communal and equal ownership of those in society for the common good of every man - not just the poor.
Acts 2:42, 44, and 45:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)
The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)
I find it peculiar how people tend to conveniently overlook this bit of history and are so quick to label the idea of programs designed to use tax money for the common good of society as something that is evil and should be abhorred. I am not trying to promote communism. Neither am I trying to blur the lines between separation of church and state by suggesting that government should engage in health care reform because it is a Christian principle. I am only pointing out the fact that communistic, socialistic and capitalistic principles are not inherently evil in and of themselves. They become evil when people begin to abuse the power and allow corruption to dictate the policies. Corruption happens in all systems and occurs with the abuse and misuse of power. But the idea of everyone giving generously to help the whole community is clearly a value and a principle that was practiced by the early Christian church. I would also note that even though our Constitution requires a separation of church and state, this only applies to sectarian considerations. That is to say, it is to prevent the government from showing favortism to one particular sect of religion over another. It in no way requires a divorce of morality from government. A government must be moral if it is to do good, but it does not have to promote a particular religion in order to be moral. The US is the only industrialized rich nation in the world that does not have a system in place to provide for and take care of it's people's health care system. To me that speaks volumes of where our priorities have been misplaced.
You have to be careful when you start trying to use scriptures to back one particular theory. I suppose there is a scripture somewhere that can be pulled to represent almost any ideology or principle you can think of. I do find it interesting that quite often those who protest the loudest against socialist or communist ideals are also the ones who claim to be either religious or Christian. They seem to make such claims as though they are totally unaware of the principles and values that founders of the Christian religion embraced. These values were practiced by the apostles and the early church. According to the book of Acts, the early Christian church clearly practiced a form of communism (that is with a small "c" not a capital "C" - there is a big difference between the two). The apostles established a system whereby all early Christians sold their possessions and wealth and gave it to them for redistribution to the community for the common good of everyone. This was also consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the examples he used to suggest followers should give up their personal wealth and give it to the poor. This was obviously not a Marxist form of Communism which promoted class warfare, but it was an economic form of communism that was based on communal and equal ownership of those in society for the common good of every man - not just the poor.
Acts 2:42, 44, and 45:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)
The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)
I find it peculiar how people tend to conveniently overlook this bit of history and are so quick to label the idea of programs designed to use tax money for the common good of society as something that is evil and should be abhorred. I am not trying to promote communism. Neither am I trying to blur the lines between separation of church and state by suggesting that government should engage in health care reform because it is a Christian principle. I am only pointing out the fact that communistic, socialistic and capitalistic principles are not inherently evil in and of themselves. They become evil when people begin to abuse the power and allow corruption to dictate the policies. Corruption happens in all systems and occurs with the abuse and misuse of power. But the idea of everyone giving generously to help the whole community is clearly a value and a principle that was practiced by the early Christian church. I would also note that even though our Constitution requires a separation of church and state, this only applies to sectarian considerations. That is to say, it is to prevent the government from showing favortism to one particular sect of religion over another. It in no way requires a divorce of morality from government. A government must be moral if it is to do good, but it does not have to promote a particular religion in order to be moral. The US is the only industrialized rich nation in the world that does not have a system in place to provide for and take care of it's people's health care system. To me that speaks volumes of where our priorities have been misplaced.
My Letter To President Obama
22-Aug-09 10:39 AM
A recent Newsweek article reveals that at least half of Americans are misinformed on health care reform and actually believe in the lies and misrepresentations that have been propagated by those opposed to the legislation. Here is some of the findings as quoted in the article:
Dear President Obama,
I am immensely proud as an American to have supported your campaign and now your administration as you tackle some of the biggest challenges facing our country in over fifty years. I appreciate the hard work and effort you are putting into the work of moving the country forward on vital issues concerning economic recovery and health care reform. I am especially thankful to finally have a President to whom I can write and I know will listen and appreciate my words.
I will keep this as brief as possible. I am writing to you today concerning the recent announcements by yourself and key members of your administration that the public option in the current health care reform debate may be up for negotiation or removal from the final bill. I realize that it is still early into the discussions and a lot of work remains on any final consensus on a bill, but please note that I am strongly in favor of the inclusion of the public option in the final version of the bill. Quite honestly, I believe that the public option is itself already a compromise to the much better single payer system that this country desperately needs and as such should not be offered up for negotiation or removal. To lose the public option out of the health care reform bill would result in a bill not worthy of your signature. The public option is the only element of the bill that will bring any change of force to the current system and I trust you will not barter or exchange this for some lesser, weaker system (such as health exchange co-ops) that I believe will leave the status quo firmly in place.
While I certainly understand that politics and Washington is all about negotiation and compromise, I cannot stress strongly enough that in this instance, for this historic piece of legislation, this is not primarily about politics. Those who are attempting to make this a political power grab are those who wish nothing more than an opportunity to score big with special interests and lobbyists in the health care industry. As you know, these special interests are exerting every influence imaginable to derail the possibility of any type of government involvement in the health care industry. Mr. President, please do not allow this debate on health care reform become only about politics. This is the opportunity to bring the CHANGE that we not only can believe in but that we desperately need. This is an issue of life and death, and the very quality of life for millions and millions of Americans. The simple fact of the matter is that without the strength and influence of our government via a public option provision to ensure the standards and rules by which the industry must be run, then I do not believe we will see true reform to our health care insurance system. I appreciate and admire your efforts to reach bipartisan support on a bill that will affect all Americans, but the importance of bipartisan support must remain secondary to the primary importance of a meaningful bill that actually has the power and the strength to affect change.
As a professional who is currently unemployed and on COBRA I can assure you that this legislation is not about politics for me. Due to my own personal health care needs I am deeply concerned for my family and the quality of care that will be available in the future. I am greatly disheartened by those in our country who have been so vocal and disrespectful in their angry and hateful opposition to the health care reform legislation. I can only think that the majority of them probably enjoy good health and do not fully realize the profound problems and inequities in our current health care system. I have no reason to believe that the health care insurance industry will ever do the right thing on their own accord and they will receive yet another pass by Washington if this important legislation does not have the fire power to enforce the changes necessary. The only change I can believe in at this stage are the principles that we must stand up and protect from being removed from this bill. Please, do not give away the public option of the health care reform bill in it’s final version that you sign into law.
Thank you for your hard work and for your extraordinary leadership in bringing these crucially important issues forward. True health care reform has been forgotten and ignored for far too long and we are too close now to give in to those who had the opportunity to fix it but chose to ignore it for the past eight years.
Sincerely yours,
TD3k
- 46 percent of Americans believe reform will result in health-care coverage for all illegal immigrants
- Half of us think the federal government will become directly involved in making personal health-care decisions.
- 53 percent of Republicans believe “death panels” will exist in some form, that the government will require the elderly to make decisions about how and when they want to die.(The real meaning of "end-of-life consultation" is actually something that, in practice, gives most people comfort and hope.) The number does drop to 30 percent when you look at the entire population, which still means a third of America thinks Barack Obama wants to kill your grandmother.
- Some people believe that pregnancies involving babies with Down syndrome will be forced to have an abortion or risk losing their health insurance
- This combined with the onslaught of recent attempts by those crashing town hall meetings and using bullying tactics to disrupt and interrupt the people trying to discuss the health care reform legislation, stories are now appearing that those in Congress may be attempting to scale back the legislation when they return in September after the break. This in an attempt to calm the hysteria that seems to be spreading by those who are fueled and energized by these wildly false bits of information regarding health care reform. As a result of all of this, I felt compelled to write to President Obama to share my feelings. Here is the letter I sent:
Dear President Obama,
I am immensely proud as an American to have supported your campaign and now your administration as you tackle some of the biggest challenges facing our country in over fifty years. I appreciate the hard work and effort you are putting into the work of moving the country forward on vital issues concerning economic recovery and health care reform. I am especially thankful to finally have a President to whom I can write and I know will listen and appreciate my words.
I will keep this as brief as possible. I am writing to you today concerning the recent announcements by yourself and key members of your administration that the public option in the current health care reform debate may be up for negotiation or removal from the final bill. I realize that it is still early into the discussions and a lot of work remains on any final consensus on a bill, but please note that I am strongly in favor of the inclusion of the public option in the final version of the bill. Quite honestly, I believe that the public option is itself already a compromise to the much better single payer system that this country desperately needs and as such should not be offered up for negotiation or removal. To lose the public option out of the health care reform bill would result in a bill not worthy of your signature. The public option is the only element of the bill that will bring any change of force to the current system and I trust you will not barter or exchange this for some lesser, weaker system (such as health exchange co-ops) that I believe will leave the status quo firmly in place.
While I certainly understand that politics and Washington is all about negotiation and compromise, I cannot stress strongly enough that in this instance, for this historic piece of legislation, this is not primarily about politics. Those who are attempting to make this a political power grab are those who wish nothing more than an opportunity to score big with special interests and lobbyists in the health care industry. As you know, these special interests are exerting every influence imaginable to derail the possibility of any type of government involvement in the health care industry. Mr. President, please do not allow this debate on health care reform become only about politics. This is the opportunity to bring the CHANGE that we not only can believe in but that we desperately need. This is an issue of life and death, and the very quality of life for millions and millions of Americans. The simple fact of the matter is that without the strength and influence of our government via a public option provision to ensure the standards and rules by which the industry must be run, then I do not believe we will see true reform to our health care insurance system. I appreciate and admire your efforts to reach bipartisan support on a bill that will affect all Americans, but the importance of bipartisan support must remain secondary to the primary importance of a meaningful bill that actually has the power and the strength to affect change.
As a professional who is currently unemployed and on COBRA I can assure you that this legislation is not about politics for me. Due to my own personal health care needs I am deeply concerned for my family and the quality of care that will be available in the future. I am greatly disheartened by those in our country who have been so vocal and disrespectful in their angry and hateful opposition to the health care reform legislation. I can only think that the majority of them probably enjoy good health and do not fully realize the profound problems and inequities in our current health care system. I have no reason to believe that the health care insurance industry will ever do the right thing on their own accord and they will receive yet another pass by Washington if this important legislation does not have the fire power to enforce the changes necessary. The only change I can believe in at this stage are the principles that we must stand up and protect from being removed from this bill. Please, do not give away the public option of the health care reform bill in it’s final version that you sign into law.
Thank you for your hard work and for your extraordinary leadership in bringing these crucially important issues forward. True health care reform has been forgotten and ignored for far too long and we are too close now to give in to those who had the opportunity to fix it but chose to ignore it for the past eight years.
Sincerely yours,
TD3k
Health Care Reform - My Letter
10-Aug-09 12:42 PM
We are in the midst of a national debate that is of immense importance to this country, our economy, and our general well being. It is unfortunately a divisive one and one that elicits strong emotion and opinion. It is a complex issue and it affects every single one of us and it is health care reform. There has been an inordinate amount of false information, misinformation, and outright lies circulating in the media and on the internet regarding the current bills before Congress. During the month of August a battle is going to be waged by both sides that will determine the fate in the near future of what we do with our health care system. To that end I have written to my Senators and Congressman outlining to them some key points that I feel are important to this discussion. Here is my letter:
Dear Senator/Congressman,
I am writing to you today to make known my concerns and wishes regarding the current health care reform bill(s) that are currently under consideration in the US Congress. First let me state that I believe that this one particular issue is one of the most urgent, pressing needs facing our country today and I place great value and importance on it. To that end, allow me to make a few key points.
I am in support of health care reform legislation. I want to see a bill passed this year addressing the urgent needs concerning this subject. As an individual who has to deal with health insurance companies on a regular basis, I know the problems and the inequalities that exist in the current system. These must be addressed and corrected immediately. While I appreciate the complexity dealing with such an issue, you must resolve to work through this issue in a bi-partisan fashion with the Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate to clear these hurdles. Not just any bill will do; it must contain and address the following:
Thank you for your time and I appreciate the hard work ahead. In closing I would also like to add that the recent attempts by certain groups to disrupt town hall meetings across the country should be admonished and condemned. Not because they are in opposition, but because they are attempting to derail the democratic process of government leaders communicating with their respective constituents. Open debates and forums allowing questions should be encouraged in lieu of the mindless, immature antics of those who would shout over and drown out others who wish to speak. Please speak out against this unruly and unhelpful practice that only further divides people along party lines.
Sincerely yours,
TD3k
Dear Senator/Congressman,
I am writing to you today to make known my concerns and wishes regarding the current health care reform bill(s) that are currently under consideration in the US Congress. First let me state that I believe that this one particular issue is one of the most urgent, pressing needs facing our country today and I place great value and importance on it. To that end, allow me to make a few key points.
I am in support of health care reform legislation. I want to see a bill passed this year addressing the urgent needs concerning this subject. As an individual who has to deal with health insurance companies on a regular basis, I know the problems and the inequalities that exist in the current system. These must be addressed and corrected immediately. While I appreciate the complexity dealing with such an issue, you must resolve to work through this issue in a bi-partisan fashion with the Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate to clear these hurdles. Not just any bill will do; it must contain and address the following:
- A public option providing for health insurance coverage for those who cannot afford coverage, lose their jobs, or work for an employer that does not provide coverage. The public option should be designed so as to provide competition in the private markets to encourage lower pricing, competition and set the framework for the basic rules and regulations that all insurance providers must adhere to.
- No longer allow health insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, or to rescind coverage due to onset of a severe illness. In short, this insurance must model exactly the same type of coverage that members of the US Congress enjoy as administered by the federal office of personnel management. The American citizens should be able to get coverage with no physicals, no testing, no applications, no refusals by the provider to pay for treatments or services prescribed by the doctor, and as I said earlier, no rescissions or dropping of coverage due to severe health conditions or expense. Nothing less will do.
- Complete choice of personal doctors and hospitals without restrictions or interference of insurance companies dictating or rationing care in any manner. Americans want choices and I am prepared to pay for them if they are fair, equitable, reasonable, and just.
Thank you for your time and I appreciate the hard work ahead. In closing I would also like to add that the recent attempts by certain groups to disrupt town hall meetings across the country should be admonished and condemned. Not because they are in opposition, but because they are attempting to derail the democratic process of government leaders communicating with their respective constituents. Open debates and forums allowing questions should be encouraged in lieu of the mindless, immature antics of those who would shout over and drown out others who wish to speak. Please speak out against this unruly and unhelpful practice that only further divides people along party lines.
Sincerely yours,
TD3k
New Hampshire Law Exempts Religious Groups...
16-Jul-09 12:46 AM
The following article is taken directly from the American's United Church & State publication for July/August 2009. It is presented here in it's entirety and unedited. Here is the link to the original article.
---------------------------------------------------
For years, Religious Right organizations have claimed that if same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative churches will be forced to perform such unions or accommodate same-sex couples in other ways.
That’s certainly not the case in New Hampshire, where a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage contains a host of exemptions for religious groups.
HB 73 was signed into law by Gov. John Lynch June 3 after Lynch requested a series of modifications to the bill to make it clear that many of its provisions will not affect the rights of religious bodies.
The law states that religious organizations and their employees may refuse to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and reiterates the point that religious organizations retain exclusive control over their doctrine and beliefs.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives had at first balked at Lynch’s request for changes to the bill, but several members changed their minds to get the bill passed.
“Let’s vote this one last time,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, a Republican from Windham. “Church and state should be separate.” In the Senate, Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat representing Plymouth, said the compromise language provides “equal rights for all and the right to religious freedom.”
Although the new language helped get the bill passed, it probably was not necessary. Most legal scholars agree that the Constitution’s First Amendment ensures that no houses of worship or ministers could be compelled to perform a same-sex ceremony, just as pastors may refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples who do not meet certain theological standards.
In California, advocates of same-sex marriage suffered a setback when the state supreme court upheld a ban on gay marriage passed narrowly by the voters in 2008. By a 6-1 vote, the California high court said Proposition 8 was not an unlawful “revision” to the state constitution. Such a “revision” would have required action by the legislature. Prop. 8 passed after a heavy lobbying campaign and infusion of cash from religious groups, including fundamentalist Christian bodies, the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Americans United, the Anti-Defamation League and 30 other civil rights and civil liberties groups joined the effort to overturn the same-sex marriage ban, filing a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that a bare majority of voters should not be permitted to remove fundamental rights from a minority group.
AU asserts that civil governments have no business writing theological definitions of marriage into civil law. “If Proposition 8 can strip fundamental rights from gay and lesbian people by a 52 percent majority, future amendments can strip away fundamental rights from other disfavored groups based on race, national origin, gender or religion,” read the brief.
Although the California Supreme Court upheld the Prop. 8 vote, it approved the 18,000 same-sex unions that were performed during the period gay marriage was legal.
That part of the ruling angered Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The court’s recognition of these ‘marriages’ clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Perkins said in a statement.
-------------------------
TD3k Commentary:
I think it is clear that the New Hampshire Law sets a precedent in the application of same sex marriage laws by clearly stating that the matter is a civil matter and does not bear on any religious organizations, nor requires them to conform to the civil statues outlined by the government. Even though it is clearly implied in the first amendment to the US Constitution, a specific exemption being included should help to quell some of the fear and anxiety expressed by so many people who felt that such a law was a trampling of their religious rights and freedoms. Clearly, this matter can be resolved in such a manner that should prove to be equitable and fair for all involved. These types of exemptions allow religious groups to maintain their doctrines and beliefs without fear of being overridden by laws designed to promote fair treatment under the law.
---------------------------------------------------
For years, Religious Right organizations have claimed that if same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative churches will be forced to perform such unions or accommodate same-sex couples in other ways.
That’s certainly not the case in New Hampshire, where a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage contains a host of exemptions for religious groups.
HB 73 was signed into law by Gov. John Lynch June 3 after Lynch requested a series of modifications to the bill to make it clear that many of its provisions will not affect the rights of religious bodies.
The law states that religious organizations and their employees may refuse to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and reiterates the point that religious organizations retain exclusive control over their doctrine and beliefs.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives had at first balked at Lynch’s request for changes to the bill, but several members changed their minds to get the bill passed.
“Let’s vote this one last time,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, a Republican from Windham. “Church and state should be separate.” In the Senate, Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat representing Plymouth, said the compromise language provides “equal rights for all and the right to religious freedom.”
Although the new language helped get the bill passed, it probably was not necessary. Most legal scholars agree that the Constitution’s First Amendment ensures that no houses of worship or ministers could be compelled to perform a same-sex ceremony, just as pastors may refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples who do not meet certain theological standards.
In California, advocates of same-sex marriage suffered a setback when the state supreme court upheld a ban on gay marriage passed narrowly by the voters in 2008. By a 6-1 vote, the California high court said Proposition 8 was not an unlawful “revision” to the state constitution. Such a “revision” would have required action by the legislature. Prop. 8 passed after a heavy lobbying campaign and infusion of cash from religious groups, including fundamentalist Christian bodies, the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Americans United, the Anti-Defamation League and 30 other civil rights and civil liberties groups joined the effort to overturn the same-sex marriage ban, filing a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that a bare majority of voters should not be permitted to remove fundamental rights from a minority group.
AU asserts that civil governments have no business writing theological definitions of marriage into civil law. “If Proposition 8 can strip fundamental rights from gay and lesbian people by a 52 percent majority, future amendments can strip away fundamental rights from other disfavored groups based on race, national origin, gender or religion,” read the brief.
Although the California Supreme Court upheld the Prop. 8 vote, it approved the 18,000 same-sex unions that were performed during the period gay marriage was legal.
That part of the ruling angered Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The court’s recognition of these ‘marriages’ clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Perkins said in a statement.
-------------------------
TD3k Commentary:
I think it is clear that the New Hampshire Law sets a precedent in the application of same sex marriage laws by clearly stating that the matter is a civil matter and does not bear on any religious organizations, nor requires them to conform to the civil statues outlined by the government. Even though it is clearly implied in the first amendment to the US Constitution, a specific exemption being included should help to quell some of the fear and anxiety expressed by so many people who felt that such a law was a trampling of their religious rights and freedoms. Clearly, this matter can be resolved in such a manner that should prove to be equitable and fair for all involved. These types of exemptions allow religious groups to maintain their doctrines and beliefs without fear of being overridden by laws designed to promote fair treatment under the law.
Heard It On The Newsvine
07-Jul-09 08:36 PM
As I mentioned in the previous article I have been spending some time in the Newsvine discussion forums over at MSNBC. For each story published to their website they provide a discussion forum so that everyday folks like you and I can join in and add our two cents on any given subject or article. I think it's a great idea and really allows for some dynamic interchange of thoughts and ideas on current and breaking news events. Since I don't get that many comments here on TD3k Speaks, it has been a bit more interesting over there with people leaving comments on your comments. Blogging is more fun when people interact and leave opinions, regardless if they agree with you or not.
However, I have to say, there is also a large number of people in the discussion forums that are there for the express purpose of trolling and slandering anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Such juvenile behavior is nothing new, but it can be very irritating and even disturbing. There are some truly mean and hateful people in this world I am sad to say. I have seen hate filled rants and comments on subjects ranging from the health care debate, politics, and of course religion. I have been particularly discouraged by those who feel that the health care system in the US is just fine and think it should be left alone. They have their coverage and they don't really care whether anyone else does or not. There are those who are so partisan and biased in their comments as to be completely illogical and almost impossible to comprehend. These comments occur on both sides of the political fence, but the Obama-haters are particularly vocal at the moment. And then you have comments from people who just like to make a comment or leave an opinion on the topic at hand. It is always interesting reading if you can get past those who are insisting that everyone agree with them or those who proclaim without discretion that if you disagree with them then you are an idiot.
I've added some links in the sidebar for the RSS feeds on the articles and the comments that I have posted. Check those out and join in the conversation if you like or start your own newsvine account and join in the fun. It is free and rather entertaining. As you contribute by adding comments to various articles, you increase your "Vineacity" rating which is a graphical icon representing your earned reputation. I just recently earned the rank of "Fruitfulness" (see diagram below).
However, I have to say, there is also a large number of people in the discussion forums that are there for the express purpose of trolling and slandering anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Such juvenile behavior is nothing new, but it can be very irritating and even disturbing. There are some truly mean and hateful people in this world I am sad to say. I have seen hate filled rants and comments on subjects ranging from the health care debate, politics, and of course religion. I have been particularly discouraged by those who feel that the health care system in the US is just fine and think it should be left alone. They have their coverage and they don't really care whether anyone else does or not. There are those who are so partisan and biased in their comments as to be completely illogical and almost impossible to comprehend. These comments occur on both sides of the political fence, but the Obama-haters are particularly vocal at the moment. And then you have comments from people who just like to make a comment or leave an opinion on the topic at hand. It is always interesting reading if you can get past those who are insisting that everyone agree with them or those who proclaim without discretion that if you disagree with them then you are an idiot.
I've added some links in the sidebar for the RSS feeds on the articles and the comments that I have posted. Check those out and join in the conversation if you like or start your own newsvine account and join in the fun. It is free and rather entertaining. As you contribute by adding comments to various articles, you increase your "Vineacity" rating which is a graphical icon representing your earned reputation. I just recently earned the rank of "Fruitfulness" (see diagram below).
The Battle Continues...
28-May-09 11:27 AM
As the battle wears on in California over the ban on same sex marriage, as upheld by the California Supreme Court yesterday, a couple of thoughts on the subject. To begin with, it is completely clear that the two opposing sides of this argument will probably never reach a consensus or a compromise. Whether you are for it or against it, you are probably very unlikely to change your mind or your opinions, although polls are showing that some people are doing just that. Regardless of the slight shift in poll numbers, it is clear that it is an issue that has the country split down the middle with only the smallest of percentages separating the two camps.
I have stated my views numerous times on this blog on this subject and they have not changed. I believe the ruling yesterday by the Supreme Court was not so much a true question on the civil liberty aspects of gay marriage as much as it was a ruling against the argument that Proposition 8 revised the California Constitution as opposed to just amending it. Opponents of Proposition 8 unsuccessfully argued that the voter initiative went beyond a constitutional amendment and represented a revision to the state constitution. The California Supreme Court did not agree. Only one Justice dissented: Justice Moreno in his lone dissenting opinion stated, "[T]he aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution."
I agree with him 100%. Also, the very notion of voters being able to vote on initiatives which at the very heart attempt to limit or restrict basic rights and freedoms of specific groups of people is not only insulting, but it is morally wrong. It is especially insensitive when only the narrowest margins of a majority are then allowed to impose their restrictions based on such a majority vote thus establishing a simple majority tyranny. At the absolute minimum, any such votes whereby specific rights and freedoms are at risk, there should be required a super majority vote, that is more than just a simple majority, in order for any such restrictions be allowed, (i.e. 2/3 minimum required). The idea of a super majority vote is very common in all types of voting processes to prevent a simple majority tyranny by only very slight margins. Even still, I personally believe it is wrong to ever apply a majority vote model when any type of restrictions of civil liberties are at stake for any group. No majority should ever be allowed to trample on or deny the rights of a minority...ever.
So, as the battle continues and opponents prepare to go to the ballot box again in early 2010, two high profile lawyers just filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women in California and many believe this will go straight to the US Supreme Court. Lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies have joined forces and are planning on taking this argument ultimately to the US Supreme Court, in spite of the ACLU and some other LGBT Organizations objecting saying that such a move is premature. Theodore Olson was quoted as saying at a news conference in Los Angeles :
"There will be many people who will think this is not the time to go to federal. Both David and I have studied the court for more years than probably either one of us would like to admit. We think we know what we are doing." David Boies agreed: "Reasonable minds can differ, but when you have people being denied civil rights today, I think it is impossible as lawyers and as an American to say 'No, you have to wait, now is not the right time.' I think if we had done that in prior civil rights battles, we would not be where we are."
The two lawyers became household names during the 2000 Presidential Elections when Theodore Olson represented the Bush campaign and David Boies represented the Al Gore campaign to argue before the Supreme Court about the election results. The two have now joined forces and are of the same mind on the matter regarding same sex marriage. It is unfortunate that such actions have to be taken in order to secure the rights of the minority, but that has always been the case through out history and we never seem to learn our lessons very well. I still maintain that nobody on the opposing side has adequately been able to demonstrate in any believable fashion how allowing the LGBT community to enjoy the legal and civil liberties offered by marriage will result in any harm or injustice to anyone else. Quite simply put, it does not. It is only an argument based on religious views and principles and nothing else. Such arguments may not be allowed to be the reason to restrict civil rights and freedoms for any group of people in this country.
I have stated my views numerous times on this blog on this subject and they have not changed. I believe the ruling yesterday by the Supreme Court was not so much a true question on the civil liberty aspects of gay marriage as much as it was a ruling against the argument that Proposition 8 revised the California Constitution as opposed to just amending it. Opponents of Proposition 8 unsuccessfully argued that the voter initiative went beyond a constitutional amendment and represented a revision to the state constitution. The California Supreme Court did not agree. Only one Justice dissented: Justice Moreno in his lone dissenting opinion stated, "[T]he aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution."
I agree with him 100%. Also, the very notion of voters being able to vote on initiatives which at the very heart attempt to limit or restrict basic rights and freedoms of specific groups of people is not only insulting, but it is morally wrong. It is especially insensitive when only the narrowest margins of a majority are then allowed to impose their restrictions based on such a majority vote thus establishing a simple majority tyranny. At the absolute minimum, any such votes whereby specific rights and freedoms are at risk, there should be required a super majority vote, that is more than just a simple majority, in order for any such restrictions be allowed, (i.e. 2/3 minimum required). The idea of a super majority vote is very common in all types of voting processes to prevent a simple majority tyranny by only very slight margins. Even still, I personally believe it is wrong to ever apply a majority vote model when any type of restrictions of civil liberties are at stake for any group. No majority should ever be allowed to trample on or deny the rights of a minority...ever.
So, as the battle continues and opponents prepare to go to the ballot box again in early 2010, two high profile lawyers just filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women in California and many believe this will go straight to the US Supreme Court. Lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies have joined forces and are planning on taking this argument ultimately to the US Supreme Court, in spite of the ACLU and some other LGBT Organizations objecting saying that such a move is premature. Theodore Olson was quoted as saying at a news conference in Los Angeles :
"There will be many people who will think this is not the time to go to federal. Both David and I have studied the court for more years than probably either one of us would like to admit. We think we know what we are doing." David Boies agreed: "Reasonable minds can differ, but when you have people being denied civil rights today, I think it is impossible as lawyers and as an American to say 'No, you have to wait, now is not the right time.' I think if we had done that in prior civil rights battles, we would not be where we are."
The two lawyers became household names during the 2000 Presidential Elections when Theodore Olson represented the Bush campaign and David Boies represented the Al Gore campaign to argue before the Supreme Court about the election results. The two have now joined forces and are of the same mind on the matter regarding same sex marriage. It is unfortunate that such actions have to be taken in order to secure the rights of the minority, but that has always been the case through out history and we never seem to learn our lessons very well. I still maintain that nobody on the opposing side has adequately been able to demonstrate in any believable fashion how allowing the LGBT community to enjoy the legal and civil liberties offered by marriage will result in any harm or injustice to anyone else. Quite simply put, it does not. It is only an argument based on religious views and principles and nothing else. Such arguments may not be allowed to be the reason to restrict civil rights and freedoms for any group of people in this country.
The Holy War
19-May-09 11:26 AM
A recent article found on the CBS News Political Hotsheet blog speaks of an article published by GQ magazine which details an in depth revelation of behind the scenes activities in the Bush administration during the Iraq war. Below is an abbreviated transcript from that blog. (Note, the image below is NOT from the CBS blog):
Critics often accused the Bush administration of waging a crusade against Iraq. Turns out those critics may have been correct, according to a profile of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in GQ this month.
In what appears to be a callous effort by Rumsfeld to cater to President George W. Bush's religious fervor, the fiery Pentagon leader sent the president daily briefings on the war's progress headlined Worldwide Intelligence Update, which often included Bible passages on the cover paired with striking images.
In one report, a brilliant orange sun beams down on a U.S. tank in the desert beneath a passage from the Book of Ephesians reading, "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."
Rumsfeld "was cynically playing the religious angle to seduce and manipulate a president who frequently quoted the Bible," said liberal commentator Frank Rich in the New York Times in response to the story. "But the secretary’s actions were not just oily; he was also taking a risk with national security. If these official daily collages of Crusade-like messaging and war imagery had been leaked, they would have reinforced the Muslim world’s apocalyptic fear that America was waging a religious war."
To read the full article (in GQ) by Robert Draper, click here.
As additional details emerge about what happened behind the closed doors of the Bush administration, it causes one to question the real mindset of these politicians. Was this type of religious overtones in top secret reports just for the the religious edification of the President, or was there truly a belief by those at the top that we were waging a holy war and that God was on our side? Possibly both, but regardless of their personal beliefs, to officially mix these two together in the form of an official governmental document only speaks to the complete and utter disregard to the fallout that could result if and when it was ever made public. It undoubtedly sends a confusing message that this administration may have believed it's justification for waging war in Iraq was religious in nature; even though President Bush said that it wasn't. Or, was it?
State Constitution Preambles
11-May-09 11:03 AM
I came across a somewhat interesting e-mail the other day that focused on the content of the separate states constitutional preambles. The body of the message goes on to list all fifty states opening lines from their preambles and the dates of ratification ranging from 1776 through 1959. The e-mail makes the assertion that all fifty of the US states constitutions’ preambles make reference to either ‘God’, the “Supreme Ruler/Being’, ‘Divine Guidance’, or ‘Creator’ and that because of this then therefore the ACLU and the “out-of-control federal courts just maybe wrong”.
Of course we all know that e-mail messages such as this one are in wide circulation on the internet and many of them are nothing more than someone’s subjective opinion on any given subject. Quite often, snippets of facts and documentation are included to give a sense of authority and worthiness to the argument being proffered. This e-mail in question is no different. It seems to me that the purpose of this message is to assert the notion that since all of the state constitutions openly acknowledge God in their preambles that it is a good thing to interject religious ideals into the realm of government. While it is true that all fifty of the US states do make mention of God or a Supreme Being, or Divine Guidance in each of their respective preambles, I think it is important to point out a few other facts that are equally, if not more, relevant.
To begin with, a preamble is nothing more than an introductory statement that usually states the intent of the authors and the document. All state preambles, as well as the US constitution preamble, are very limited in scope and really carry no legal significance. In other words, they are typically never used as proofs of arguments in court cases since they are only introductory statements and make no claim to power of authority for governance.
Secondly, the e-mail fails to note or acknowledge the fact that all fifty of the state constitutions are subject to and must conform with the precepts and articles of the US constitution. If there is anything in the state constitutions that violates the US constitution then it could effectively be rendered without legal merit in a federal court of law. Also, it fails to note that there is no mention of ‘God’ or anything of the divine anywhere in the US constitution. This does not imply that the men who penned the US constitution were ‘godless’, for we know that many of them were indeed religious. It only further illustrates the concept of the importance of not mixing religious ideologies with governmental authority. I did not examine all fifty states constitutions, but I will cite the Texas constitution as an example since I am more familiar with it. In Article 4 of the Texas constitution it states that no religious test will ever be administered as a requirement for anyone to hold office in the state of Texas with the exception that the candidate must at least acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. This clause in the Texas constitution has never been upheld or applied in modern times as it is in direct conflict with the establishment clause of the first amendment and Article 6 of the US constitution. State courts do not attempt to enforce article 4, but it is interesting to point out that it is highly doubtful if anyone in the state of Texas has ever been elected to public office who did not profess a belief or a faith in God. That is a different topic of discussion, but it does illustrate the over-importance and emphasis that some people in a given electorate may place on religion. A person’s religious views have nothing whatsoever to do with their ability or their qualifications to hold office in a seat of government.
And finally, the question must be asked “what” exactly is the ACLU and the federal courts wrong about? The statement that “they may be wrong” is broad and unspecific. I would guess that the charge is aimed at the idea that the ACLU and the federal courts are interested in removing all mention of God out of government and in so doing are violating the religious freedoms of people who are religious. This of course is a tired, old argument without any merit whatsoever as long as the ACLU and the federal courts do not attempt to regulate and control the teachings and functions of the individual churches. I am quite certain that they are not doing that at all but are instead limiting their scope to governmental institutions. It is important to remember that governments are established by men for the governance of the secular and legal affairs of men. Our state and federal governments are thankfully not in the business of administering and ruling on divine laws within our court systems. By government remaining neutral in the field of religious affiliations and sectarian beliefs, the government assures without bias an even playing field for peoples of all faiths and all religions to receive fair and equitable treatment by the government in matters of secular law. It is only when people try to insert their own sectarian religious ideals into government that religious freedoms are truly jeopardized and that is what the ACLU and the federal courts are attempting to stop.
Not All Texans Are Malcontents
16-Apr-09 08:32 PM
Note: This article has been edited from it’s original content.*
There’s no polite way to say this, no way to make it pretty and neat, so here it goes: In my opinion, Governor Rick Perry is a malcontent and political agitator. He is quite possibly the biggest demagogue to ever stand up in front of a crowd of right-wing, anti-tax cry babies and proclaim that Texas may secede from the United States of America. Actually, I think he is the only one who has ever done that in the history of the state and the nation. I am still in shock at the absolutely incomprehensible magnitude of such an irresponsible statement coming from the mouth of the chief executive of the state. It is so utterly pretentious and devoid of any common sense principles, that it can only be described as demagoguery of the cheapest kind. A mind-melting lapse of intelligence that suggests that the Governor is out to score political points with those on the very edge of the far right. He even exclaimed that he was “with the right-wing extremists” while making his secession comments on Wednesday. I wonder if Governor Perry had the presence of mind to remove his American flag lapel pin from his collar (the one that he never took off for the past 8 years) before making such a bold and unpatriotic statement of dissidence? There are not enough adjectives in the English language (and believe me I am leaving a lot of the ones I really want to use out) to adequately describe the ineptitude necessary to formulate such a statement as made by Governor Perry.
Governor Perry does not speak for me and he does not represent me as a Texan. Contrary to popular belief, not all Texans are right wing fanatics and ultra conservative. As a Texan, the Governor should know that it is legally impossible for Texas to secede from the United States. It is possible for the state to break up into four smaller states, but Texas is NOT leaving the Union. To make such a rabble-rousing remark does nothing but make the state look like a collection of right-wing extremist wack-jobs who like to talk tough and act mean. This kind of rhetoric reveals just how low the GOP has sunk with the loss of the last Presidential election. It also shows just how low Governor Perry is willing to go to draw attention and support as he prepares for his bid to win the Governorship again in 2010. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Texans who do agree with the Governor and who see fit to keep re-electing him and people who think like him. My hope is that this kind of senseless talk will result in people waking up and replacing the Governor with a sensible, intelligent person who is able to serve the common good of the people of the state without blind duty to partisan politics.
In case Mr. Perry and the anti-tax tea dumpers haven’t noticed, the work that the Obama administration and Congress is doing to correct the economy is starting to work as the stimulus money begins making it’s way into the system. For the first time in a very long time there are signs of hope and improvement in the economy and this is the best response that the GOP can come up with? Crying about taxes and the government spending too much money? Where were the pity parties when one trillion dollars was spent on the misguided and unnecessary war in Iraq? Didn’t hear anything about that one did you? If Governor Perry and the GOP insist on throwing temper tantrums to get attention, then please just go away. Try to make some constructive noise for a change and maybe somebody will listen and take you seriously.
(*My apologies to anyone offended by my frankness in the original article. I have attempted to tone the language down here to be less incendiary and insulting. While I can always respect those with differing views and opinions, and welcome debate and opportunities to explore both sides of an issue, I think that it is always important to differentiate between constructive criticisms and comments versus demagoguery fueled by political rabble-rousing. There is nothing logical or constructive about the latter and it does not fall into the same category. While I can appreciate the concern many have expressed over the recent stimulus bills and the extraordinary amount of monies invested into these programs, it is pretty easy to again argue the necessity of such actions given the crucial and fragile condition of the US economy.)
There’s no polite way to say this, no way to make it pretty and neat, so here it goes: In my opinion, Governor Rick Perry is a malcontent and political agitator. He is quite possibly the biggest demagogue to ever stand up in front of a crowd of right-wing, anti-tax cry babies and proclaim that Texas may secede from the United States of America. Actually, I think he is the only one who has ever done that in the history of the state and the nation. I am still in shock at the absolutely incomprehensible magnitude of such an irresponsible statement coming from the mouth of the chief executive of the state. It is so utterly pretentious and devoid of any common sense principles, that it can only be described as demagoguery of the cheapest kind. A mind-melting lapse of intelligence that suggests that the Governor is out to score political points with those on the very edge of the far right. He even exclaimed that he was “with the right-wing extremists” while making his secession comments on Wednesday. I wonder if Governor Perry had the presence of mind to remove his American flag lapel pin from his collar (the one that he never took off for the past 8 years) before making such a bold and unpatriotic statement of dissidence? There are not enough adjectives in the English language (and believe me I am leaving a lot of the ones I really want to use out) to adequately describe the ineptitude necessary to formulate such a statement as made by Governor Perry.
Governor Perry does not speak for me and he does not represent me as a Texan. Contrary to popular belief, not all Texans are right wing fanatics and ultra conservative. As a Texan, the Governor should know that it is legally impossible for Texas to secede from the United States. It is possible for the state to break up into four smaller states, but Texas is NOT leaving the Union. To make such a rabble-rousing remark does nothing but make the state look like a collection of right-wing extremist wack-jobs who like to talk tough and act mean. This kind of rhetoric reveals just how low the GOP has sunk with the loss of the last Presidential election. It also shows just how low Governor Perry is willing to go to draw attention and support as he prepares for his bid to win the Governorship again in 2010. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Texans who do agree with the Governor and who see fit to keep re-electing him and people who think like him. My hope is that this kind of senseless talk will result in people waking up and replacing the Governor with a sensible, intelligent person who is able to serve the common good of the people of the state without blind duty to partisan politics.
In case Mr. Perry and the anti-tax tea dumpers haven’t noticed, the work that the Obama administration and Congress is doing to correct the economy is starting to work as the stimulus money begins making it’s way into the system. For the first time in a very long time there are signs of hope and improvement in the economy and this is the best response that the GOP can come up with? Crying about taxes and the government spending too much money? Where were the pity parties when one trillion dollars was spent on the misguided and unnecessary war in Iraq? Didn’t hear anything about that one did you? If Governor Perry and the GOP insist on throwing temper tantrums to get attention, then please just go away. Try to make some constructive noise for a change and maybe somebody will listen and take you seriously.
(*My apologies to anyone offended by my frankness in the original article. I have attempted to tone the language down here to be less incendiary and insulting. While I can always respect those with differing views and opinions, and welcome debate and opportunities to explore both sides of an issue, I think that it is always important to differentiate between constructive criticisms and comments versus demagoguery fueled by political rabble-rousing. There is nothing logical or constructive about the latter and it does not fall into the same category. While I can appreciate the concern many have expressed over the recent stimulus bills and the extraordinary amount of monies invested into these programs, it is pretty easy to again argue the necessity of such actions given the crucial and fragile condition of the US economy.)
GOP Wrong About Government Spending
27-Mar-09 09:37 AM
An interesting story appeared on NPR today regarding the new Obama administration budget and the Republican response that has been generated. The full article can be read here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102410826
Here are some excerpts from the article that I would like to comment on:
“While President Obama's proposed budget rolls through the House and Senate, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan is one of the key lawmakers putting together an alternative plan.
As the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, he will be the one to deliver that plan to the House floor next week. On Thursday, House Republicans released an 18-page pamphlet, "The Republican Road to Recovery," which outlines their break with the president's budget goals.
"We don't think it's right to impose a $1.9 trillion tax increase on our economy during a recession, so we're not going to raise taxes," Ryan tells NPR's Renee Montagne. "No. 2, we don't think it's right to have a huge slew of borrowing — they're doubling our national debt in five and half years, tripling it in just over 10 years. So we think we need to focus on controlling spending and reforming government...
Ryan has referred to the budget plan as "the third and great final wave of government expansion, building on the Great Society and the New Deal." He says there's "probably truth" to the idea that some Americans might think comparisons to the New Deal are good thing — "because that's what President Obama is saying about his budget — that's what the administration is saying is that this is the most sweeping and transformative budget since the New Deal. They probably believe that that's what people want."
But Ryan says unemployment during the New Deal ranged from 12 to 25 percent. "Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary, came to the Ways and Means Committee at the end of that period and said, 'This was a disaster.' It didn't work. We borrowed so much money; we ran up the debt. We didn't get out of the Depression until World War II came along."...”
First of all, I commend the Republican Congressman for at least taking the time to come up with a proposal for consideration as opposed to just objecting and not offering anything in return. This is how government is supposed to work. We can all agree that we don't always agree, but if you are going to be in opposition to the majority then offer a viable plan that offers a different solution. The majority must also be willing to allow the minority to speak and to hear their ideas. If they do not, then that is just as bad.
That said, however, the information Mr. Ryan presents regarding the Great Depression is not completely accurate. Based upon my own research of the subject here is what I've learned.
Unemployment hit a high of 25% before the New Deal was implemented by the FDR administration. Looking at the historical economic data of the period, right after the implementation of the New Deal, unemployment rates began to fall and the Gross National Product of the Country immediately went from a steep downward trend to spiking upward. Unemployment was reduced down to around 12%, or was cut in half. While 12% is still very high, how can anyone say that cutting unemployment in half is not successful? How can growth in GDP not be considered successful? Unemployment leveled up to around 12% at the start of World War II and by the end of the war the country was out of the depression and unemployment was around 3%.
I always laugh when I hear fiscal conservatives like Ryan dismiss the idea of the government spending money during hard economic times as "not necessary" and that it "doesn't work" and then proceed to try and use the example of the New Deal program and the start of the war as proof. Both instances prove the exact opposite. Whether you are talking about the New Deal program or whether you are talking about the onset of World War II, the net result of both of these events was INCREASED government spending and that's what ended the depression. Whether the government is spending money building dams, roads or buildings to put people to work, or whether they are building tanks, airplanes and munitions and training millions of soldiers to fight a war, is completely irrelevant; it is still government spending and that is what ended the Great Depression. So, there is absolutely no logic to the argument to say the New Deal didn't end the depression - World War II did. What's the difference?
Also, most economists agree that the New Deal would've been even more successful if not for one interesting point. FDR's treasury secretary would not allow the funding for the New Deal programs in the regular budget. Instead, the spending came out of an emergency spending budget and during the entire implementation of the New Deal the FDR administration was attempting to also balance the budget at the behest of the Treasury Secretary. Instead of focusing 100% on the current need, others were forcing pressure that helped negate some of the effects of the programs. Morgenthau was opposed to the New Deal from the very beginning and so it is not surprising that he would say negative things about it, even in the light of the economic data that showed something entirely different. Had Morgenthau not been involved, it is possible the New Deal might have ended the Depression before the start of the war.
For Ryan and the GOP to stand up now and oppose the idea of raising much needed revenues by modest tax increases on the wealthiest people in the country is beyond reasonable and is irresponsible. The fact is, regardless of your politics, it was the government that came to the rescue to save our stock market from this current financial meltdown. It will be the strength of our government that will continue to help pull us out and it will be the strength of our government that will formulate the much needed regulatory checks and balances to keep things in sync. We must reject as false the ideology that the markets can regulate themselves and that the government should be continually reduced and downsized. This has been the GOP plan all along and is the primary basis of their continued insistence of permanent tax cuts and the gutting of our regulatory systems. Given the current wars, the continued financial involvement needed due to the corruption on Wall Street, and the immediate need for health care reform (data now shows that 4 in 5 people without health care insurance either have jobs or in families who have jobs - yet they are still uninsured), the idea of asking the wealthiest among us to contribute more to the common good for the country and to their fellow citizen is not asking too much. People will still be wealthy and very well off even after the modest tax increases. No matter what alternative plan the GOP comes up with, I doubt that it can muster the necessary resources needed to keep this ship afloat. I think we can all agree that some spending will have to be curtailed, but we must also wake up and realize that additional monies will also need to be raised. Those are the harsh realities we need to come to understand. It is time to leave strict ideologies behind and to embrace pragmatic solutions that will keep our country and it’s people strong.
Here are some excerpts from the article that I would like to comment on:
“While President Obama's proposed budget rolls through the House and Senate, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan is one of the key lawmakers putting together an alternative plan.
As the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, he will be the one to deliver that plan to the House floor next week. On Thursday, House Republicans released an 18-page pamphlet, "The Republican Road to Recovery," which outlines their break with the president's budget goals.
"We don't think it's right to impose a $1.9 trillion tax increase on our economy during a recession, so we're not going to raise taxes," Ryan tells NPR's Renee Montagne. "No. 2, we don't think it's right to have a huge slew of borrowing — they're doubling our national debt in five and half years, tripling it in just over 10 years. So we think we need to focus on controlling spending and reforming government...
Ryan has referred to the budget plan as "the third and great final wave of government expansion, building on the Great Society and the New Deal." He says there's "probably truth" to the idea that some Americans might think comparisons to the New Deal are good thing — "because that's what President Obama is saying about his budget — that's what the administration is saying is that this is the most sweeping and transformative budget since the New Deal. They probably believe that that's what people want."
But Ryan says unemployment during the New Deal ranged from 12 to 25 percent. "Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary, came to the Ways and Means Committee at the end of that period and said, 'This was a disaster.' It didn't work. We borrowed so much money; we ran up the debt. We didn't get out of the Depression until World War II came along."...”
First of all, I commend the Republican Congressman for at least taking the time to come up with a proposal for consideration as opposed to just objecting and not offering anything in return. This is how government is supposed to work. We can all agree that we don't always agree, but if you are going to be in opposition to the majority then offer a viable plan that offers a different solution. The majority must also be willing to allow the minority to speak and to hear their ideas. If they do not, then that is just as bad.
That said, however, the information Mr. Ryan presents regarding the Great Depression is not completely accurate. Based upon my own research of the subject here is what I've learned.
Unemployment hit a high of 25% before the New Deal was implemented by the FDR administration. Looking at the historical economic data of the period, right after the implementation of the New Deal, unemployment rates began to fall and the Gross National Product of the Country immediately went from a steep downward trend to spiking upward. Unemployment was reduced down to around 12%, or was cut in half. While 12% is still very high, how can anyone say that cutting unemployment in half is not successful? How can growth in GDP not be considered successful? Unemployment leveled up to around 12% at the start of World War II and by the end of the war the country was out of the depression and unemployment was around 3%.
I always laugh when I hear fiscal conservatives like Ryan dismiss the idea of the government spending money during hard economic times as "not necessary" and that it "doesn't work" and then proceed to try and use the example of the New Deal program and the start of the war as proof. Both instances prove the exact opposite. Whether you are talking about the New Deal program or whether you are talking about the onset of World War II, the net result of both of these events was INCREASED government spending and that's what ended the depression. Whether the government is spending money building dams, roads or buildings to put people to work, or whether they are building tanks, airplanes and munitions and training millions of soldiers to fight a war, is completely irrelevant; it is still government spending and that is what ended the Great Depression. So, there is absolutely no logic to the argument to say the New Deal didn't end the depression - World War II did. What's the difference?
Also, most economists agree that the New Deal would've been even more successful if not for one interesting point. FDR's treasury secretary would not allow the funding for the New Deal programs in the regular budget. Instead, the spending came out of an emergency spending budget and during the entire implementation of the New Deal the FDR administration was attempting to also balance the budget at the behest of the Treasury Secretary. Instead of focusing 100% on the current need, others were forcing pressure that helped negate some of the effects of the programs. Morgenthau was opposed to the New Deal from the very beginning and so it is not surprising that he would say negative things about it, even in the light of the economic data that showed something entirely different. Had Morgenthau not been involved, it is possible the New Deal might have ended the Depression before the start of the war.
For Ryan and the GOP to stand up now and oppose the idea of raising much needed revenues by modest tax increases on the wealthiest people in the country is beyond reasonable and is irresponsible. The fact is, regardless of your politics, it was the government that came to the rescue to save our stock market from this current financial meltdown. It will be the strength of our government that will continue to help pull us out and it will be the strength of our government that will formulate the much needed regulatory checks and balances to keep things in sync. We must reject as false the ideology that the markets can regulate themselves and that the government should be continually reduced and downsized. This has been the GOP plan all along and is the primary basis of their continued insistence of permanent tax cuts and the gutting of our regulatory systems. Given the current wars, the continued financial involvement needed due to the corruption on Wall Street, and the immediate need for health care reform (data now shows that 4 in 5 people without health care insurance either have jobs or in families who have jobs - yet they are still uninsured), the idea of asking the wealthiest among us to contribute more to the common good for the country and to their fellow citizen is not asking too much. People will still be wealthy and very well off even after the modest tax increases. No matter what alternative plan the GOP comes up with, I doubt that it can muster the necessary resources needed to keep this ship afloat. I think we can all agree that some spending will have to be curtailed, but we must also wake up and realize that additional monies will also need to be raised. Those are the harsh realities we need to come to understand. It is time to leave strict ideologies behind and to embrace pragmatic solutions that will keep our country and it’s people strong.
Letter To The Texas Governor
13-Mar-09 01:06 AM
Texas Governor Rick Perry announced on Thursday, March 12, 2009 that he would reject $555 million in federal stimulus money that would go to assist Texans who are unemployed and who had reached the end of their unemployment coverage. Perry said that such a move would require him to raise taxes on businesses to provide for additional funds when the stimulus money ran out. Perry is an outspoken critic of President Obama's economic recovery plan for the country and many feel that this move has more to do with political posturing than with any real threats posed to businesses. As I enter into my 17th week of unemployment, I was compelled to send an e-mail letter to Mr. Perry to share my thoughts with him and I now share with you. If you live in Texas and are as mad as I am, I encourage you to let your voice be heard. You can contact the Governor's office and leave your comments here.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gov. Perry:
I deeply condemn your unconscionable decision to reject the $555 million in federal stimulus money to help Texans with unemployment coverage. At such an extraordinarily difficult time for thousands of Texans who are struggling to deal with the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, you have clearly shown that your interest in helping those who need assistance is secondary to your desire to score political points with your party and your narrow social conservative views. While I am sure you feel quite justified in your decision, I can tell you that the majority of Texans will disapprove of your selfish, uncaring actions. Given the fact that the TWC faces deficits as early as October and then possible insolvency, it is unethical and immoral for you to ignore such a pressing need for the sake of political expediency on your part. While you are trying to protect businesses from any additional expenditures, you seem to forget that the businesses have already protected themselves by letting their employees go and now no one is looking out for the working man. How convenient that the corporations and big businesses have such a champion as you to hold their hand and protect them from the threat of evil taxes. Quite honestly sir, you have no soul and no capacity for honest reasoning. Please, hear the appeal of the people and change course on this decision while you still can.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gov. Perry:
I deeply condemn your unconscionable decision to reject the $555 million in federal stimulus money to help Texans with unemployment coverage. At such an extraordinarily difficult time for thousands of Texans who are struggling to deal with the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, you have clearly shown that your interest in helping those who need assistance is secondary to your desire to score political points with your party and your narrow social conservative views. While I am sure you feel quite justified in your decision, I can tell you that the majority of Texans will disapprove of your selfish, uncaring actions. Given the fact that the TWC faces deficits as early as October and then possible insolvency, it is unethical and immoral for you to ignore such a pressing need for the sake of political expediency on your part. While you are trying to protect businesses from any additional expenditures, you seem to forget that the businesses have already protected themselves by letting their employees go and now no one is looking out for the working man. How convenient that the corporations and big businesses have such a champion as you to hold their hand and protect them from the threat of evil taxes. Quite honestly sir, you have no soul and no capacity for honest reasoning. Please, hear the appeal of the people and change course on this decision while you still can.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans United Action List
29-Jan-09 10:57 AM
The lists of issues facing our nation and the new Obama administration are staggering. The country is faced with many pressing challenges and problems that need immediate attention. Many of these issues are the direct result of 8 years of Bush administration policies and programs that need to be re-examined and checked in accordance with our Constitution. The economy is of primary importance, but lest we forget, there are other important issues that need addressing. The following list is taken directly from the Americans United For the Separation of Church and State website, and represents the top 9 religious freedom objectives that President Obama should consider for immediate action. Here is the list:
----------------------------
As Barack Obama assumes the presidency, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has prepared a list of nine religious liberty issues that merit special attention from the White House. Called “9 in ’09,” this campaign seeks to repair the damage that occurred to the wall of separation between church and state during the Bush administration.
Americans United calls on President Obama to make this list a priority.
1. Restrict Faith-Based Funding: The Bush administration’s dangerous executive orders promoting the “faith-based” initiative should be overridden. Religious organizations should not be singled out for special government treatment and generous tax subsidies.
2. Ban Faith-Based Job Bias: An executive order should be issued barring religiously based job bias in all publicly funded programs. Not one dime in tax funds should go to “faith-based” organizations that discriminate in hiring.
3. Select Good Judges: Give America judges who support the Bill of Rights, including its church-state separation provision. Our country deserves federal judges who will respect, not eviscerate, the First Amendment.
4. Reform Justice Department: America must have a Justice Department that understands its duty to uphold constitutional rights, not one that parrots the views of extreme Religious Right legal groups.
5. Stop School Vouchers: Cease all federal tax funding for misguided school voucher “experiments” in Washington, D.C., (or anywhere else) that subsidize religious and other private schools.
6. Protect Military Personnel: Sever the tie between fundamentalist groups and the military. The United States must have a military that doesn’t take a stand on theological issues and that does not pressure its service personnel to adopt religious beliefs.
7. Defend Sound Science: Base public policy on science, not theology. Public policy on issues such as stem-cell research and education about human origins must be based on science, not religious dogma.
8. Resist Church Politicking: Oppose attempts to overturn the federal ban on church politicking. No tax-exempt house of worship should be permitted to engage in partisan politicking by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
9. Oppose Sectarian Symbolism: Use the presidential bully pulpit to oppose sectarian resolutions in Congress. We must see an end to polarizing resolutions by Congress that promote one faith over others, thus sending the message that some Americans are second-class citizens.
Support AU Efforts Like This - Donate Today!
----------------------------
As Barack Obama assumes the presidency, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has prepared a list of nine religious liberty issues that merit special attention from the White House. Called “9 in ’09,” this campaign seeks to repair the damage that occurred to the wall of separation between church and state during the Bush administration.
Americans United calls on President Obama to make this list a priority.
1. Restrict Faith-Based Funding: The Bush administration’s dangerous executive orders promoting the “faith-based” initiative should be overridden. Religious organizations should not be singled out for special government treatment and generous tax subsidies.
2. Ban Faith-Based Job Bias: An executive order should be issued barring religiously based job bias in all publicly funded programs. Not one dime in tax funds should go to “faith-based” organizations that discriminate in hiring.
3. Select Good Judges: Give America judges who support the Bill of Rights, including its church-state separation provision. Our country deserves federal judges who will respect, not eviscerate, the First Amendment.
4. Reform Justice Department: America must have a Justice Department that understands its duty to uphold constitutional rights, not one that parrots the views of extreme Religious Right legal groups.
5. Stop School Vouchers: Cease all federal tax funding for misguided school voucher “experiments” in Washington, D.C., (or anywhere else) that subsidize religious and other private schools.
6. Protect Military Personnel: Sever the tie between fundamentalist groups and the military. The United States must have a military that doesn’t take a stand on theological issues and that does not pressure its service personnel to adopt religious beliefs.
7. Defend Sound Science: Base public policy on science, not theology. Public policy on issues such as stem-cell research and education about human origins must be based on science, not religious dogma.
8. Resist Church Politicking: Oppose attempts to overturn the federal ban on church politicking. No tax-exempt house of worship should be permitted to engage in partisan politicking by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
9. Oppose Sectarian Symbolism: Use the presidential bully pulpit to oppose sectarian resolutions in Congress. We must see an end to polarizing resolutions by Congress that promote one faith over others, thus sending the message that some Americans are second-class citizens.
Support AU Efforts Like This - Donate Today!
Barack Obama's Inaugural Address
20-Jan-09 01:56 PM
-----------------
"My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.
I thank President Bush for his service to our nation..... as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.
Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many, and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less.
It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.
Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West, endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died in places Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed.
Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done.
The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth.
We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.
We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality.... and lower its costs.
We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
All this we can do. All this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Where the answer is "yes", we intend to move forward. Where the answer is "no", programs will end.
And those of us who manage the public's knowledge will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.
But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.
The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.
Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.
Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.
And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.
They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard- earned peace in Afghanistan.
With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat and roll back the specter of a warming planet.
We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense.
And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.
We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.
And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.
To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.
To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.
And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.
We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.
And yet, at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.
It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break; the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours.
It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new, the instruments with which we meet them may be new, but those values upon which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old.
These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.
What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence: the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed, why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall. And why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day in remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled.
In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by nine campfires on the shores of an icy river.
The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood.
At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it."
America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words; with hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come; let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America."
8 Years Never Seemed So Long
15-Jan-09 08:53 PM
Tonight, President Bush bid farewell to the nation via a short televised appearance from the White House. It was a quintessential Bush moment, complete with the familiar smirk and smiles while talking about serious subjects while he attempted to play one last jedi mind trick on the nation with his paltry list of accomplishments while in office. In his now familiar attempt to remind the nation of 9/11 (in case we had forgotten), Bush began to list his achievements over the last 8 years. Noticeably glossing over the extraordinary bad economy and rough financial times that he is leaving the nation in, Bush at least was gracious in talking about his successor and his ever triumphant, up beat outlook for the future of the country.
He did acknowledge briefly the economic downturn and noted that all Americans were in this mess together. And while that is true enough, it's just that some of us are in over our eyebrows while others can still afford to buy two mansions in Dallas and maintain another large, sprawling ranch in central Texas. Hard to imagine how a person on a president's salary can afford so much, especially during such "tough" economic times. He went on to note other hallmarks of his administration by citing his mixing of federal tax monies with faith based organizations as a "good" thing that helps needy families. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would be shocked and outraged to see such a program. Not that faith based charities are bad, for they are not bad - they do very good works; it is the mixing of federal tax monies with religious organizations that is the odiferous and constitutionally ignorant offense here. Bush seems completely oblivious to these facts and claims this gem proudly; always failing to see the uncomfortable and tenuous connections this places on a government that according to the constitution must remain neutral on the subject of religion.
Another one of particular interest that he specifically lay claim to were his achievements in reducing the advance of stem cell research to fight the prevention of deadly human disease. Of course he didn't word it that way, but merely made reference to the protection of the unborn saying that it is always evil to kill the innocent for any reason. Another policy that was clearly guided solely on religious principle without regard for any scientific or true humanitarian advancements for mankind. He then noted particular pleasure in having selected two ultra conservative judges to the supreme court as another important hallmark of his legacy. Thankfully Bush is leaving office before he could've nominated another conservative to the high bench that would've shifted the court in a disastrous keel to the right thereby setting up the potential unraveling of years and years of advances in civil liberties and freedoms for many millions of Americans. As long as you are middle class and higher, then you need not worry about such issues unless you have any sort of a social conscious about fairness and equality for all.
Any regular reader of this blog will know that I am not, nor ever have been a fan of Mr. Bush. I make no bones about it, I am glad to see him and his entire collection of cronies and crooks leave with him. I've been counting down the days on this blog marking his departure for a very long time now. My aversion to this president is not simply because of political affiliations, but because of his 8 year string of mind numbingly horrible and irrevocable decisions he has made while leading this country. That is not to say that he has never done anything good, or that he has never made a single good decision, because he has on a few selected subjects (i.e. support for stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa, etc). But let’s just say that the bad decisions, errors and mistakes, far outweigh any good he may have done. And that is how history will remember this president I am quite certain.
Goodbye 2008
31-Dec-08 05:15 PM
As 2008 comes to a thankful close, it is good to stop and recap the more memorable events of the year. “Good” is a relative term when speaking of 2008 as very few good things occurred during the year. if you are the type that counts “still breathing” and “wearing pants that have been washed within at least the past 3 days” as “good” then you might not consider that 2008 was really all that bad. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but from my view point it was a rough year. Not just for me in particular - but for a lot of people. Besides, my pants were put on fresh this morning but that doesn’t change the verdict on 2008.
Simply put, 2008 was a doozy. No, actually it was a blood letting. Some made it all the way through and retained both their jobs and their home and for that you can truly be thankful. Others are not so lucky. Many millions have lost their jobs and many millions have lost their homes - and many have also lost both. It seems that as the year progressed things got progressively worse; especially here at home. Even though it’s not particularly pleasant, here is a brief recap of the events of 2008 by month. Click on the links of each month for greater detail and even more events that occurred during that month. This is just to put the year in perspective; I intend to look forward to 2009 and the uncertain promises that it holds. 2009 could continue the trend for awhile yet - but here’s hoping for better and happier times ahead.
January
U.S. Attorney General Opens Investigation into Destroyed Tapes (Jan. 2)
California Sues EPA (Jan. 2)
Markets Plunge Around the World (Jan. 21)
February
Economy Loses Jobs for the First Time in 52 Months (Feb. 1)
Senate Votes to Ban Severe Interrogation Techniques (Feb. 13)
Castro Resigns as President of Cuba (Feb. 19)
March
Bush Vetoes Bill That Would Ban Severe Interrogation Techniques (March 8)
Government Intervenes to Avert Financial Crises (March 11)
Bush Acknowledges Toll of War on Anniversary of War (March 19)
April
Senate Passes Housing Relief Bill (April 10)
Dozens Are Killed in Suicide Attacks in Iraq (April 15)
Pope Denounces Pedophile Priests (April 15)
May
State Department Renews Deal with Controversial Contractor (May 9)
Polar Bear Designated as Threatened (May 14)
California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage (May 15)
June
Five-Year Inquiry Finds Bush Exaggerated Evidence on Iraq (June 5)
Unemployment Rate Spikes To 5.5% (June 6)
North Korea Takes Steps Toward Denuclearization (June 26)
July
Treasury Department Proposes Rescue Plan for Mortgage Companies (July 13)
U.S. Envoy Participates in Talks with Iran (July 19)
Judge Rules that Bush's Advisers Must Comply with Subpoenas (July 31)
August
The Summer Games Open with a Spectacular Ceremony and Tragedy (Aug. 8)
Al-Qaeda Increases Its Strength and Threat (Aug.12 )
McCain Chooses Outsider as Running Mate (Aug. 29)
September
Report Finds That Former Attorney General Mishandled Sensitive Documents (Sept. 2)
Unemployment Rate Reaches Highest Level in Five Years at 6.1% (Sept. 5)
U.S. Financial Markets Roiled by Turmoil (Sept. 7)
Russia Agrees to Withdraw from Georgia (Sept. 8)
October
Connecticut Legalizes Gay Marriage (Oct. 10)
Investigation Concludes That Palin Abused Power (Oct. 10)
Bush Administration Memorandum Asserts Federal Money Can Fund Groups That Discriminate Based on Faith (Oct. 18)
Economy Shrinks for First Time in Years (Oct. 30)
November
Barack Obama Is Elected President (Nov. 4)
California Votes to Outlaw Same-Sex Marriage (Nov. 4)
Economy Stumbles Further (Nov. 7)
China Announces Enormous Stimulus Package (Nov. 9)
Stock Market Tumbles Again (Nov. 19)
December
Dow Plunges Amid Report That Economy Is in Recession (Dec. 1)
Unemployment Rate Increases Again to 6.7% (Dec. 5)
Journalist Throws Shoes at Bush (Dec. 14)
Bush Unveils $17.4 Billion Rescue of Auto Industry (Dec. 19)
Simply put, 2008 was a doozy. No, actually it was a blood letting. Some made it all the way through and retained both their jobs and their home and for that you can truly be thankful. Others are not so lucky. Many millions have lost their jobs and many millions have lost their homes - and many have also lost both. It seems that as the year progressed things got progressively worse; especially here at home. Even though it’s not particularly pleasant, here is a brief recap of the events of 2008 by month. Click on the links of each month for greater detail and even more events that occurred during that month. This is just to put the year in perspective; I intend to look forward to 2009 and the uncertain promises that it holds. 2009 could continue the trend for awhile yet - but here’s hoping for better and happier times ahead.
January
U.S. Attorney General Opens Investigation into Destroyed Tapes (Jan. 2)
California Sues EPA (Jan. 2)
Markets Plunge Around the World (Jan. 21)
February
Economy Loses Jobs for the First Time in 52 Months (Feb. 1)
Senate Votes to Ban Severe Interrogation Techniques (Feb. 13)
Castro Resigns as President of Cuba (Feb. 19)
March
Bush Vetoes Bill That Would Ban Severe Interrogation Techniques (March 8)
Government Intervenes to Avert Financial Crises (March 11)
Bush Acknowledges Toll of War on Anniversary of War (March 19)
April
Senate Passes Housing Relief Bill (April 10)
Dozens Are Killed in Suicide Attacks in Iraq (April 15)
Pope Denounces Pedophile Priests (April 15)
May
State Department Renews Deal with Controversial Contractor (May 9)
Polar Bear Designated as Threatened (May 14)
California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage (May 15)
June
Five-Year Inquiry Finds Bush Exaggerated Evidence on Iraq (June 5)
Unemployment Rate Spikes To 5.5% (June 6)
North Korea Takes Steps Toward Denuclearization (June 26)
July
Treasury Department Proposes Rescue Plan for Mortgage Companies (July 13)
U.S. Envoy Participates in Talks with Iran (July 19)
Judge Rules that Bush's Advisers Must Comply with Subpoenas (July 31)
August
The Summer Games Open with a Spectacular Ceremony and Tragedy (Aug. 8)
Al-Qaeda Increases Its Strength and Threat (Aug.12 )
McCain Chooses Outsider as Running Mate (Aug. 29)
September
Report Finds That Former Attorney General Mishandled Sensitive Documents (Sept. 2)
Unemployment Rate Reaches Highest Level in Five Years at 6.1% (Sept. 5)
U.S. Financial Markets Roiled by Turmoil (Sept. 7)
Russia Agrees to Withdraw from Georgia (Sept. 8)
October
Connecticut Legalizes Gay Marriage (Oct. 10)
Investigation Concludes That Palin Abused Power (Oct. 10)
Bush Administration Memorandum Asserts Federal Money Can Fund Groups That Discriminate Based on Faith (Oct. 18)
Economy Shrinks for First Time in Years (Oct. 30)
November
Barack Obama Is Elected President (Nov. 4)
California Votes to Outlaw Same-Sex Marriage (Nov. 4)
Economy Stumbles Further (Nov. 7)
China Announces Enormous Stimulus Package (Nov. 9)
Stock Market Tumbles Again (Nov. 19)
December
Dow Plunges Amid Report That Economy Is in Recession (Dec. 1)
Unemployment Rate Increases Again to 6.7% (Dec. 5)
Journalist Throws Shoes at Bush (Dec. 14)
Bush Unveils $17.4 Billion Rescue of Auto Industry (Dec. 19)
Prop 8 The Musical
07-Dec-08 12:10 PM
The battle continues even after the voter approval of Proposition 8 in California. I predict that ultimately this referendum will be overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. I would say the vast majority of those who have argued in favor of Proposition 8 have done so mostly on religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that by holding referendums like this on issues that deal with basic rights and freedoms of individuals, and then overturning those rights primarily because of religious view points held by the voting majority; the outcome is an unfair influence on governmental policy which is supposed to treat all people the same and with equality. How many other controversial, basic rights issues could possibly be overturned or reversed if we allowed each of them shortly after they were passed to go before referendum votes and let the voters decide their fate? It is doubtful if slavery, interracial marriages, or voting rights for women would’ve ever been allowed to endure if it had been left up to the voters to decide. Each of the issues just listed were very unpopular issues with the majority of people at the time they were passed, yet through the passage of time these controversial issues were eventually accepted by the majority of the people as the right choice. Today it would be inconceivable for someone to stand up and advocate the reversal of any of those issues because they are now considered “basic” rights.
Prop 8 The Musical is a very short production written by Marc Shaiman and featuring some big name actors like Jack Black and John C. Reilly. Neither of these actors are gay themselves, but lend their talents here in support of the overthrow of Proposition 8 because they believe it is unconstitutional and unfair to gay couples. In an interview on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, both Black, Reilly, and Shaiman appear to discuss the musical and why they did it.
Prop 8 The Musical is a very short production written by Marc Shaiman and featuring some big name actors like Jack Black and John C. Reilly. Neither of these actors are gay themselves, but lend their talents here in support of the overthrow of Proposition 8 because they believe it is unconstitutional and unfair to gay couples. In an interview on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, both Black, Reilly, and Shaiman appear to discuss the musical and why they did it.
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
Early Voting
26-Oct-08 11:00 AM
The wife and I went and did early voting yesterday and we are both glad that is done. It sounds like voter turn out this year could be extremely high on November 4 making for long lines and possible delays. I voted in the democratic primaries earlier this year and there were long lines for that event which was very surprising. Right now work has me out of town quite a bit and it looks like I may be out of town on November 4, so early voting made a lot of sense for us this year.
At the sub courthouse where we voted the voting machines were computerized and were very easy to use. The directions were posted in english and spanish and it was very easy to navigate. We voted on Saturday evening and I estimated that they had approximately twenty voting booths and they were all full. So, even for early voting, there was a good turn out on a Saturday evening. Even so, we were in and out in about 15 minutes.
If you have not voted yet I encourage you to do so. And if you haven’t figured out who are you are voting for you don’t have much time to make up your mind. Suffice it to say, both sides have engaged in a bit of dirty pool and misleading statements. I highly recommend Fact Check dot Org for a good resource where you can find non-partisan reports on the statements made by both campaigns and a factual analysis of whether or not they are accurate or bogus. Both sides are guilty of misleading statements; some more so than others. After having checked this website as well as the Politifact website, it appears to me that McCain and Palin are in the lead by quite a bit when it comes to misleading statements, erroneous comments, and downright mistruths. Not surprising for a team that appears to be far behind in the polls and trying to gain ground by any means possible.
I do admire McCain, however, for correcting people at his rallies for making false statements and claims against Barack Obama. He wouldn’t have to be making these corrections if it had not been for the vast amounts of misinformation and lies that were put out into the public square in the first place by the republican political machine. Myths regarding Barack Obama have abounded by the republican juggernaut along with other statements of inaccuracies and misleading statements. On any given issue made by either party in this election, it is easy to go and check the facts for yourself and make up your own mind. Just make sure your fact checking is based on neutral reporting and not partisan sponsored websites. This has been a long election cycle and I am ready for it to be over.
At the sub courthouse where we voted the voting machines were computerized and were very easy to use. The directions were posted in english and spanish and it was very easy to navigate. We voted on Saturday evening and I estimated that they had approximately twenty voting booths and they were all full. So, even for early voting, there was a good turn out on a Saturday evening. Even so, we were in and out in about 15 minutes.
If you have not voted yet I encourage you to do so. And if you haven’t figured out who are you are voting for you don’t have much time to make up your mind. Suffice it to say, both sides have engaged in a bit of dirty pool and misleading statements. I highly recommend Fact Check dot Org for a good resource where you can find non-partisan reports on the statements made by both campaigns and a factual analysis of whether or not they are accurate or bogus. Both sides are guilty of misleading statements; some more so than others. After having checked this website as well as the Politifact website, it appears to me that McCain and Palin are in the lead by quite a bit when it comes to misleading statements, erroneous comments, and downright mistruths. Not surprising for a team that appears to be far behind in the polls and trying to gain ground by any means possible.
I do admire McCain, however, for correcting people at his rallies for making false statements and claims against Barack Obama. He wouldn’t have to be making these corrections if it had not been for the vast amounts of misinformation and lies that were put out into the public square in the first place by the republican political machine. Myths regarding Barack Obama have abounded by the republican juggernaut along with other statements of inaccuracies and misleading statements. On any given issue made by either party in this election, it is easy to go and check the facts for yourself and make up your own mind. Just make sure your fact checking is based on neutral reporting and not partisan sponsored websites. This has been a long election cycle and I am ready for it to be over.
Obama Will Keep His Promises
14-Oct-08 01:05 PM
As a supporter of Barack Obama, I certainly hope he can keep his word on this important promise made to all Americans....
Obama Promises To Stop America's Shitty Jobs From Going Overseas
Obama, The Elitist
05-Sep-08 09:37 AM
Portrayal Of Obama As Elitist Hailed As Step Forward For African Americans
If you are getting your news from any source other than the Onion Radio News - well then, you are just S.O.L. my friend. Talk about fair and balanced - the Onion slams everybody equally hard. Enjoy.
McCain's America
27-Aug-08 01:29 PM
When I watch this video of John McCain I see a man who is obviously struggling with a topic that I am not convinced that he believes fully. The stuttering and the halted speech just seems like a desperate attempt to say things to appease a certain group of people; and if that’s true then that is unfortunate. McCain is being touted as the guy who is tough and will stand up and tell everyone exactly what he stands for and what he believes in, but when it comes to the topic of religion he sure seems to be caving in to conform to the image and script that he’s expected to parrot from the right.
It’s not a matter of what one’s personal religious view points are, what you believe in or whether or not you have faith in God or not, it’s about the simple fact of being able to understand that the role of the government, as our founders intended, was to be neutral in all matters of religion, so that it metes out justice and fairness for all without regard to religious affiliation. This is a right of all Americans, and not just those who are religious.
Protecting Church State Separation
04-Aug-08 11:55 PM
A subject of increasing importance these days is the principle of the separation of church and state. It is an important topic and one that should be discussed and understood by all. Believe it or not, there are those in the United States who do not understand the role of this important principle, and there are even those who think it is a myth and that it does not exist in our Constitution. As a proud member of First Freedom First, I am posting here verbatim a very concise and informative synopsis that deals with this important topic.
Church-state separation is an historic principle and is supported by countless Americans. But just how these values impact everyday life, or how they are under attack, is not always clear. The following eight issues highlight today’s most pressing concerns:
1. The First Amendment requires government to remain neutral on matters of religion. This basic tenet not only protects religious institutions from the influence of politics, but ensures that the religious beliefs of lawmakers do not infiltrate our laws.
2. End of life decisions are among the most personal of all, and should be based on what’s right for you and your family. Church-state separation restricts interference with end of life care in order to further a political or religious agenda.
3. The choices one makes about reproductive health are choices of individual conscience. Church-state separation ensures that religious doctrine doesn’t take precedence over the laws that allow individual control of reproductive issues.
4. Every American enjoys the right to practice, or not practice, any religion. Maintaining church-state separation means that we are not subjected to government-supported religion and that tax dollars are not allowed to fund any initiatives grounded in faith.
5. Public Education must be free of religious bias. Church-state separation restricts the government from promoting religion or religious views in the classroom.
6. Advancement and innovation, especially in the medical field, require research rooted in science. By maintaining the separation between church and state, we guarantee that the narrow religious beliefs of some lawmakers do not limit the research that saves lives.
7. Private houses of worship have the right to promote specific marriage and family traditions, but the government does not. Church-state separation is critical to ensure that our nation’s laws do not limit the definition of marriage or family, resulting in blatant discrimination.
8. This country is rooted in the traditions of religious freedom, the freedom to practice when and how you want and the freedom to refrain from religious practice. Lawmakers are constantly trying to infiltrate the public sector with tactics like prayer in school and forced devotions during the meetings of government organizations. Protect the separation between church and state and no citizen will feel the pressure to conform to anyone else’s religious beliefs.
First Freedom First was created to inform citizens about church-state issues and to create a platform for those who need to speak out against the violations that threatens church-state separation. For more information on these issues, please visit the websites of American’s United and First Freedom First.
Church-state separation is an historic principle and is supported by countless Americans. But just how these values impact everyday life, or how they are under attack, is not always clear. The following eight issues highlight today’s most pressing concerns:
1. The First Amendment requires government to remain neutral on matters of religion. This basic tenet not only protects religious institutions from the influence of politics, but ensures that the religious beliefs of lawmakers do not infiltrate our laws.
2. End of life decisions are among the most personal of all, and should be based on what’s right for you and your family. Church-state separation restricts interference with end of life care in order to further a political or religious agenda.
3. The choices one makes about reproductive health are choices of individual conscience. Church-state separation ensures that religious doctrine doesn’t take precedence over the laws that allow individual control of reproductive issues.
4. Every American enjoys the right to practice, or not practice, any religion. Maintaining church-state separation means that we are not subjected to government-supported religion and that tax dollars are not allowed to fund any initiatives grounded in faith.
5. Public Education must be free of religious bias. Church-state separation restricts the government from promoting religion or religious views in the classroom.
6. Advancement and innovation, especially in the medical field, require research rooted in science. By maintaining the separation between church and state, we guarantee that the narrow religious beliefs of some lawmakers do not limit the research that saves lives.
7. Private houses of worship have the right to promote specific marriage and family traditions, but the government does not. Church-state separation is critical to ensure that our nation’s laws do not limit the definition of marriage or family, resulting in blatant discrimination.
8. This country is rooted in the traditions of religious freedom, the freedom to practice when and how you want and the freedom to refrain from religious practice. Lawmakers are constantly trying to infiltrate the public sector with tactics like prayer in school and forced devotions during the meetings of government organizations. Protect the separation between church and state and no citizen will feel the pressure to conform to anyone else’s religious beliefs.
First Freedom First was created to inform citizens about church-state issues and to create a platform for those who need to speak out against the violations that threatens church-state separation. For more information on these issues, please visit the websites of American’s United and First Freedom First.
Telecom Immunity
02-Jul-08 10:16 AM
The Senate will be voting soon on legislation regarding the Bush Administration’s illegal wiretapping program. It’s important that the bill not contain any immunity for the telecom companies that helped the President break the law.
The Senate is planning on voting on the measure on July 8 and as it stands right now, it appears that they are prepared to sweep this under the rug and look the other way. If you are concerned about this cover up and believe that the rule of law should be upheld and that the principles and rules of the Constitution should be upheld and protected, then please contact your Senators to let them know. There is nothing patriotic about breaking the law and snubbing the principles of our most important document that created this country. Have a Happy July 4th celebration!!
- Let a judge sort it out. If what the telecom companies did was legal, why shouldn’t we let the cases go to court? If it was illegal, that’s all the more reason not to grant immunity.
- This is about fundamental rights. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution explicitly states that the government needs a warrant to conduct a search — that includes wiretapping. Congress should err on the side of our Constitution and not bow to political pressure by signing off on telecom immunity. Americans deserve nothing less.
- When people break the law, they should be held accountable. When companies break the law, they should be too. Passing a bill that lets companies off the hook for spying on their customers isn’t fair and it doesn’t uphold the rule of law.
- The Bush Administration is trying to cover up its own illegal behavior. The President shouldn’t be able to hide the full extent of an illegal program by shutting down lawsuits. And Congress certainly shouldn’t help him to do it.
- This affects countless Americans. Telecoms need to testify in a court of law about exactly what happened and why. If telecom immunity passes, we may never know how big the scandal really was.
The Senate is planning on voting on the measure on July 8 and as it stands right now, it appears that they are prepared to sweep this under the rug and look the other way. If you are concerned about this cover up and believe that the rule of law should be upheld and that the principles and rules of the Constitution should be upheld and protected, then please contact your Senators to let them know. There is nothing patriotic about breaking the law and snubbing the principles of our most important document that created this country. Have a Happy July 4th celebration!!
Collection of Random Topics
21-Jun-08 09:38 AM
There are many topics worthy of discussion, but not really worthy of a dedicated post by themselves. Some of these topics have been building up in my brain lately, so allow me to release the pressure valve and spew some of them forth herewith. I reserve the right to come back at a later date and embellish any of these topics further as warranted by current events or stupid actions by people who should know better. So, in no particular order of importance or interest:
Gay Marriage Rights
Conservative and religious right leaders in California are chomping at the bit to try and pass a state constitutional amendment this November to nullify the recently acquired rights of gay couples from marrying in the state. They are spreading false information about marriage statistics and trying to convince everyone that by allowing gay couples to marry that the very institution of heteosexual marriage is somehow jeopardized and in danger of being eradicated off the face of the earth. Normally, this topic alone is worth an entire post by itself, but i have neither the energy nor the will to further debate this topic as it is so completely juvenille and senseless that it is exasperating to even try to and expend brain cells to debate it. Other than all of the arguments I have already posted on this blog about this topic, suffice it to say that the misinformation about marriage and the alarmist concerns of the destruction of heterosexual marriage is completely senseless and unwarranted. I stop short of calling it stupid (although it is) but I maintain that nobody but nobody can adequately explain how by allowing a group of people (gays and lesbians) to enjoy the same legal protections of marriage that that is going to jeopardize heterosexual marriage. It is a myth and one without any merit. Next topic.
Apple Goodies - iPhone 3G and Mobile Me
There is a wealth of techno goodies about to shower forth from the techno gods in Cupertino in early July, now only a few short weeks away. You’d have to be living in a hole in the sewers of London not to have already heard this news by now. Twice the features and half the price of the original iPhone, faster speeds, more third party applications, GPS, Microsoft Exchange support for enterprises and business users, and the best user interface ever designed for a mobile device make this a must have techno gadget for the masses. Notwithstanding all the goodness, to keep this journalistically pure, I will point out that there is much concern over the pricing plans with AT&T and who will be eligible for the lower prices. The $199 and $299 prices quoted during the WWDC Keynote address will not be available to everyone, depending upon existing cell phone contracts. This is nothing really new in the industry, but I can see a lot of people being disappointed to find out that they don’t qualify for the lower prices. But, like a good Republican, I know I qualify for the rates so I don’t really care if anybody else does or not. Tough luck.
Mobile Me is the replacement of the Dot Mac web service from Apple of which I have been a member for a few years now. While I have generally been pleased with Dot Mac, I am looking forward to the new push email, contacts and calendar capabilities that will be offered by the new service. As billed during the WWDC, this is exchange service for the rest of us. Dot Mac did have a few bugs and quirks in it and I am hoping that this new service will resolve some of those annoying glitches that would creep up from time to time. It is going to be so nice to be able to add calendar events or contacts to my laptop or Mac and then have that automatically sync up to my iPhone. This service also debuts in early July and I am ready for it.
Eletrical Loadbanks and Short Circuits
DId you know that the quasi-technical definition of an eletrical short is when electrical current flows unintentionally and uncontrolled between two conductors? In other words, it is when electricity goes where it’s not supposed to go and the consequential results are usually fried or charred electrical equipment.
An electrical loadbank is a piece of electrical equipment that simulates electrical load generated by equipment when the equipment is not present. It is used for testing such things as uninterrupted power supplies (UPS) and battery back up systems. With a loadbank apparatus you can simulate all different kinds of electrical events for the express purpose of testing out your emergency back up plans to deal with such emergencies.
Now you may wonder what is so important or interesting about this last bit of information and the answer is absolutely nothing. I said this would be a post on random topics and that’s what I just delivered.
Gay Marriage Rights
Conservative and religious right leaders in California are chomping at the bit to try and pass a state constitutional amendment this November to nullify the recently acquired rights of gay couples from marrying in the state. They are spreading false information about marriage statistics and trying to convince everyone that by allowing gay couples to marry that the very institution of heteosexual marriage is somehow jeopardized and in danger of being eradicated off the face of the earth. Normally, this topic alone is worth an entire post by itself, but i have neither the energy nor the will to further debate this topic as it is so completely juvenille and senseless that it is exasperating to even try to and expend brain cells to debate it. Other than all of the arguments I have already posted on this blog about this topic, suffice it to say that the misinformation about marriage and the alarmist concerns of the destruction of heterosexual marriage is completely senseless and unwarranted. I stop short of calling it stupid (although it is) but I maintain that nobody but nobody can adequately explain how by allowing a group of people (gays and lesbians) to enjoy the same legal protections of marriage that that is going to jeopardize heterosexual marriage. It is a myth and one without any merit. Next topic.
Apple Goodies - iPhone 3G and Mobile Me
There is a wealth of techno goodies about to shower forth from the techno gods in Cupertino in early July, now only a few short weeks away. You’d have to be living in a hole in the sewers of London not to have already heard this news by now. Twice the features and half the price of the original iPhone, faster speeds, more third party applications, GPS, Microsoft Exchange support for enterprises and business users, and the best user interface ever designed for a mobile device make this a must have techno gadget for the masses. Notwithstanding all the goodness, to keep this journalistically pure, I will point out that there is much concern over the pricing plans with AT&T and who will be eligible for the lower prices. The $199 and $299 prices quoted during the WWDC Keynote address will not be available to everyone, depending upon existing cell phone contracts. This is nothing really new in the industry, but I can see a lot of people being disappointed to find out that they don’t qualify for the lower prices. But, like a good Republican, I know I qualify for the rates so I don’t really care if anybody else does or not. Tough luck.
Mobile Me is the replacement of the Dot Mac web service from Apple of which I have been a member for a few years now. While I have generally been pleased with Dot Mac, I am looking forward to the new push email, contacts and calendar capabilities that will be offered by the new service. As billed during the WWDC, this is exchange service for the rest of us. Dot Mac did have a few bugs and quirks in it and I am hoping that this new service will resolve some of those annoying glitches that would creep up from time to time. It is going to be so nice to be able to add calendar events or contacts to my laptop or Mac and then have that automatically sync up to my iPhone. This service also debuts in early July and I am ready for it.
Eletrical Loadbanks and Short Circuits
DId you know that the quasi-technical definition of an eletrical short is when electrical current flows unintentionally and uncontrolled between two conductors? In other words, it is when electricity goes where it’s not supposed to go and the consequential results are usually fried or charred electrical equipment.
An electrical loadbank is a piece of electrical equipment that simulates electrical load generated by equipment when the equipment is not present. It is used for testing such things as uninterrupted power supplies (UPS) and battery back up systems. With a loadbank apparatus you can simulate all different kinds of electrical events for the express purpose of testing out your emergency back up plans to deal with such emergencies.
Now you may wonder what is so important or interesting about this last bit of information and the answer is absolutely nothing. I said this would be a post on random topics and that’s what I just delivered.
2008 Election Prediction
09-Jun-08 10:20 PM
I will admit that I am voting for Obama and I am hoping he will win. I realize this may persuade my prediction making abilities slightly, but I can also state that I am happy that John McCain is the Republican candidate out of all of the other people who were running against him. Should my prediction flounder and McCain is able to get elected, I will be at least happy it is him and not the likes of Huckabee or Tancredo or some of the other far-right ultra conservatives. McCain is by far the most liberal (or moderate) of the bunch that was running and I think it may be why he won. There is an expectancy of change in the air and people are instinctively rejecting the failed policies of the Bush administration and are looking for new leadership. The only way Senator McCain could possibly win in November is if he were to completely reject the current Bush policies and present a solid, unified, well thought out strategy that addresses the dire probelms facing the country today. Any semblance of serving up the same old hash that has been served for the last seven years will send McCain to the back of the line and Obama will be the man.
Just remember, you read it here first on TD3k Speaks. I have already established a precedent by making a reasonably accurate prediction with my earlier announcement of 2008 being a sucky year. $5 per gallon gas will probably be here by the end of the year, and that my friends, sucks!! So, let’s put the conservative agenda away for awhile and let’s break out some good old progressive, forward thinking ideas and let’s plan on some big improvements starting in 2009!!
American Freedom Campaign
25-Mar-08 10:28 PM
I am a proud supporter of the American Freedom Campaign - an organization dedicated to the preservation of the Constitution and the battle against our civil liberties and the egregious misuse of executive power by the current administration. I am posting here an appeal for concerned citizens to get involved by signing the AFC petition and, if possible, giving financial support to their efforts. Please take a few minutes to learn more about the AFC, their mission, and why it is important to get involved. The following information is the property of the AFC and is published here at their request. Thanks for your time.
-------------------------------------------------------
What would you do to help save our Constitutional Republic?
The American Freedom Campaign has set a goal for itself. We want to expand our base of online supporters from 38,000 to 50,000 people over the course of the next month. With this 30+ percent increase, we will enhance our ability to influence Congress when important bills are under consideration. We will also be able to activate a larger number of Americans during the upcoming general election season when the issue of excessive presidential power should be at the top of the national agenda.
Why should you join the American Freedom Campaign - either by signing our petition or by signing up for AFC updates on our home page? That's a good question, and here is why:
http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/
We hope that you will consider making a financial contribution to the American Freedom Campaign. To visit our donation page, just click on this link:
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/2629/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=2644
-------------------------------------------------------
What would you do to help save our Constitutional Republic?
The American Freedom Campaign has set a goal for itself. We want to expand our base of online supporters from 38,000 to 50,000 people over the course of the next month. With this 30+ percent increase, we will enhance our ability to influence Congress when important bills are under consideration. We will also be able to activate a larger number of Americans during the upcoming general election season when the issue of excessive presidential power should be at the top of the national agenda.
Why should you join the American Freedom Campaign - either by signing our petition or by signing up for AFC updates on our home page? That's a good question, and here is why:
- The American Freedom Campaign was launched less than eight months ago to build a grassroots movement to help restore the Constitution and reverse the violations of civil liberties and human rights that have occurred over the past seven years.
- Over the past few months, the American Freedom Campaign has filled an important role in Washington by leading the fight to restore our system of checks and balances. While there are many organizations fighting specific policies considered unconstitutional, few, if any, are focused almost exclusively on restraining executive overreach.
- Consistent with its mission to restore checks and balances, AFC aggressively - and successfully - pushed the U.S. House to pass a contempt resolution against Bush administration officials who refused to comply with congressional subpoenas. The Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, in an article about the contempt vote in the House, cited AFC as an example - in fact, the only example - of an advocacy group generating grassroots pressure on House members.
- AFC has also helped inject constitutional balance of powers issues into the debate over the nation's Iraq policy. As the Bush administration negotiates an agreement with the Iraqi government to establish the parameters of the two nations' bilateral relationship beyond 2008, AFC is working with members of Congress to ensure that no significant commitment is made without the approval of Congress. Toward this end, AFC hosted a conference call on which Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), joined by two constitutional scholars from Yale Law School, introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the House that any major agreement reached without congressional approval will be invalid.
- As the 2008 campaign moves forward, AFC will play a critically important educational role. We will aggressively push the message that the Bush administration's dramatic expansion of executive power makes the selection of the next president one of the most important decisions the citizens of this nation will ever make.
http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/
We hope that you will consider making a financial contribution to the American Freedom Campaign. To visit our donation page, just click on this link:
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/2629/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=2644
A Single Word Says A Lot...
21-Mar-08 07:34 PM
If there were ever any doubts by anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past seven years, this adequately sums up the Bush Administration's attitude towards the majority of the American population and anyone else who disagrees with them. This little two letter word "So", very accurately portrays the sum total of the entire thought processes and intellectual reasoning that drives the decisions and the policies of the current administration. It doesn't matter what the topic is, whether it is the war in Iraq and the fact that 2/3 of the American people strongly believe that the cost of the war is not worth the astronomical costs to our nation, or whether you are talking about the far ranging dissenting opinions on the use of torture, domestic spying, invasion of privacy or civil liberty violations, The response to all dissenters, to all those who have a differing view, to those who dare not go along with the half baked policies of the megalomaniacs of executive power, is "so?" It's an abbreviated way of saying, "who cares?" Or another way of saying, "policies and decisions can't be based on the will of the people, unless they agree with us."
"Don't go to war in Iraq - they had nothing to do with 9/11" - 'SO"
"The cost of this war is going to be astronomically expensive" - "SO"
"It is against federal and international law to torture people" - "SO"
"Three years after the fact, many people in New Orleans are still suffering from Katrina" - "SO"
"Stem cell research offers the promise of finding medical cures for some of the most deadly diseases known to man" - "SO"
"Forty six million Americans are without health care insurance and stand to lose everything they own should their health fail" - "SO"
And the list goes on and on. Pick your topic, any topic, and the response from this administration is always the same.
This is arrogance completely out of control and it has to stop.
You Damn Dirty Liberal...
16-Mar-08 11:30 PM
I am quite often amused at how some people throw around the word "liberal" as though it were a branding iron of death. To hear some people describe it, a liberal or liberalism is akin to the plague, leprosy, or any other vile type of repugnant disease which should be avoided and abhorred at all costs. Just recently I've seen writings circulating on the internet decrying the evils of Barack Obama by alerting everyone to the fact that he was a disciple of the evil practice of liberalism - a person that is so scary and radical that he should not be trusted lest he should become President and drag the entire nation down to the bowels of hell. Indeed - "liberals" have been given a bad name by a lot of people over the years, but I'm here to set the record straight.
To begin with, the purpose of this post is not to attempt a grandiose definition of the complexities of liberalism versus conservatism with all of it's various sub-sets and branch ideologies for that would be more the subject of a book than a simple post. Rather, I intend to keep this discussion short and very basic. I would maintain that there are a lot of folks out there who are misusing the word "liberal" and that they don't fully understand the meaning of the word. Therefore, I would like to present a simple definition from both the dictionary and the thesaurus on the word "liberal" and what that word truly means. Feel free to look it up in your own dictionary and thesaurus if you doubt anything you read here. But, if it is true that conservatives are indeed the opposite of liberals in practice, then it would stand to reason that the definitions of the two words would be opposite as well. I present only the word "liberal" as it appears in my copy of the dictionary and thesaurus. I trust that the next time you read or hear someone using the word "liberal" in a negative connotation that you will understand how the word is being misused today.
Dictionary:
liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl|
adjective
1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
• Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
2 [ attrib. ] (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
3 (esp. of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact
4 given, used, or occurring in generous amounts : liberal amounts of wine had been consumed.
• (of a person) giving generously
Thesaurus:
liberal
adjective
1 the values of a liberal society tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, libertarian, indulgent, lenient. antonym narrow-minded, bigoted.
2 a liberal social agenda progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical. antonym reactionary, conservative.
3 a liberal education wide-ranging, broad-based, general.
4 a liberal interpretation of divorce laws flexible, broad, loose, rough, free, general, nonliteral, nonspecific, imprecise, vague, indefinite. antonym strict, to the letter.
5 a liberal coating of paint abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich; literary plenteous. antonym scant.
6 they were liberal with their cash generous, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, bighearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish; literary bounteous. antonym careful, miserly.
To begin with, the purpose of this post is not to attempt a grandiose definition of the complexities of liberalism versus conservatism with all of it's various sub-sets and branch ideologies for that would be more the subject of a book than a simple post. Rather, I intend to keep this discussion short and very basic. I would maintain that there are a lot of folks out there who are misusing the word "liberal" and that they don't fully understand the meaning of the word. Therefore, I would like to present a simple definition from both the dictionary and the thesaurus on the word "liberal" and what that word truly means. Feel free to look it up in your own dictionary and thesaurus if you doubt anything you read here. But, if it is true that conservatives are indeed the opposite of liberals in practice, then it would stand to reason that the definitions of the two words would be opposite as well. I present only the word "liberal" as it appears in my copy of the dictionary and thesaurus. I trust that the next time you read or hear someone using the word "liberal" in a negative connotation that you will understand how the word is being misused today.
Dictionary:
liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl|
adjective
1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
• Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
2 [ attrib. ] (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
3 (esp. of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact
4 given, used, or occurring in generous amounts : liberal amounts of wine had been consumed.
• (of a person) giving generously
Thesaurus:
liberal
adjective
1 the values of a liberal society tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, libertarian, indulgent, lenient. antonym narrow-minded, bigoted.
2 a liberal social agenda progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical. antonym reactionary, conservative.
3 a liberal education wide-ranging, broad-based, general.
4 a liberal interpretation of divorce laws flexible, broad, loose, rough, free, general, nonliteral, nonspecific, imprecise, vague, indefinite. antonym strict, to the letter.
5 a liberal coating of paint abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich; literary plenteous. antonym scant.
6 they were liberal with their cash generous, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, bighearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish; literary bounteous. antonym careful, miserly.
Surf's Up - Grab Your Water-board
08-Mar-08 09:36 PM
President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as water-boarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks. "The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," Bush said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it," Bush said. (from the Associated Press).
Bush cites the terrorist bombing attacks that occurred on July 7, 2005 in London as justification for why we should continue the practice of water-boarding so as to prevent future attacks. But, exactly "which attacks have been thwarted by the use of water-boarding?" This is the question that needs to be answered. Bush has stated on several occasions: "To the critics, I ask them this: when we, within the law, interrogate and get information that protects ourselves and possibly others in other nations to prevent attacks, which attack would they have hoped that we wouldn't have prevented?"
Indeed sir, which attacks specifically have been prevented by the diabolical use of water-boarding? I'd really like to know. Bush has also stated that the actions that he is taking on this are "within the law" and that the Justice Dept. will review to make certain that it is within the law. Guess what? The Justice Dept. has not done so and has never made a statement that water-boarding is legal, simply because it is not. It is a torture technique that simulates death by drowning and has been used through out history including the Inquisition and various wars including the Vietnam war.
Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, who has been vociferously opposed to the use of water-boarding and who has on a number of occasions reprimanded fellow Republicans for taking such a lax stance against it's use, has repeatedly said that there is no question that it is torture, and as such he questioned the effectiveness of it's use. But, alas, John McCain voted against the Senate bill that banned the use of water-boarding against detainees. I wonder why? It is very curious to see McCain change positions on such a poignant position. Could this also be a clue as to what kind of a President he might be?
Here is the problem in my opinion. We have an administration today that talks about morality and family values and decency and all the other virtues which are vital to any healthy society, and they are willing to push and promote these ideals (even at the expense of other people's civil liberties), that in their attempt to justify and condone the war in Iraq, their moral compass has spun so far off center that it is completely pointing in the wrong direction. They are so turned around and confused that they don't even recognize torture and abuse when they look it square in the eyes. How can one not understand that the practice of torture cannot yield verifiable, dependable information that can be acted upon? Just ask John McCain. A person will say anything to prevent pain, they will confess to anything to prevent suffering, and they will reveal as many terrorist plans as you'd like to deliver and not a shred of it will be necessarily true.
Understand, I am not questioning President Bush's or John McCain's patriotism or willingness to protect innocent lives, I am only attempting to point out what happens when you willfully choose to take the easy route instead of the hard one. If we were really serious about busting Al Qaeda and learning their secrets, we wouldn't resort to something as easy and primitive as torture - we would try to work harder to get real, tangible information; and I hope that we are doing that. In the words of Thomas Paine, a man wise beyond his years, he stated: "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." He also stated: _
It simply must also be noted that the use of torture on detainees who are caught on the battlefield does not mean that the only detainees who will be captured and potentially tortured are the bad guys. Where are the battlefields in the war on terror? It is the city streets and neighborhoods of towns and cities and many innocent civilians could easily be rounded up in a raid and because of their proximity to a known enemy encampment automatically be considered as enemy combatants. The likelihood then of receiving false information by torturing innocent civilians is even further exacerbated. That thought alone should make anyone recoil against the very notion.
And lastly, if the world sees that America openly supports, condones, and justifies the blatant use of torture as a permissible way to extract information from a prisoner, then that sends the clear signal that it is quite OK for the rest of the world to treat American military and civilians in the same manner. Because we fool ourselves into believing that "if we do it then it's OK, but if you do it then it's evil", we so blur the line of morality that we only deceive ourselves - no one else. In the end, we lose the moral high ground and we have started down the road to thinking and behaving in the same manner as the terrorists - and that is a really, really scary thought so we better stop for a minute and reconsider this matter again. These are my opinions; I welcome any comments that may differ.
My Answers To The Questions
13-Feb-08 07:02 PM
Here are my answers to a series of ten questions that were recently compiled by First Freedom First as a discussion starter on the issue of separation of church and state. Of course, these are just my opinions, but the idea is to induce people into thinking about these questions and examining their stance on these very important issues. I welcome any and all comments, especially those who may have a differing view than mine:
1. Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a “Christian Nation.” Do you agree with this statement?
Absolutely not. There are more Christians than any other religion in this nation, but the nation was not founded on a theocracy or on Christian doctrine.
2. Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?
No. Tax exempt status is one of the benefits churches enjoy as a result of the wall between government and religion. If a church feels compelled to intermix politics in with it's teachings and openly endorses political candidates from the pulpit, they should lose their tax exempt status and pay taxes.
3. Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?
Public schools have no business dealing in the realm of religion. Since their funding comes from taxes and the government, the public school should remain neutral on the subject of religion out of respect for all faiths. Prayer may be practiced at any time by any student, but should never be sponsored as a school program where students are coerced into participating.
4. Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?
No. The only thing that should be taught in science class is science. Creationism and intelligent design are concepts that do not adhere to the scientific method and are untestable - they therefore should not be presented as science.
5. Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?
No. The pharmacist has a duty to dispense doctor authorized medications to patients - it has no bearing on his personal opinions, beliefs or convictions. If a pharmacist is not able to morally comply with the requirements of the job he should seek some other form of employment.
6. Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?
Absolutely. I happen to believe that sexual orientation is not a choice anymore than your genetics or your nationality are a choice. To allow people the right and dignity to be who they are without discrimination is the right of all humans.
7. Should “faith-based” charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?
This is why public funds given to faith based charities is a bad idea. Tax money should never be used by a business or entity that discriminates against anyone as the tax money is a collective representation of everyone from the community. Churches are free to discriminate along these lines as their money is all freely donated by people of like convictions. Faith based charities may do what they like unless they take government money, then they may not discriminate for any reason.
8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?
Absolutely. The first amendment protects all people of all faiths, or people of no faith. No one is compelled to believe anything against their will.
9. Do you think everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called “a wall of separation” between church and state?
Yes. Without the separation between church and state the two entities become entangled and poison each other. Religion takes on the mantle of state power and can coerce people into matters of faith - and the state can take on the pious nature and deception of divine right and lose sight of secular law by pretending to enforce God's law on narrow and subjective interpretations of doctrine.
10. What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?
Public health and medical research should be based purely on science and fact. Ehtical and moral questions can be left up to the individual based on their own unique beliefs and code of moral conduct.
If anyone thinks I'm fit for public office and would like to see "TD3k robot-extraordinaire" run in future elections, please leave your comments or e-mail for instructions on sending cash donations to my presidential campaign. Or, better yet, please make sure you vote for your candidate of choice in the primaries and in the general election this November. Vote your conscience and make a difference.
1. Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a “Christian Nation.” Do you agree with this statement?
Absolutely not. There are more Christians than any other religion in this nation, but the nation was not founded on a theocracy or on Christian doctrine.
2. Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?
No. Tax exempt status is one of the benefits churches enjoy as a result of the wall between government and religion. If a church feels compelled to intermix politics in with it's teachings and openly endorses political candidates from the pulpit, they should lose their tax exempt status and pay taxes.
3. Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?
Public schools have no business dealing in the realm of religion. Since their funding comes from taxes and the government, the public school should remain neutral on the subject of religion out of respect for all faiths. Prayer may be practiced at any time by any student, but should never be sponsored as a school program where students are coerced into participating.
4. Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?
No. The only thing that should be taught in science class is science. Creationism and intelligent design are concepts that do not adhere to the scientific method and are untestable - they therefore should not be presented as science.
5. Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?
No. The pharmacist has a duty to dispense doctor authorized medications to patients - it has no bearing on his personal opinions, beliefs or convictions. If a pharmacist is not able to morally comply with the requirements of the job he should seek some other form of employment.
6. Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?
Absolutely. I happen to believe that sexual orientation is not a choice anymore than your genetics or your nationality are a choice. To allow people the right and dignity to be who they are without discrimination is the right of all humans.
7. Should “faith-based” charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?
This is why public funds given to faith based charities is a bad idea. Tax money should never be used by a business or entity that discriminates against anyone as the tax money is a collective representation of everyone from the community. Churches are free to discriminate along these lines as their money is all freely donated by people of like convictions. Faith based charities may do what they like unless they take government money, then they may not discriminate for any reason.
8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?
Absolutely. The first amendment protects all people of all faiths, or people of no faith. No one is compelled to believe anything against their will.
9. Do you think everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called “a wall of separation” between church and state?
Yes. Without the separation between church and state the two entities become entangled and poison each other. Religion takes on the mantle of state power and can coerce people into matters of faith - and the state can take on the pious nature and deception of divine right and lose sight of secular law by pretending to enforce God's law on narrow and subjective interpretations of doctrine.
10. What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?
Public health and medical research should be based purely on science and fact. Ehtical and moral questions can be left up to the individual based on their own unique beliefs and code of moral conduct.
If anyone thinks I'm fit for public office and would like to see "TD3k robot-extraordinaire" run in future elections, please leave your comments or e-mail for instructions on sending cash donations to my presidential campaign. Or, better yet, please make sure you vote for your candidate of choice in the primaries and in the general election this November. Vote your conscience and make a difference.
The Fate of the Union - Hooah!!
30-Jan-08 12:26 AM
As the curtain came down on the 2008 State of the Union speech this past Monday night, I couldn't help but think that it was really the "fate" of the Union. I will refrain from saying "told ya so" (see earlier post "2008 To Suck"), but at least we can be thankful that this was the last speech to be endured by the worst President this country has ever had. As we once again heard more sugar coated rhetoric and agonizingly arrogant threats towards Congress, the American people was left slack jawed and eyes glazed over at their TV sets as the unmistakeable truth slowly seeped into our minds. We have nothing new to hope for except the faint possibility that by the end of this year a new president will be elected to take on the enormous task of cleaning up the mess that they will inherit from the current administration. Oh, and did I mention that if by some ill fated fortune we do end up with another Republican President, I will be committing Japanese hari-kari on You Tube with a dull butter knife?
While we all try to contemplate just exactly where the $150 billion economic stimulus money is going to come from (perhaps the treasury will print more money, or some unneeded Pentagon weapons program will be nixed, perhaps it will be rained from the sky like manna from heaven, but God forbid it sure as hell will not come from any vile, evil, corrupt taxes - for if it does it would be the complete and total ruin of the nation!! No, I suspect it will probably just be borrowed like everything else), take a view at this 75 year old citizen's response to President Bush's unremarkable state of the union address.
While we all try to contemplate just exactly where the $150 billion economic stimulus money is going to come from (perhaps the treasury will print more money, or some unneeded Pentagon weapons program will be nixed, perhaps it will be rained from the sky like manna from heaven, but God forbid it sure as hell will not come from any vile, evil, corrupt taxes - for if it does it would be the complete and total ruin of the nation!! No, I suspect it will probably just be borrowed like everything else), take a view at this 75 year old citizen's response to President Bush's unremarkable state of the union address.
Stem Cell Politics
22-Nov-07 08:55 AM
With the recent announcement of the stem cell research break through via the use of human skin cells, many people formerly opposed to stem cell research are now jumping on to the band wagon and proclaiming that this is a great day and that the ethical questions of using embryonic stem cells can be put behind us. While it is indeed an important break through, many politicians such as Sam Brownback and other's, who are ardently opposed to embryonic stem cell research, are issuing statements that are simply inaccurate. This new discovery in cellular biology is important to be sure, but all of the major scientists and researches involved in the process have clearly stated that this break through was made possible in the first place by research performed with embryonic stem cells and that it will be crucial to continue research using embryonic stem cells to move the process forward. We have NOT reached a point where we can simply forget about using embryonic stem cells. It is either disingenuous or uninformed that these political leaders continue to attempt to mislead people with such erroneous statements. Let's keep the science with the scientists and the politics with the politicians. Unless you happen to be a person who is hoping for a cure for yourself or a dear loved one, it may be easy to adopt the politicians view point and not see the serious implications of every road block that they continuously throw into the process. With that in mind, I found the following excerpt from an article that is very interesting and something everyone should know. Even the slightest delays created by politicians on the movement forward on this important scientific research translates into years lost for potential patient treatment applications.
---------------------------------------------------------
Worrisome for stem cell pioneer
Suddenly, it's the embryonic stem cell proponents who are being cast as the scientifically backward fuddy-duddies. And that's extremely worrisome to Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer for Advanced Cell Technology. Lanza has been working with human embryonic stem cells for years.
"We have cells right now, human cells, that could prevent heart attacks or repair the damage, or restore the flow of blood to limbs that might otherwise be amputated," he told me.
He can't promise exactly when those cells will be turned into approved therapies - but the first human clinical trials involving embryonic stem cells could come as early as next year.
Lanza has even bigger ideas for an embryonic cell bank that would do for tissue regeneration what blood banks have done for transfusions.
"One hundred tissue types will give you a complete match for 50 percent of the population," he said. "We could literally in a few months, using somatic cell nuclear transfer [also known as therapeutic cloning], create these embryonic stem cell lines. ... I'd really hate to see all this get wiped out like a tidal wave."
Lanza is the first to acknowledge that the newly published research holds great promise in the long term. He's the guy who has been comparing the research to the Wright brothers' first airplane flights or the alchemists' dream of turning lead into gold.
But he's also wary about shifting the focus to an unproven approach that won't be available to patients until years from now. After all, human embryonic stem cells were first isolated nine years ago, and researchers are just now at the point where they are beginning to test potential therapies.
"We've been fooled many times before," he said. "A delay of 10 years would mean writing off half a generation. ... Just a few years makes an incredible difference."
At this point, it's hard to predict exactly when the first treatments will be available to the public, using either embryonic stem cells or these newly developed pluripotent cells. But Lanza's larger point is this: If embryo-based research is somehow stopped in its tracks - as some would like to do - diseases that could soon be treatable using embryonic stem cells would have to wait until pluripotent cell therapies go through their entire development cycle. And patients who already have been waiting for years would be in for an even longer wait...
Full article here.
---------------------------------------------------------
Worrisome for stem cell pioneer
Suddenly, it's the embryonic stem cell proponents who are being cast as the scientifically backward fuddy-duddies. And that's extremely worrisome to Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer for Advanced Cell Technology. Lanza has been working with human embryonic stem cells for years.
"We have cells right now, human cells, that could prevent heart attacks or repair the damage, or restore the flow of blood to limbs that might otherwise be amputated," he told me.
He can't promise exactly when those cells will be turned into approved therapies - but the first human clinical trials involving embryonic stem cells could come as early as next year.
Lanza has even bigger ideas for an embryonic cell bank that would do for tissue regeneration what blood banks have done for transfusions.
"One hundred tissue types will give you a complete match for 50 percent of the population," he said. "We could literally in a few months, using somatic cell nuclear transfer [also known as therapeutic cloning], create these embryonic stem cell lines. ... I'd really hate to see all this get wiped out like a tidal wave."
Lanza is the first to acknowledge that the newly published research holds great promise in the long term. He's the guy who has been comparing the research to the Wright brothers' first airplane flights or the alchemists' dream of turning lead into gold.
But he's also wary about shifting the focus to an unproven approach that won't be available to patients until years from now. After all, human embryonic stem cells were first isolated nine years ago, and researchers are just now at the point where they are beginning to test potential therapies.
"We've been fooled many times before," he said. "A delay of 10 years would mean writing off half a generation. ... Just a few years makes an incredible difference."
At this point, it's hard to predict exactly when the first treatments will be available to the public, using either embryonic stem cells or these newly developed pluripotent cells. But Lanza's larger point is this: If embryo-based research is somehow stopped in its tracks - as some would like to do - diseases that could soon be treatable using embryonic stem cells would have to wait until pluripotent cell therapies go through their entire development cycle. And patients who already have been waiting for years would be in for an even longer wait...
Full article here.
An Open Letter To Two Senators
08-Nov-07 03:11 PM
I am outraged by what happened in the U.S. Senate recently. It inspired me to send an E-mail to two U.S. senators. I hope after you read this you will send one, too.
On November 6, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee -- on an 11-8 vote -- forwarded President Bush's nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, to the full Senate for final confirmation. The nomination passed out of committee because two Democratic senators, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), inexplicably ignored testimony from Mukasey that would have shocked the nation years ago -- before the Bush Administration desensitized the nation to unconstitutional and immoral behavior. Mukasey not only refused to denounce the torture technique of 'waterboarding' without further study, but he also said that President Bush would not have to obey federal law if he felt that he had to take action to defend the country.
Despite these major red flags, Senators Schumer and Feinstein gave Mukasey their blessing and have virtually ensured that he will be the next attorney general. Whatever tragic circumstances result from his tenure will be entirely their fault.
Senators Schumer and Feinstein need to know how disgusted Americans are with them. That's why I just visited the American Freedom Campaign and took action by sending an E-mail to the two of them expressing my feelings.
Read More...
On November 6, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee -- on an 11-8 vote -- forwarded President Bush's nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, to the full Senate for final confirmation. The nomination passed out of committee because two Democratic senators, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), inexplicably ignored testimony from Mukasey that would have shocked the nation years ago -- before the Bush Administration desensitized the nation to unconstitutional and immoral behavior. Mukasey not only refused to denounce the torture technique of 'waterboarding' without further study, but he also said that President Bush would not have to obey federal law if he felt that he had to take action to defend the country.
Despite these major red flags, Senators Schumer and Feinstein gave Mukasey their blessing and have virtually ensured that he will be the next attorney general. Whatever tragic circumstances result from his tenure will be entirely their fault.
Senators Schumer and Feinstein need to know how disgusted Americans are with them. That's why I just visited the American Freedom Campaign and took action by sending an E-mail to the two of them expressing my feelings.
Read More...
Book Review: Worse Than Watergate
02-Oct-07 11:44 PM
The first in a trilogy of books by former Nixon counsel, John Dean, "Worse Than Watergate - The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush" is a must read book for every American today who wants to understand the mechanics at work in the current administration. Mr. Dean, a life-long Republican and a Washington insider for most of his long career, is fully qualified to delve into the inner workings of the White House. It was John Dean who had gone to President Richard Nixon and advised him that the activities surrounding the watergate activities were illegal and that they should be stopped. When Nixon refused to do so, Dean went to the authorities and turned himself in. It was Dean's testimony that ultimately led to the investigations and the resignation of Richard Nixon from office. It is with this insight and perspective that Dean examines the current Bush administration and draws a comparison between them... Read More...
Constitution Day
17-Sep-07 03:14 PM
As an American who strongly believes in the importance of our Constitution, I am writing to urge you to embrace the 10-point agenda put forth by the American Freedom Campaign. Over the past six years, the Bush Administration has shown a complete lack of respect for our Constitution and it is time for Congress to do everything in its power to reverse the damage that has been done. Our democracy depends on it...
Read More...
Read More...
No More Albertos
30-Aug-07 07:18 PM
As you have surely heard by now, the tenure of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General is finally coming to an end. While this is certainly good news, we cannot just sit back and relax now.
Gonzales may be taking his creepy appetite for torture, unconstitutional detention, and spying back to Texas, but George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are still around, which means that the Constitution and the rule of law are still endangered.
That's why I just visited the American Freedom Campaign and took action by sending an e-mail to my two U.S. senators, urging them to confirm as the next attorney general only an individual who is committed to defending the Constitution and restoring our system of checks and balances.
The senators need to hear from as many of their constituents as possible about this. Please take a moment and e-mail your two senators. Follow the link to take action:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=12452
Thanks so much for joining me in this effort.
Who Was Thomas Paine?
14-Aug-07 05:26 PM
It is truly amazing how little is known of Thomas Paine amongst the general public nowadays. A man of significant historical value and influence to the very founding of our great nation; a man who greatly inspired the founders such as Jefferson, Adams, and Washington; yet also a man silently relegated to the almost forgotten pages of history.
He was an intellectual and a man who wrote an amazing treatise entitled "The Age of Reason". The contents of this book are almost certainly the reason why Paine has been neglected in our history books and out of our collective conscience. Paine was not an agnostic nor an atheist but he was a deist and the writings in "The Age of Reason" was his explanation as to why he did not believe any of the organized religions or their teachings. For this reason he has been smeared and defamed and now forgotten by those who were incensed at his writings and at his logic. This is a man who should be rediscovered anew for I believe that his writings are still fresh, relevant and educational even for today.
Many people will disagree with his arguments presented in "The Age of Reason", and that's their right. Even Paine himself acknowledged that these were only his opinions and he condemned no one for holding to a different viewpoint. For me, reading this book was a fresh confirmation and a reaffirmation of many thoughts, feelings, and ideas that I had held for a long time previously. Seeing the words and thoughts so carefully crafted and penned with such skill was a truly remarkable experience. If you've never read "The Age of Reason", I highly encourage you to check it out and read it all the way through. Even if you disagree with his opinions, he never presents anything insulting or derogatory and thus establishes the ability to be listened to without animosity. For me, I agree almost entirely with everything he states and find the words truly enlightening. The book is in two parts - the entire work can be read on line here.
"...I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall..." -Thomas Paine
Good Riddance....from what?
29-May-07 02:44 PM
Whether or not you like or dislike; agree or disagree, love or hate Cindy Sheehan - is really irrelevant. Even though you may not necessarily agree with every thing (or anything) she has done and said in the past, the resignation article posted by Cindy Sheehan yesterday on her blog offers some probing, soul searching thoughts regarding the current state of affairs in this country. Regardless of any personal political preferences or biases, there is an honest light that emanates from her writing that illuminates some dark corners of this nation's closet. Put individual party politics aside long enough to give this text a fair reading; it is thought provoking and well written. It is more than an account of a woman and what drove her to political action - it is a reflection of what it means to be an American. Not just a flag waving, ribbon wearing, "my country can do no wrong" type of American, but an American looking for answers and who dares to look beyond the facade of what an American is expected to look and act like - and in the process is derided for doing what Americans are free to do. Click here for the article.
Election Results Summarized
09-Nov-06 04:07 PM
This mid term election returns were better than any football game in recent memory - what an outcome. I think people are either thrilled or in complete shock of the outcome. I fall into the first camp. I am hopeful that now, after twelve years of GOP domination, perhaps the US Congress will return to it's proper role of accountability and the function of checks and balance in our government branches will be set back into proper alignment. I am also hopeful that some of the most egregious attacks on our constitutional liberties and freedoms will be normalized. No matter where you stand on the outcome, this cartoon by Dana Summers of the Orlando Sentinel sums it up fairly accurately.
Marriage Protection Amendment
03-Jun-06 12:33 AM
I recently sent an e-mail to my two senators and congressman in Washington asking them to oppose the proposed marriage protection amendment to the US Constitution. Of course I knew going into it that some of them were the primary authors of the amendment and that the others strongly supported it. But, the beauty of a democracy is the ability to communicate with those in power your thoughts and feelings. This is the very basic principle of a working democracy. I typically do not write unless I deem the issue to be important enough to warrant the time and effort do so. I did not really expect them to change their opinion, but it is very important for our representatives to know how we feel on issues important enough that requires a constitutional amendment. These are rare events and it is very important and crucial and should not be taken lightly. I personally find this particular amendment to be naive, wrong headed, and downright despicable in terms of discrimination, bigotry and especially demagoguery. I don't believe that anybody can effectively explain to me how not allowing gays to marry and enjoy the same basic freedoms as heterosexuals, will protect in any way the institution of marriage. I would love for someone to comment and explain in a logical fashion how that works. Meanwhile, find below my original message, the response received from Congressman Joe Barton (the only one who replied by the way) and then my counter response.
--------------------------------------
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Senator John Cornyn
Representative Joe Linus Barton
I strongly oppose the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution that would require discrimination against any specific group of Americans. The so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment” is a betrayal of the American principles of equality and fairness and would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution for the first time. Please oppose this misguided effort to amend our Constitution.
Sincerely,
David Ivey
-----------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Ivey:
Thank you for contacting me about the protection of marriage. While we have differing views on the matter it is good to hear from you.
I am an ardent supporter of the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. Marriage has spanned time and cultures as the foundation of society and should not be manipulated to serve the whims of the day.
Last Congress, I co-sponsored two pieces of legislation, the Federal Marriage Amendment, and the Marriage Protection Amendment. In order for an amendment to become part of the Constitution, it must pass with a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate, after which it must be approved by 3/4 of the states. On September 30, 2004, the Marriage Protection Amendment came up for a vote in the House. I voted in favor of this legislation, and though it received a majority with a vote of 227 ‑186, unfortunately it did not receive the 2/3 vote required for passage.
I will continue to support legislation to protect marriage including the Marriage Protection Amendment, S.J.Res.1, which is a measure currently in the Senate. The amendment was passed out of the Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). It is time for the fight over marriage to move out of the courtrooms and back into the hands of legislators representing the people.
Again, thank you for contacting me and sharing your concerns on this matter. Please feel free to contact me in the future about issues that are important to you.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton
Member of Congress
-----------------------------------------------------
Mr. Barton:
Thank you for your reply. You are correct, we do not agree on this issue. Nor can you explain to me how discriminating against a group of people will “protect” the rights of a different group of people. Nor can you justify the ethical or moral standard by which you judge an entire group of people and feel that you have the right to supersede the basic rights and freedoms simply because they differ from you own. I believe you are confused on the true issues that matter most – freedom. The freedom to choose to live your own life free of the whims of a larger controlling group is a basic tenent of democracy. The majority may rule, but the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority – I believe you have forgotten this. I also believe that you and the entire Republican platform no longer represent me, my family, or the basic ideals and freedoms that our country was founded on. My vote shifted in the 2000 election and it will remain that way for the forseeable future. I truly hope you will reconsider your position and put your own personal feelings and agendas from the religious right aside in the name of what is honest and decent.
David Ivey
--------------------------------------
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Senator John Cornyn
Representative Joe Linus Barton
I strongly oppose the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution that would require discrimination against any specific group of Americans. The so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment” is a betrayal of the American principles of equality and fairness and would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution for the first time. Please oppose this misguided effort to amend our Constitution.
Sincerely,
David Ivey
-----------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Ivey:
Thank you for contacting me about the protection of marriage. While we have differing views on the matter it is good to hear from you.
I am an ardent supporter of the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. Marriage has spanned time and cultures as the foundation of society and should not be manipulated to serve the whims of the day.
Last Congress, I co-sponsored two pieces of legislation, the Federal Marriage Amendment, and the Marriage Protection Amendment. In order for an amendment to become part of the Constitution, it must pass with a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate, after which it must be approved by 3/4 of the states. On September 30, 2004, the Marriage Protection Amendment came up for a vote in the House. I voted in favor of this legislation, and though it received a majority with a vote of 227 ‑186, unfortunately it did not receive the 2/3 vote required for passage.
I will continue to support legislation to protect marriage including the Marriage Protection Amendment, S.J.Res.1, which is a measure currently in the Senate. The amendment was passed out of the Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). It is time for the fight over marriage to move out of the courtrooms and back into the hands of legislators representing the people.
Again, thank you for contacting me and sharing your concerns on this matter. Please feel free to contact me in the future about issues that are important to you.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton
Member of Congress
-----------------------------------------------------
Mr. Barton:
Thank you for your reply. You are correct, we do not agree on this issue. Nor can you explain to me how discriminating against a group of people will “protect” the rights of a different group of people. Nor can you justify the ethical or moral standard by which you judge an entire group of people and feel that you have the right to supersede the basic rights and freedoms simply because they differ from you own. I believe you are confused on the true issues that matter most – freedom. The freedom to choose to live your own life free of the whims of a larger controlling group is a basic tenent of democracy. The majority may rule, but the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority – I believe you have forgotten this. I also believe that you and the entire Republican platform no longer represent me, my family, or the basic ideals and freedoms that our country was founded on. My vote shifted in the 2000 election and it will remain that way for the forseeable future. I truly hope you will reconsider your position and put your own personal feelings and agendas from the religious right aside in the name of what is honest and decent.
David Ivey
The Truth of Tripoli
14-May-06 09:22 AM
I am constantly amazed at the on-going debates that I see on the internet, on television and even on the radio, regarding the subject of separation of church and state and whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. Personally, I think many people are confusing two different concepts: the idea of personal religious belief and the idea of those beliefs being interjected into the heart and soul of a nation's constitution. The argument is focused on what was the intent of the founding fathers and did they intend for the United States to be founded as a Christian nation. Apart from the fact that the word "God" appears no where in the text of the U.S. Constitution, there is another important document that sheds undeniable light on this subject that was written and put into law during the time of our founding fathers: The Treaty of Tripoli of 1796.
Art. 11. As the Goverment of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character or enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext, arrising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Please follow the link above to read a detailed historical description of this important document and the background story of why it was written. This treaty was signed by President John Adams and it was approved unanimously by the Senate with no dissenting votes. Further, the treaty was published in the states in three major newspapers, one in Philadelphia and two in New York City, and there is no known written record of any protest or objections by the American people. Article 11 of the Tripoli document makes a very bold statement regarding the founding of the United States government and it proclaims very clearly that the government is NOT founded on the Christian religion nor any religion; it is secular. I'm not sure what further proof anyone needs to see that the clear intent of our founding fathers was to establish a secular democracy where the freedom of religion was protected by the simple fact that the government must maintain a neutrality toward religion, lest it trample under foot the rights and freedom of all citizens to worship their religions freely and without interference.
Yet, there are those who still claim that this document doesn't prove anything and they reference other treaties by the United States that do mention God and have other religious undertones. These are not valid arguments for the simple fact that the treaties they are referring to came much later in the nation's history and were not the works of the founders. The important thing about the Tripoli document is that it provides a beam of light on the minds and souls of the founders of this country, and that is what the whole debate is about. There has always been a faction in this country who have pined and yearned for a Christian nation, but I sincerely think these people are confusing two separate ideas of personal belief with the idea of governmental enforcement of those beliefs. History is clear on this subject - our country is based on a secular system that doesn't infringe on anyone's religious views because the government is to be neutral on the subject. And why would anybody want it any other way?
Art. 11. As the Goverment of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character or enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext, arrising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Please follow the link above to read a detailed historical description of this important document and the background story of why it was written. This treaty was signed by President John Adams and it was approved unanimously by the Senate with no dissenting votes. Further, the treaty was published in the states in three major newspapers, one in Philadelphia and two in New York City, and there is no known written record of any protest or objections by the American people. Article 11 of the Tripoli document makes a very bold statement regarding the founding of the United States government and it proclaims very clearly that the government is NOT founded on the Christian religion nor any religion; it is secular. I'm not sure what further proof anyone needs to see that the clear intent of our founding fathers was to establish a secular democracy where the freedom of religion was protected by the simple fact that the government must maintain a neutrality toward religion, lest it trample under foot the rights and freedom of all citizens to worship their religions freely and without interference.
Yet, there are those who still claim that this document doesn't prove anything and they reference other treaties by the United States that do mention God and have other religious undertones. These are not valid arguments for the simple fact that the treaties they are referring to came much later in the nation's history and were not the works of the founders. The important thing about the Tripoli document is that it provides a beam of light on the minds and souls of the founders of this country, and that is what the whole debate is about. There has always been a faction in this country who have pined and yearned for a Christian nation, but I sincerely think these people are confusing two separate ideas of personal belief with the idea of governmental enforcement of those beliefs. History is clear on this subject - our country is based on a secular system that doesn't infringe on anyone's religious views because the government is to be neutral on the subject. And why would anybody want it any other way?
Immigration Reforms
01-May-06 12:44 PM
"So how is it that Mexican immigrants are responsible for all of our economic problems and other troubles, and why all the outrage? To me it bears a chilling resemblance to the way Hitler was able to dupe all of Germany into believing that all their problems were caused by the Jews. We need to stop being spoonfed our issues by politicians, and stop letting the demagogues push our emotional buttons..." - Chris Shefler
Read entire article here...
On this May 1, 2006, as Mexican immigrants all across the nation join in unison to be recognized as a vital group of people to the US economy, it is amazing to me how many Americans are still angry and irate with these poor people and wish they would just leave. While the problems presented by the influx of illegal immigration are real, the focus has been shifted from those who are responsible for this trend to those who are really the victims. We all know there is a problem and that something is wrong, but much of the anger has been misplaced and diverted by the demagogues in Washington, who are really only seeking to protect themselves from their ineffectual, cruel, and sub human policies that they have enacted. The problem with illegal immigration in this country is not the fault of the US citizen, nor the fault of the poor immigrants; it is the fault of both the US and Mexican governments. Corporate America also shares greatly in the responsibility of current circumstances.
Imagine if you will a family consisting of a father, mother and two small children, who live in abject poverty on less than $1 per day. Imagine that you are starving, are only wanting to feed your family, and you are willing to work and pay taxes. All you need is the opportunity. Imagine that this family's own government does not have any welfare programs for the poor and that they are completely unconcerned of their plight and their condition and job opportunities are very limited if any at all. Most importantly, imagine that at one time in the not too distant past, this same family was making a reasonable living by working in the US factories that had opened up across the border into Mexico as a result of NAFTA. But suddendly, and without warning, those factories closed their doors, let all the workers go, and then moved operations overseas to India where they discovered that labor was even cheaper than Mexico. Left with nothing, no support from their own governments, what is this family to do? Prayer alone will not put food on the table - it requires somebody to work. And so, to the north lies a great, expanseful country full of wealth, opportunity and promise. Your only recourse is to travel to the north so you can survive. The only problem is, to do so "legally" requires a tremendous amount of money; something which you do not have. What do you do? What would you do?
And so they came - by the millions - all seeking a better way and a meal to fill their bellies. They aren't lazy - they're willing to work and pay taxes - all they seek is the opportunity, but the opportunities (by law) are only for the rich. They have no choice but to sneak in illegally to survive. Many of them obtaining fake ID's and social security numbers just so they can eat. And yes, they pay taxes as well as sales tax on everything they purchase - and they are paid slave labor. And their taxes rolls into Washington each and every week into an account that some estimate to be worth over $500 billion and growing, and not one penny is earmarked to go back to the communities or workers from where it came. And the illegal employers, the ones who knowingly hire and then selfishly cream off the top the difference in fair market labor wages and taxes, allows the poor to stay poor in exchange for enough money just to stay alive and possibly stay out of the rain. In the last four years, the US government has not penalized a single US company for the hiring and extortion of illegal immigrants. Not one penny! And then they stand up on the TV screen with furrowed brows and somber expressions, and they vilify the poor immigrants who came into this country and they call it an "invasion". And the demogoguges stir up the American public and point to the obvious cause of the economies woes and the cause (according to the politicians) are poor people trying to survive!
So, I hope you read the link at the top of this article and I hope you also read the link at the bottom; both provide some insightful views and facts of what's really going on with immigration. It would be my hope that people would realize that the real problem is not people looking for an opportunity to survive - it's governments who wink and nod at each other, pocket billions of dollars off the people, and then declare that the only answer is a 3,000 mile fence with machine gun turrets to keep the trouble makers out. Anyone who really thinks that is the answer should be given a post along that fence, given a gun and a guard dog, and told to take care of the next desparate people they see coming across. I coudln't do it. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to reform immigration in this country; there is no question about that. Let the government start by confessing it's failures to it's people and begin by requiring Mexico to provide humanitarian aid to their own people. Let's secure the border, not with guns and dogs or fences, but with a fair and equitable system that will allow all people, including the poor, an opporunity to find their way. And then finally, let us begin to punish the employers who hire and extort poor people for below market value wages and pocket it for their own greed. There is a way to fix this and we should all remember that immigration, after all, is what this country has always been about and hopefully always will.
For more, enjoy the following facts and figures here.
Read entire article here...
On this May 1, 2006, as Mexican immigrants all across the nation join in unison to be recognized as a vital group of people to the US economy, it is amazing to me how many Americans are still angry and irate with these poor people and wish they would just leave. While the problems presented by the influx of illegal immigration are real, the focus has been shifted from those who are responsible for this trend to those who are really the victims. We all know there is a problem and that something is wrong, but much of the anger has been misplaced and diverted by the demagogues in Washington, who are really only seeking to protect themselves from their ineffectual, cruel, and sub human policies that they have enacted. The problem with illegal immigration in this country is not the fault of the US citizen, nor the fault of the poor immigrants; it is the fault of both the US and Mexican governments. Corporate America also shares greatly in the responsibility of current circumstances.
Imagine if you will a family consisting of a father, mother and two small children, who live in abject poverty on less than $1 per day. Imagine that you are starving, are only wanting to feed your family, and you are willing to work and pay taxes. All you need is the opportunity. Imagine that this family's own government does not have any welfare programs for the poor and that they are completely unconcerned of their plight and their condition and job opportunities are very limited if any at all. Most importantly, imagine that at one time in the not too distant past, this same family was making a reasonable living by working in the US factories that had opened up across the border into Mexico as a result of NAFTA. But suddendly, and without warning, those factories closed their doors, let all the workers go, and then moved operations overseas to India where they discovered that labor was even cheaper than Mexico. Left with nothing, no support from their own governments, what is this family to do? Prayer alone will not put food on the table - it requires somebody to work. And so, to the north lies a great, expanseful country full of wealth, opportunity and promise. Your only recourse is to travel to the north so you can survive. The only problem is, to do so "legally" requires a tremendous amount of money; something which you do not have. What do you do? What would you do?
And so they came - by the millions - all seeking a better way and a meal to fill their bellies. They aren't lazy - they're willing to work and pay taxes - all they seek is the opportunity, but the opportunities (by law) are only for the rich. They have no choice but to sneak in illegally to survive. Many of them obtaining fake ID's and social security numbers just so they can eat. And yes, they pay taxes as well as sales tax on everything they purchase - and they are paid slave labor. And their taxes rolls into Washington each and every week into an account that some estimate to be worth over $500 billion and growing, and not one penny is earmarked to go back to the communities or workers from where it came. And the illegal employers, the ones who knowingly hire and then selfishly cream off the top the difference in fair market labor wages and taxes, allows the poor to stay poor in exchange for enough money just to stay alive and possibly stay out of the rain. In the last four years, the US government has not penalized a single US company for the hiring and extortion of illegal immigrants. Not one penny! And then they stand up on the TV screen with furrowed brows and somber expressions, and they vilify the poor immigrants who came into this country and they call it an "invasion". And the demogoguges stir up the American public and point to the obvious cause of the economies woes and the cause (according to the politicians) are poor people trying to survive!
So, I hope you read the link at the top of this article and I hope you also read the link at the bottom; both provide some insightful views and facts of what's really going on with immigration. It would be my hope that people would realize that the real problem is not people looking for an opportunity to survive - it's governments who wink and nod at each other, pocket billions of dollars off the people, and then declare that the only answer is a 3,000 mile fence with machine gun turrets to keep the trouble makers out. Anyone who really thinks that is the answer should be given a post along that fence, given a gun and a guard dog, and told to take care of the next desparate people they see coming across. I coudln't do it. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to reform immigration in this country; there is no question about that. Let the government start by confessing it's failures to it's people and begin by requiring Mexico to provide humanitarian aid to their own people. Let's secure the border, not with guns and dogs or fences, but with a fair and equitable system that will allow all people, including the poor, an opporunity to find their way. And then finally, let us begin to punish the employers who hire and extort poor people for below market value wages and pocket it for their own greed. There is a way to fix this and we should all remember that immigration, after all, is what this country has always been about and hopefully always will.
For more, enjoy the following facts and figures here.
Letter to My Senators
25-Jan-06 05:51 PM
As a concerned American citizen I am writing to ask you not to confirm Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. Nothing is more important than to uphold the civil liberties and rights of all Americans. Allowing the vacancy of Sandra Day O'Connor to be filled by Samuel Alito will without question swing the balance of the court to a decidedly conservative view point. I trust you realize the importance of making sure the balance of the Supreme Court be maintained in order for it to function fairly and justly. I do not care how "qualified" Mr. Alito is for the job, based on the recent confirmation hearings he has indicated a willingness to act and rule in a judicial manner that could severly limit and infringe upon the civil rights and liberties of large sections of the American population. As a former Republican who is fed up with the current administration and the overwhelming corruption that seems to be plaguing the Congress, I urge you to break from the mindless party line mentality and consider what's truly good for the American people - and not what is only good for your party. The realignment of power that President Bush is attempting in this government is most disturbing and I do not like it. Thank you for your time.
Here's A Plan - Let's Be Smarter in 2006!
28-Dec-05 10:41 PM
Here at "TD3k Speaks" I endeavor with each post to provide genuinely thought provoking topics of discussion to ponder, discuss or debate. I realize I am as biased in my views as the next person, but I do try to be fair, sensible, and logical in my views as best as I can. There is a conscious effort to be understanding of the other view points on any particular subject, and to allow the benefit of the doubt even if the consensus differs to my own opinions. Apparently, it's part of my programming and I can't seem to override it and it is damn annoying. However, there comes a time when you find something so amazingly inane, juvenile, and downright incredibly insipid, that you simply feel compelled to laugh out loud hysterically, and throw all those pleasantries out the window. And this truly is the case for the so called War on Christmas propaganda that has been created, propagated, and telecast by Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, and other far right wing groups. This one is so far over the top, I can't believe anybody could possibly be serious about this incredible claim; which has already been shown to be based on outright lies and mistruths.
I will not go into the details of the ridiculous claims these groups have made regarding Christmas, but I simply wish to say that I am laughing hysterically, and pointing at these clowns who have perpetrated this complete and utter farce. Even the US Congress House of Representatives has fallen victim to this ruse. If you don't know what I'm talking about, please take the time to follow the links to see what the controversy is all about. Yes, I have done it now. I have overridden my programming and I have allowed my pent up frustrations room to breathe; and it feels good.
So, here's the plan for 2006. I propose that we all just stop and look at the facts. Examine the evidence. Verify the claims. Test the logic and the reasoning of what is being offered. Don't agree or disagree with anything simply based on WHO said it. Don't agree or disagree with anything simply based on political or religious dogma. Think about it. Formulate your own opinions. Don't be afraid to think and to challenge those who can not support their wild haired theories and unreasonable ramblings. And perhaps in 2006 we can all filter through some of the mindless rubbish that is being offered up as legitimate concerns by the demagogues in our society.
Oh, and here is an excellent post recapping some of the major events of 2005. An interesting review of the year as we make plans to start a new one.
I will not go into the details of the ridiculous claims these groups have made regarding Christmas, but I simply wish to say that I am laughing hysterically, and pointing at these clowns who have perpetrated this complete and utter farce. Even the US Congress House of Representatives has fallen victim to this ruse. If you don't know what I'm talking about, please take the time to follow the links to see what the controversy is all about. Yes, I have done it now. I have overridden my programming and I have allowed my pent up frustrations room to breathe; and it feels good.
So, here's the plan for 2006. I propose that we all just stop and look at the facts. Examine the evidence. Verify the claims. Test the logic and the reasoning of what is being offered. Don't agree or disagree with anything simply based on WHO said it. Don't agree or disagree with anything simply based on political or religious dogma. Think about it. Formulate your own opinions. Don't be afraid to think and to challenge those who can not support their wild haired theories and unreasonable ramblings. And perhaps in 2006 we can all filter through some of the mindless rubbish that is being offered up as legitimate concerns by the demagogues in our society.
Oh, and here is an excellent post recapping some of the major events of 2005. An interesting review of the year as we make plans to start a new one.
A Sad Day in Texas
09-Nov-05 12:49 AM
Today, Texas joins 19 other states who have chosen to endorse and embrace discrimination into the body and text of its Constitution. Proposition 2 was approved by a 75% margin to ban same sex marriages and civil unions as an amendment to the state constituion. It is a sad day because it represents a basic lack of understanding, in my opinion, by the majority of the population, that it is wrong to discriminate against an entire group of people for any reason including race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Do people really believe that by adding such a limiting and mean spirited provision to the constitution that this issue will simply go away? Do they think that perhaps in the morning, all the gay people in the state will have magically disappeared and all became heterosexual? Or do they think that by passing this amendment we have put just one more brick in the wall that protects traditional marriage and family values as the religious right is so fond of proclaiming? I honestly don't know the answer and neither do they.
I can understand people not agreeing with the lifestyle inherent of same sex relationships and I can understand how people would chose not to partake in such a lifestyle themselves. But the issue at hand with proposition 2 was not about allowing people to be gay, or endorsing a homosexual lifestyle over a heterosexual one. It was simply about allowing a group of people who are in a minority to have access to the same legal rights as the majority. Is that so bad? Is that evil and immoral? Most folks in Texas obviously thinks so.
I am not gay and have absolutely no inclinations in that direction. However, I do believe that the factors that contribute to sexual orientation are more than likely beyond a person's control in most cases. I base that on the fact that I know for myself I do not choose to be heterosexual - I simply am heterosexual. I couldn't choose to be anything else willingly. Likewise, I believe it is with most people. Therefore, the same must be true for homosexual people as well; why would it be any different for them? A lot of people believe it is a choice and it is a willingness to live a mean, dirty and immoral lifestyle. They think that people choose to be gay because they are reprobates and are evil hearted. I do not subscribe to that view and neither do the medical and psychological research studies on the subject. Most doctors and scientists hold to this view as well. Those who most often hold to the view of it being a lifestyle choice base their feelings and convictions purely on a religious viewpoint on the subject.
The day will come when this constitutional amendment will be stricken from the constitution because it has put limitations and penalties upon a group of people for no just reason. The non-sensical argument that prohibiting gay people from enjoying the same legal rights as the majority of the population somehow protects the marriage commitments of heterosexuals and families is not sustainable. Nor is their anyone who can argue it and have any logic in their reasoning. It can only be justified through the narrow view of religious dogma. Come on people; we have learned this lesson before and we should know better by now.
I can understand people not agreeing with the lifestyle inherent of same sex relationships and I can understand how people would chose not to partake in such a lifestyle themselves. But the issue at hand with proposition 2 was not about allowing people to be gay, or endorsing a homosexual lifestyle over a heterosexual one. It was simply about allowing a group of people who are in a minority to have access to the same legal rights as the majority. Is that so bad? Is that evil and immoral? Most folks in Texas obviously thinks so.
I am not gay and have absolutely no inclinations in that direction. However, I do believe that the factors that contribute to sexual orientation are more than likely beyond a person's control in most cases. I base that on the fact that I know for myself I do not choose to be heterosexual - I simply am heterosexual. I couldn't choose to be anything else willingly. Likewise, I believe it is with most people. Therefore, the same must be true for homosexual people as well; why would it be any different for them? A lot of people believe it is a choice and it is a willingness to live a mean, dirty and immoral lifestyle. They think that people choose to be gay because they are reprobates and are evil hearted. I do not subscribe to that view and neither do the medical and psychological research studies on the subject. Most doctors and scientists hold to this view as well. Those who most often hold to the view of it being a lifestyle choice base their feelings and convictions purely on a religious viewpoint on the subject.
The day will come when this constitutional amendment will be stricken from the constitution because it has put limitations and penalties upon a group of people for no just reason. The non-sensical argument that prohibiting gay people from enjoying the same legal rights as the majority of the population somehow protects the marriage commitments of heterosexuals and families is not sustainable. Nor is their anyone who can argue it and have any logic in their reasoning. It can only be justified through the narrow view of religious dogma. Come on people; we have learned this lesson before and we should know better by now.
Judicial Activism
10-Oct-05 10:37 PM
"Judicial Activism" is a new catch phrase making the circuit these days and it is being used extensively in the media and by various special interest groups who are attempting to promote the idea that the Supreme Court of the US, and other federal courts across the land, are being hijacked by "black-robed judges" who are "legislating from the bench" and doing all manner of atrocities that must be stopped. However, upon closer examination of the facts, much of the excitement and attention being generated amounts to political condemnation by these special groups against the judiciary for not conforming to their political agenda. In actual fact, the whole topic of "judicial activism" is one shrouded in controversy with very few people agreeing on the definition and the actual outright example of it happening in the courts.
The simple fact of the matter is the Judicial branch of the US government is designed as a check to the power of the Executive and Legislative branches of government. The primary role of the judiciary is to determine and to interpret the laws as to whether or not they are constitutional. This prevents the other two branches of government, which are currently controlled by the same political party, from passing and enforcing laws that may not meet the muster of constitutionality. And, when the judiciary finds certain laws to be unconstitutional, they are nullified and removed from the books. Because there is insufficient jurisprudence to properly identify and define when judicial activism is in play, many people are misinterpreting the role of the judiciary as judicial activism; especially when it comes to matters of emotionally charged political issues.
One of the main reasons that the judiciary is appointed in this country is to remove the politicizing effect of elections from the shoulders of judges so that they may interpret the laws and the questions of constitutionality without fear of retribution from an angry public. Judges should be neutral in their politics and examine laws based more on their own personal judicial philosophies and not on politics. The current administration has been pushing hard to fill the bench with justices who maintain a strict constructionist view of the constitution as opposed to a more modern living view of the constitution. Judges who maintain this type of philosophy are historically less apt to overturn any laws based on unconstitutional concerns thus reducing the check of power on the legislative and executive branches of government.
At best, much of the accusations made about judicial activism, are in my opinion, pointless and hypocritical. Most of those who are making such charges are ironically guilty of the same charge. That is, willing to strike down laws that might infringe on the rights, freedoms and civil liberties of whole groups of people simply because the exercise of those rights are somehow in defiant opposition to their political agenda. Clearly, if a judge were to strike down a law for such a petty notion, and were to act the way some of these most vocal groups are acting, then they would be guilty as charged.
We should reason with a clear mind and understand that any position that weakens the check of powers between the three branches of our government is not good for any body, any group or any reason. Government works best when the balance of powers are maintained equally and strongly. The shrill voices that are now calling for the impeachment of judges and using such silly, anger inducing language against the judiciary should be examined closely to understand their true motives. I would much rather have a judiciary who rules on the side of protecting the constitutional values of the bill of rights for all peoples than those who truly rule by an archaic and unfair interpretation that only grants rights and privileges to a few and outlaws rights and liberties for others because of political disapproval from a pious majority.
The simple fact of the matter is the Judicial branch of the US government is designed as a check to the power of the Executive and Legislative branches of government. The primary role of the judiciary is to determine and to interpret the laws as to whether or not they are constitutional. This prevents the other two branches of government, which are currently controlled by the same political party, from passing and enforcing laws that may not meet the muster of constitutionality. And, when the judiciary finds certain laws to be unconstitutional, they are nullified and removed from the books. Because there is insufficient jurisprudence to properly identify and define when judicial activism is in play, many people are misinterpreting the role of the judiciary as judicial activism; especially when it comes to matters of emotionally charged political issues.
One of the main reasons that the judiciary is appointed in this country is to remove the politicizing effect of elections from the shoulders of judges so that they may interpret the laws and the questions of constitutionality without fear of retribution from an angry public. Judges should be neutral in their politics and examine laws based more on their own personal judicial philosophies and not on politics. The current administration has been pushing hard to fill the bench with justices who maintain a strict constructionist view of the constitution as opposed to a more modern living view of the constitution. Judges who maintain this type of philosophy are historically less apt to overturn any laws based on unconstitutional concerns thus reducing the check of power on the legislative and executive branches of government.
At best, much of the accusations made about judicial activism, are in my opinion, pointless and hypocritical. Most of those who are making such charges are ironically guilty of the same charge. That is, willing to strike down laws that might infringe on the rights, freedoms and civil liberties of whole groups of people simply because the exercise of those rights are somehow in defiant opposition to their political agenda. Clearly, if a judge were to strike down a law for such a petty notion, and were to act the way some of these most vocal groups are acting, then they would be guilty as charged.
We should reason with a clear mind and understand that any position that weakens the check of powers between the three branches of our government is not good for any body, any group or any reason. Government works best when the balance of powers are maintained equally and strongly. The shrill voices that are now calling for the impeachment of judges and using such silly, anger inducing language against the judiciary should be examined closely to understand their true motives. I would much rather have a judiciary who rules on the side of protecting the constitutional values of the bill of rights for all peoples than those who truly rule by an archaic and unfair interpretation that only grants rights and privileges to a few and outlaws rights and liberties for others because of political disapproval from a pious majority.
Congress Needs A Wake Up Call
03-Sep-05 10:49 PM
Days after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, the country remains in crisis. The situation of Americans trapped by flooding grows increasingly desperate, and government resources and planning have proven woefully inadequate. So what are the priorities for the Bush Administration and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist?
The GOP's moving ahead with a plan to further starve federal coffers by calling a vote to repeal the estate tax -- possibly as soon as Tuesday, September 6! This would shift roughly $1.5 billion per week from the federal treasury into the pockets of the heirs to the nation's largest fortunes at a time when thousands of Americans -- many of whom are among the nation's poorest -- have lost everything to Hurricane Katrina and are looking to the government for help.
I just wrote to my senators and urged them not to vote to repeal or gut the Estate Tax. I hope you will join me in telling our elected officials in Washington that now is not the time to be cutting any additional tax monies out of the federal government when so many fellow Americans are in desparate need of financial help.
As many people as possible need to send the same message! Will you join me? Please consider adding your support and your voice. Time is short so act now.
Click this link to take action now!! This message is sponsored by People for the American Way.
The GOP's moving ahead with a plan to further starve federal coffers by calling a vote to repeal the estate tax -- possibly as soon as Tuesday, September 6! This would shift roughly $1.5 billion per week from the federal treasury into the pockets of the heirs to the nation's largest fortunes at a time when thousands of Americans -- many of whom are among the nation's poorest -- have lost everything to Hurricane Katrina and are looking to the government for help.
I just wrote to my senators and urged them not to vote to repeal or gut the Estate Tax. I hope you will join me in telling our elected officials in Washington that now is not the time to be cutting any additional tax monies out of the federal government when so many fellow Americans are in desparate need of financial help.
As many people as possible need to send the same message! Will you join me? Please consider adding your support and your voice. Time is short so act now.
Click this link to take action now!! This message is sponsored by People for the American Way.
Political Activism
12-Aug-05 02:05 PM
Let's get one thing clear from the beginning, I like to talk about Mac vs Microsoft (and other computer topics), politics, religion and several other subjects that are usually considered social taboo. I realize not everyone enjoys engaging in these types of conversations, and that's understandable. My intent is not to argue or to insult anyone in anyway. I am geniunely interested in the mechanics, reasonings and logic behind peoples view points on such topics. I'm interested in knowing "why" you believe what you do and "why" you vote the way you do. I just find it extremely interesting. You have to remember, that as a robot I don't get emotionally involved in these subjects and I like to discuss them purely on their content and logical ramifications. In other words, you aren't going to offend me by your opinion, no matter what it is. Likewise, when I discuss such topics here in this forum, please keep it in perspective and realize I am not attacking anyone personally. Topics of religion and politics are touchy because people do take them quite seriously (as they should), but you have to separate out the discussion of different ideas and philosophies associated with religion and politics from your own personal set of beliefs; that's what I do and as such can discuss them all day long without getting (too) upset.
With that said, allow me to invite each of you to speak out to your Congressmen and Senators to let them know that it is crucially important for the Bush Administration to provide all requested documents by Congress on Judge John Roberts as we go into the confirmation process. Lines are already being drawn in the sand by the two camps with some on the left claiming that he's no good and others on the right are saying that he's perfect for the job. I don't subscribe to either of those views yet because we truly don't know all the facts. It is important that Judge Roberts gets a fair and open confirmation process and the only way that is possible is if we know his idealogies and his principles revealed in his judicial record. The Bush White House must not try to hinder this process by sitting on the facts. They need to provide all of the information necessary for Congress and for the American people to decide if this is the right man for the job.
I have been a bit outspoken in my criticisms of this administration, but it is primarily for reasons like this. They should not try to cover up the facts or stonewall the process of providing critical information needed by Congress. The Administration has an obligation to present all the facts as to why they believe this man is right for the job. It is very arrogant for the President to appoint this man and then to assume that because he has selected him that that negates his responsibility to turn over necessary documents for confirmation. It isn't good enough; we need all the facts. And let's face it, it is a very, very important job at stake and one that affects ALL Americans. We need to get it right.
If you agree with me that Congress should be given access to all the necessary documents pertaining to Judge John Roberts, then please click on this link and join with me in signing a petition telling Congress that we, the American People, expect the Administration to provide these documents as we go into the confirmation process. Some on the far right will try to argue that this is just an attempt to de-rail the confirmation process, but that isn't true. It's about having all of the facts available so that the truth can be known and the proper decisions made. If Judge Roberts is indeed the right man, then there should be nothing to hide and nothing to conceal. Thanks for your time and interest in this important matter that affects us all.
With that said, allow me to invite each of you to speak out to your Congressmen and Senators to let them know that it is crucially important for the Bush Administration to provide all requested documents by Congress on Judge John Roberts as we go into the confirmation process. Lines are already being drawn in the sand by the two camps with some on the left claiming that he's no good and others on the right are saying that he's perfect for the job. I don't subscribe to either of those views yet because we truly don't know all the facts. It is important that Judge Roberts gets a fair and open confirmation process and the only way that is possible is if we know his idealogies and his principles revealed in his judicial record. The Bush White House must not try to hinder this process by sitting on the facts. They need to provide all of the information necessary for Congress and for the American people to decide if this is the right man for the job.
I have been a bit outspoken in my criticisms of this administration, but it is primarily for reasons like this. They should not try to cover up the facts or stonewall the process of providing critical information needed by Congress. The Administration has an obligation to present all the facts as to why they believe this man is right for the job. It is very arrogant for the President to appoint this man and then to assume that because he has selected him that that negates his responsibility to turn over necessary documents for confirmation. It isn't good enough; we need all the facts. And let's face it, it is a very, very important job at stake and one that affects ALL Americans. We need to get it right.
If you agree with me that Congress should be given access to all the necessary documents pertaining to Judge John Roberts, then please click on this link and join with me in signing a petition telling Congress that we, the American People, expect the Administration to provide these documents as we go into the confirmation process. Some on the far right will try to argue that this is just an attempt to de-rail the confirmation process, but that isn't true. It's about having all of the facts available so that the truth can be known and the proper decisions made. If Judge Roberts is indeed the right man, then there should be nothing to hide and nothing to conceal. Thanks for your time and interest in this important matter that affects us all.