I have recently finished my book on modern feminism, called Sexless: How Feminism Is Failing Women.  

It will be available in a week or two.  To whet your appetite, I am offering a short excerpt as a free eBook that you can download right here.  Just click on the Sexless tab at the top of the page, and you can download the free eBook excerpt.  Then, order the book right there with just a click!   After you get a chance to read it, let me know what you think.  Visit Sexless Book now to purchase!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fay Weldon: ‘It’s easier to pick up your husband’s socks and clean the loo’ (telegraph.co.uk)
• “Why Women Continued to Support Ted Kennedy.” (althouse.blogspot.com)

No related posts.

WANTED: President of large country on the verge of adopting socialism. Need to take country over the top. Rudimentary knowledge of economic terms and foreign policy preferred, but not required. Ability to articulate grandiose ideas in English language a plus, but not mandatory if applicant can fake it sufficiently to impress ignorant voters. Must look good in a suit, and be willing to shamelessly pander to desperate, needy people.

Ahhh, so that’s how we ended up with President Obama.

I have often reflected that there is little actual reason for Americans to place their trust, faith, or hope in any President of the United States. Here is why: in reality, the President exercises both too much and too little power. Too much, because the Executive Branch has stepped far outside of its legitimate constitutional role. But in the world of perception, he also exercises too little power: the degree to which most Americans believe that the President controls what happens in both our government and our economy is laughable. So the individual who serves as the President of the United States should not matter to Americans as much as it does.

But not enough Americans even question this. Few point out the reality of this great deceit, least of all the President himself. And of course, our Senators and Congressmen happily go along with this perception: it gives them good cover. Yet if Americans really took a good look at the despicable collection of charlatans who are controlling our national purse-strings, they would all be dumped quite justifiably. It is an incestuous and dangerous relationship that we are witnessing.  Rather than acting as a check on Executive Power as our Founding Fathers intended, our current legislature is handing the President control of the United States on a silver platter.  So much for checks and balances. So much for the United States Constitution.

Do you really think that one man sitting in the Oval Office should control the fate of the United States? HA! But the sad truth is, he can, if we allow it. And that means we are in deep trouble,  because right now, the man who is sitting in that Oval Office not only believes, arrogantly, that he does run the entire country, but that he ought to run the country, and that he is capable of doing it. And Americans seem to be going along with it.

This is all part of a President’s megalomaniacal tendencies.  Only someone with an unbelievably inflated view of himself could endure a presidential race and still hold his head up. And only a narcissist could not be embarrassed and appalled by the near-worship our current President seems to inspire in our more vacant-minded voters.

The future and well-being of 300 million people should never depend upon one man. The fact that we are letting Obama and his cohorts in Congress, abetted by an even more ignorant and agenda-driven press, continue to perpetrate this farce of leadership and governance means that we are already deep into the socialist mire that we thought we foreswore over 40 years ago. It means that we have ceded too much power to that man, and to that Central Committee we call Congress.

Many people believe that the right to vote for these people means that we are free. But that freedom is illusory when anyone in either the Democratic party or the Republican party adopts the position that their duty is to tell Americans what they ought to think and to do. And that is what is happening.  Essentially, our elected officials are deciding exactly where every dollar we earn should be spent. The more we trust these people, and the more we allow our fellow Americans to place their trust in these people, the more we are surrendering our freedom. For what? Under the current regime, we will not even obtain security.

This is the hallmark of socialism. Take a look around. People are actually begging for Obama and the rest of that resource-sapping behemoth of a federal government to provide a solution to their woes. They are debating between themselves which ideas are going to work, and which ideas are going to fail. They are debating about which of these ideas, regardless of merit, will be implemented by a Congress whose entire track-record demonstrates an uninterrupted history of mishandling, misdirecting, and porking out every single piece of legislation they pass. They are debating as though the government is responsible for America’s success as a country. They are debating as though effective results can be achieved not through leadership, commitment, and a willingness to undertake difficult and unpleasant tasks, but through pandering, cronyism, and salesmanship. People are serious. People are passionate. And they are wasting their time.

The reality is: no President and no politician can really help America if every American behaves like a weak, powerless sheep within a flock of weak, powerless sheep. Sure, it would be nice to just put our heads down and graze while somebody else takes care of the wolves, but to do that Americans need to be sure that the shepherds’ interests coincide with the sheep’s. And right now, they don’t. Right now, the shepherds are negotiating with the wolves over how to divide the mutton.

The only way America is going to get out of this mess is if Americans completely divorce themselves from reliance upon the government for a solution. This is not to say that there is no solution; in fact, there are some really bright minds out there talking about the economy. But who is listening to them? Who is supporting them? Not our political leadership. No, instead our political leadership is so caught up in their desperate drive to do something lest they risk losing their death-grip on power that they will never honestly concede their own ignorance.

The bottom line, America, is this:  if you want to ride a bicycle, do you read a book about it, or do you learn from someone who can ride a bicycle then get on the bike and ride yourself? Because right now, America is hanging its future on a bunch of people who not only do not know how to ride, they haven’t even read a book on the subject, let alone written one.

It is patently stupid for Americans to put their faith in Obama and this Congress to resolve the economic meltdown we are experiencing. It is just this sort of head-in-the-sand trust of our government that got us where we are. What experience does Obama have running anything? Where is his successful track record? And where is the history lesson can he point to that shows—anywhere—that spending over a trillion dollars on projects that produce NOTHING that anyone would willingly pay for will somehow revive a tanking economy? Is that the model Germany and Japan followed to overcome the economic devastation they suffered after World War II? Hardly. Sony, Mitsubishi, Porsche, and Siemens do not produce “shovel ready” infrastructure projects. They produce things that people buy. They produce . . . wealth and prosperity.

Let the deadbeats and do-nothings depend on government. How meaningful is their freedom, when every aspect of their lives depends upon the caprice of a condescending government? As for the rest of us, it is time to roll up our sleeves, get off of our collective duff, and get to work. America is not our government. America is us.

Coming soon: RedBloodedAmericanGirl’s book “5 Things Every American Can Do to Make America Better”

No related posts.

As a relatively new Twitterer, and as an observer of new Twitterers learning the ropes, it has become clear to me that there is a definite Twitter Metamorphosis. While some people seem to be hopelessly stuck at the caterpillar stage (indeed, this seems to be terminal for some Twitterers), I offer this analysis of the Five Stages of Twitter Metamorphosis to encourage newbies to persevere:

Huh, What? is the first stage. You have just signed up, and about all you can think to do is enter some pathetic update like: “I just joined Twitter.” That’s okay. You have no idea what you are doing. You stare at your own profile page with its lone statement, or you look at the entries of a general conversation, and you are not sure what to do. Who are these people? Why are they writing and who is bothering to read what they write?  Big deal.

Yeah, Whatever is the second stage. Now, you have actually started to follow some people, and maybe a few people have followed you. You respond now and then, and maybe some people respond to you. But so what? You still don’t know why anybody is bothering. Twitter seems like a bunch of people making disjointed statements to no one in particular, and you begin to suspect a lot of Twitterers are friendless hermits sitting in front of their computers stuck in their own little Twitter worlds. That, or Twitter fanatics with 20,000 followers who are Web 2.0 geeks.  And at least one quarter of your followers are people who clicked on your name so that they could sell you on some online MLM business that you have absolutely no interest in. You join in conversations now and then, but you still don’t quite see what all the fuss is about.

Hey, This is Kind of Fun is the third stage. You have had a few useful exchanges, and maybe connected to a few funny, interesting, or useful people, links, or websites. You got into a really great conversation about one of the trending topics. You are starting to make some friends; you get a feel for the sort of people some of your connections are. You become interested in who else is out there, and start to do a little searching for people to follow. You think it’s cool that someone starts to follow you: it is an affirmation of the value of your tweets. You have figured out how to express yourself in 140 characters or less. You form opinions about who is worth following, and who is not, and you begin to see who is on the top of the Twitter heap, and why. You keep Twitter open on your desktop, and join in whenever something catches your eye. When something interesting happens during the day, you go to your computer and tweet it.

Help! I’m Twiddicted! is the fourth stage. As you begin to enjoy Twitter, you slowly spend more and more of your day tweeting. Without realizing it, your twittering has blossomed into a full-blown addiction. Through the magic of re-tweeted links, you have now found out about Mr. Tweet, TwitterGrader, Twitsnip, Twitpic, twitterfeed, tweetscan, twitteriffic, twellow, twubble, grouptweet, tweetstats, tweetlater, twittervision, tweetburner, twitbin, qwitter, twitter-karma, twitscoop, tweetbeep, and more. You must conquer them all. The Twitter home page is passé, so you use Tweetdeck, Twitterfox, Tweetgrid, or twitterfon, or all of them. You dread the thought of missing a good picture, video, or link. When you tweet good night, you don’t actually go to bed, but still add about ten more updates before you are completely exhausted and need to go. You eat with Twitter. You feel validated when your twitter grade goes up by a tenth of a point. You create custom backgrounds, change your avatar every day, and customize all your colors. You avidly search for the coolest tweeters, follow them, and feel like you’ve scored a major coup if they follow you back, even if they follow 8,000 other people. Rather than simply tweeting the things you happen upon, you actively try to find the funniest and cleverest links to tweet so that everyone will @you, and you answer everyone who DMs you. You look down with pity on newbie twitterers who thank their new followers by @name because they are committing a hopeless faux pas of Twitter etiquette. You have become so proficient at using text acronyms that you can convey the entire contents of a three page document in exactly 140 characters. You don’t want to talk on the phone to your friends; if they have anything worth telling you, they should tweet it, FCOL. You measure your worth by the number of followers you have and the number of @replies that say ROFLMAO.

Now I Get It is the fifth and, thankfully, final stage. I think. You see Twitter as a useful and enjoyable personal, professional, and social tool. Twitter is like being at an enormous cocktail party with hundreds of casual friends and acquaintances, only you don’t feel any social awkwardness and don’t care how you’re dressed or what your hair looks like. It is okay to be a wallflower and just read a conversation.Or you might decide to engage in a more intimate conversation with one or two people. Or maybe you want to join a large discussion. You come and go as you please, and you do not feel compelled to have something amazingly clever to say. You know when to talk and when to read. You can spend an entire day or more without tweeting, and you’re okay with it. You notice when it is a nice day outside, and actually go out and enjoy it. You know the Twitter party is always there when you want to attend.

Twitter is now your friend. Welcome to Twitter!

Related articles by Zemanta

• 50 Top Tweets of January 2009 (thenextweb.com)
• Getting Local With Twitter (agentgenius.com)

No related posts.

I usually write all my own blog material, rather than quote others or cite some other source just to fill space and keep current.  However, today I am making an exception, for reasons that will be clear when you read this.  While I have not verified this independently, I understand that this is a real letter that a small businessman wrote to his employees.  It expresses more eloquently and poignantly than I can the crossroads we are at as a country:  whether we will continue to encourage in the human spirit those values and ideals that made America great and prosperous, or whether we will sacrifice those virtues in exchange for the mediocrity and pudgy, starch-fed lethargy that have become the hallmarks of the citizens of the semi-socialist European countries.  The choice is before us.

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.

However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact, which might help you decide what is in your best interests.

First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back-story. This back-story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You’ve seen my big home at last year’s Christmas party. I’m sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.

However, what you don’t see is the back-story.

I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn’t have time to date. Oftentimes, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom’s for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn’t look like it was birthed in the 70’s. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don’t. There is no “off” button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden — the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations . . . you never realize the back-story and the sacrifices I’ve made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn’t. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.

Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I’ve paid is steep and not without wounds.

Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don’t pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my “stimulus” check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you’d quit and you wouldn’t work here. I mean, why should you? That’s nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.

Here is what many of you don’t understand . . . to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn’t need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don’t defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.

So where am I going with all this?

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child’s future. Frankly, it isn’t my problem any more.

Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire.. You see, I’m done. I’m done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

So, if you lose your job, it won’t be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever.

If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about . . .

Signed,

Your boss

CJ Galiano

No related posts.

Why must the United States government come up with the most convoluted ways of wasting our taxpayer dollars? They always seem to risk our welfare with a Hail Mary play when a simple hand-off would do the job.
When the Big Three Automakers found themselves in trouble and wanted $15 billion, an idea immediately sprang to my mind that would have solved the problem simply, elegantly, and effectively. It would not have increased taxes for Americans one penny. In fact, I could have made money for the government. And I would have helped the environment, too, and saved a lot of jobs. Let me explain.
First, the U.S. loans me $15 billion. I agree to pay it back with 10% simple interest return.
Second, I buy 600,000 hybrid vehicles from GM, Chrysler, and Ford, at $25,000 per vehicle. I will even buy through a wide swath of U.S. dealers, so the dealers get their cut. The U.S. Government provides that no taxes will be owed on these vehicles, since they will be making 10% interest. First benefit: This means that the UAW, auto company execs, and dealers actually have to work for the money, which is what they should do in order to get any money and stay employed.
Third, I start a nationwide lottery. I will only sell 180 million tickets, or 300 tickets per vehicle, at $100 per ticket. Granted, that is a lot of tickets at a high price, but every ticket will have a 1/300 chance of winning an automobile; that’s pretty good odds. There would be no limit on the number of tickets a person could buy, and every ticket would provide a chance at any car, but an individual could not win more than one car. Second benefit: purchase of the tickets, unlike a tax, is completely voluntary, meaning that no one is required to support this program.

Fourth, the revenue from the tickets, if all sold, would be $18 billion. I could use about half a billion dollars to pay a raft of employees to administer this lottery. I could pay 5,000 people $80,000, leaving enough for overhead that would filter out into the economy through other purchases. Third benefit: lucrative employment for lots of Americans and lots of money moving through the economy.
Fifth, I would repay the U.S. government $16.5 billion. Fourth benefit: Instead of adding to the national debt, this would create a profit for the government.
Sixth, the winners of the 600,000 hybrid vehicles would replace 600,000 of their older gas vehicles. Fifth benefit: for those enviro-nuts, this would mean a much more rapid deployment of hybrid vehicles into our country than would happen if we waited for Americans to do it on their own.
Seventh, I would pocket a cool $1 billion for being smarter, more effective and less wasteful than the entire United States Congress. That’s not a big accomplishment, I know, but it also achieves the Sixth benefit: the taxpayers would be happy that their government did not rip them off again, and therefore they would be less inclined to can their Congressmen and Senators. More jobs saved!
In fact, this is such a good proposal I think I’ll send it to my congressman. I could use a billion dollars.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How much do we really owe in federal financial obligations?
• Chrysler Spending Bailout Money on Product Placement, Ads Thanking You For Money
• Will we see a Bank of American Taxpayers?

No related posts.

The New York Times recently published an editorial by Nicholas Kristof citing several studies showing that conservatives not only give more money to charity overall, but give a greater percentage of their income to charity (“Bleeding Heart Tightwads,” Dec. 20, 2008). And lest anyone makes assumptions that people with more money need tax write-offs and are more likely to be conservative, let me add that the studies also concluded that: the working poor give a greater percentage of their income to charity; conservatives more often volunteer to help charitable causes than liberals; and conservatives donate more blood than liberals. Thus, the amount of money one has is not an accurate proxy for calculating how charitable one is.

To anyone but a conservative, these findings are probably a surprise. That is because there is a world of difference between what political conservatives and political liberals regard as “compassion.” In a nutshell: to the conservative, compassion is simply helping a poor person in need; to the liberal, it is telling someone richer than he is to help a poor person in need.

For many years now, the liberals have been able to bank, politically, on the notion that you can be “compassionate” simply by wanting to help the poor—whether or not you actually help them. Thus, the liberal Congressman casts himself as compassionate because the liberal wants to give one person’s money to another person under the mistaken notion that the other person deserves it more than the person who had it in the first place. In comparison, the conservative politician is cast as a stingy, greedy, heartless individual simply because he does not see why the government should be allowed to take one person’s earnings and give it to another person.

This has translated down into our culture as well, so that one can call himself “compassionate” not because he himself shows compassion, but simply because he votes for liberal politicians and favors liberal causes. The essence of the liberal’s position vis-à-vis the needy is not, “I will help you,” but instead “I will force someone else to help you.” Through this subterfuge, the liberal can rationalize to himself that he is doing his part to help the needy. Thus, Mr. Kristof casts Democrats as those “who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless,” and Republicans as “the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.” But what Mr. Kristof fails to appreciate is that he is merely exposing his own impoverished viewpoint. To him, government policy, alone, constitutes the sum of America’s social conscience.

Time and again, I am confronted by this crabbed imitation of true compassion. What the liberals fail to realize is that you can neither stimulate nor salve a conscience through enforced “charity.” It is neither “compassionate” nor “charitable” to compel a wealthy person to give portions of his bounty to the downtrodden. It is nobler and more rewarding to give freely—something that conservatives apparently understand better than liberals, judging by the studies.

But even more, compassion is not about money, and money is not how to measure moral obligation. In the end, the only rational assessment of the liberal-inspired masquerade of compassion is that it has nothing at all to do with true compassion, but is simply a sterile and completely misguided egalitarian notion of wealth redistribution. Compassion is a human virtue, and a human emotion. The government, being an institution, is not capable of bestowing compassion. It is neither “compassionate” nor “charitable” to give a poor person a government-issued check or voucher to which he is entitled simply by virtue of meeting a laundry list of objective criteria.

This is precisely why the liberals cling to government handouts rather than encourage and rely upon private charities. Their own elitist pride cannot entertain the idea that anyone might have to entreat anyone else for charity. Instead, it is much more comfortable to submit a form to a cold and faceless institution under the pretense that you are entitled to it, where you will not be subjected to anyone’s judgment or pity.

Granted, it is difficult for those in need to ask for help; it is humbling and, occasionally, humiliating. But I wonder: is it really better to sanitize our society of experiencing these less enjoyable aspects of our own humanity? Having to humble oneself may not be fun, but it is self-enlightening. And it is tremendously motivating. Confronting our own weaknesses is one of the ways we develop character.

But under the current system of government-sponsored “compassion,” we have fostered an environment where no one has to deal with his own weaknesses. Thus, everyone, including corporate America, is lining up at the government trough as though their well-being is an entitlement owed to them not through any merit or worthiness, but simply because they have suffered a setback and are more shameless in their pursuit of government handouts. The notion of entitlement even saves them from the inconvenience of having to feel or express any gratitude. Is this really an adequate substitute for dignity?

It is not that liberal individuals themselves are all stingy. In fact, as a general matter, all Americans are very generous when it comes to helping people all around the world, particularly when natural disasters strike. But there is a problem with the liberal concept of what constitutes compassion. They convey the completely mistaken notion that, somehow, one person’s financial well-being alone creates an obligation to give money to others, as though only the wealthy bear responsibility for society’s social problems and that the wealthy therefore need to feel guilty about their good fortune or success. The liberal is more apt to behave as though giving up your money is how you can prove to them that you are not a greedy, selfish jerk. But a bank account is not the same thing as a conscience.

In the end, the liberal’s concept of compassion is a tremendous insult to mankind, and demonstrates a decided lack of respect for his fellow man. It is based on a belief not in man’s goodness, but in his baseness. Thus, “charity” must be mandated by the liberal because he does not trust people to do what is right through the force of their own consciences. Instead, people are compelled to be “good” in spite of themselves, and those with more money have to be “better” than everyone else. And there’s the rub: forcing someone to do anything is to remove all human will, good or bad. In short, the liberal concept of compassion is the antithesis of real compassion, because it removes volition from the equation completely.

And that is the ultimate irony. Perhaps what the charity studies cited by Mr. Kristof really demonstrate is that liberals simply ignore the promptings of conscience that should motivate them to shoulder moral obligations themselves. Instead, they translate those pangs into railroading the rest of America into succumbing to a raft of government mandates according to what they deem is “fair.” They believe that this counterfeit compassion is a sufficient surrogate for the character and conscience that they lack, but that most other Americans possess in abundance. If liberals truly understood dignity, they would feel humiliated by what their politics say about them.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Red Cross: Free Travel for Lucky Blood Donors
• Facebook Inspires Donor Drive

No related posts.

An American taxpayer is walking down the street. Suddenly, out of nowhere and without warning, a smelly, dirty, ragged, homeless thug hopped up on drugs steps out in front of him, hits him in the face, grabs his wallet, and then proceeds to kick and beat him just shy of senseless before running away. The poor taxpayer is left lying on the sidewalk, all bloody and bruised.

Immediately afterward, Eric Holder comes walking by, and sees him. He stops and asks what happened. The taxpayer tells him, and Holder says:

“Gee, I’d like to help you, but, see, I’m the Attorney General, and if you decide to pursue any legal action with regard to this incident, there’s a chance that my office may be involved in the case. So I’m sorry, but if by any chance you pull through, it really is in everyone’s best interest that I remain personally uninvolved in anything having to do with your situation. I’m only thinking of you. Good luck.”

Eric Holder continues walking down the street, pleased that he has avoided any conflicts of interest.

Next, Tom Daschle walks by, sees the poor taxpayer, and also asks what happened. So the taxpayer tells him, and he responds:

“Well, that is interesting. You do look to be in bad shape, and as the Director of Health and Human Services, let me just say that it is a really good thing that we now have nationalized healthcare to take care of people in your situation. Here, take this stack of forms and fill them out in triplicate. And especially make sure you read and sign the forms having to do with forgoing most of your rights. Then, make a copy for yourself, mail one set to the Office of National Healthcare in Washington, D.C., then bring the other copy to a medical facility approved and certified by our office of national healthcare. They’re all over the place: at least one in every state. Then, when they have checked your paperwork, if it is all correctly filled out, they will send you a form that allows you to request an appointment. Don’t worry, in a situation like yours, I am sure that you will be seen by an approved doctor or other medical professional within six to eight weeks. I’m just glad I could be here to help.”

Tom Daschle continues walking down the street, satisfied that he has, once again, been of tremendous service to the American taxpayer.

Next, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walks by, sees the taxpayer, and asks what happened. The taxpayer tells her. She says:

“Wait. This does not make sense. What did you do to provoke him?”

The taxpayer says, “Nothing. I was just walking along.”

With a knowing grin, Hillary replies, “That is a very short-sighted view of the situation. You see, what you fail to appreciate is the historical perspective that has led up to this confrontation. The reality is that civilized, rational people simply do not behave in the way you described. Ipso facto, you are therefore ignoring your part in the overall oppression of not only this man individually, but all men, women, and children like him who are entirely justified in their feelings of powerlessness, alienation, and disenfranchisement. Moreover, if you bothered to read the newspaper, you would realize that there are muggers in this city. Ergo, you have also failed to appreciate that this entire episode could have been avoided if you had taken the necessary preventative measures.

“And let me just add this: it is abundantly clear to me that you did not even try to talk to this guy, to find out, by openly, willingly, and proactively approaching him through diplomatic means, if there was some common ground upon which you could base a meaningful dialog that would result in a viable win-win scenario. No, it is more than obvious to anyone but the most addle-brained idiot that you, yourself, must bear the greater share of responsibility for the situation you find yourself in. All this bloodshed could have been avoided if you had demonstrated, from the outset, your willingness to meet him at least halfway in genuine sympathy to the plight in which you have played a significant part in placing him. Here, take my card. Next time, before you get mugged, call me, and let me handle the negotiations for you from now on.”

Hillary then continues walking down the street, shaking her head and muttering, “Amateurs.”

Finally, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid walk by and see the poor taxpayer in the street. Shocked by what they see, they stop and ask him what happened. Once again, the taxpayer explains. Barack Obama crouches down and says:

“Let me get this straight. You say you were beat up by a homeless drug-addict who took all your money?”

The taxpayer nods. Barack Obama continues to ask questions, getting a full description of the man who beat up the taxpayer. Finally, he, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid look at each other with concern. Barack Obama excuses himself, and the three engage in a quick, quiet conference. Finally, Barack crouches down again and tells the taxpayer,

“Look. This is terrible. Unforgiveable. Don’t worry about a thing. All three of us are in agreement. We are going to go out right now, and find the man who did this to you. And help him.”

www.RedBloodedAmericanGirl.com

No related posts.

For some reason, I receive Parenting Magazine. I have never subscribed to it. I know that for a fact—this is not some, “Gee, I subscribe to so many, I don’t remember” things. The reason I know is that I have only ever subscribed to two magazines in the last 10 years. Who has time to read magazines? Besides, the two I do subscribe to I only subscribe to because they were ridiculously cheap offers, and I was hoping to find a few recipes in them. That’s all I want. If a year’s subscription nets me at least five recipes that the family likes and that I know will be keepers, I feel the whole effort has been worth it. Believe me, finding a recipe for a meal that the whole family will eat—with six individuals ages 50 down to 1 year—is a major accomplishment.

But getting back to this magazine: the problem is that I feel like I have to at least give each issue a quick perusal before I toss it out. Now, to be fair, there are some useful things in Parenting magazine. But for some reason, the whole tone of the magazine sticks in my craw. I’m not sure what it is, exactly, but I think it is the assumptions the magazine makes about the parents who may be reading it. There’s this whole presumption that you’re, well . . . kind of an idiot. It is amazing how many things in the magazine are things that should not have to be said to a parent if that parent has any sense. I don’t mean everything, of course; but overall the editorial perspective seems to assume things about the modern American household that are entirely foreign to our own modern American household. I suppose that is why the people who read Parenting magazine are having all the problems that Parenting magazine talks about: they need someone to save them from their own foolishness.

Well, over Christmas I was doing a run-through of the back-issues stacked up here, and I came across an article from the October issue that just cements the whole problem for me. It is an article about a book called “Eat This, Not That,” and the book is billed as a guide for kids. Across the top of the book is a bright yellow banner stating “Be the Leanest, Fittest Family on the Block!” Sounds okay so far, right? Only the book is not a guide to teach kids about basic nutrition, or about which foods you can eat to address specific health issues or concerns. Instead, it is a book about which menu items are better choices at fast food franchises and chain restaurants, and which pre-packaged processed foods are better for you. No . . . I’m not kidding.

According to the article, the book has all sorts of fascinating tidbits that would surprise moms, like the fact that a greasy Arby’s Melt with some sort of concoction labeled “cheese sauce” is, despite artificial colorings and chemical preservatives, a better choice than a less-greasy and seemingly more healthful Arby’s Roasted Turkey and Swiss Sandwich, which has more calories, more fat, and more sodium. It explains how Spaghetti-Os are better than Kraft Macaroni & Cheese. To be fair, I have never read the book. I have only read a four page article about the book. But believe me, that is enough.

The article actually states, and I quote: “It is not the culture that is endangering our children’s health. It’s the food.” Huh, what? I thought food was part of our culture. But my take is: it is not the food that is endangering our children’s health, it is the parents, if they are the ones feeding their children this glop.

Now my husband and I, like many urban parents these days, sometimes find our family having to eat on the go. Sure, there is the occasional fast-food hamburger or taco. But the key word is “occasional.” We’re talking, oh, maybe . . . once a month? And as for eating out rather than cooking at home: are you kidding? If there is anyone in America who believes you can be truly healthy eating chain restaurant food, or who would want to feed canned and boxed processed meals to their children on a regular basis in the belief that they are providing healthy fare, they are simply being willfully ignorant.

Now, the book may be an interesting catalog of information on its own, especially when it comes to outing misconceptions about fast food. After all, it surely is curious to note that an order of Taco Bell’s deep-fried chicken grilled taquitos is less fattening than a chicken quesadilla. And it might be handy to have around to show your teenage daughter how awful that cheeseburger really is, or to sit together leafing through the book to say “eeeyeeww” at how amazingly atrocious most fast food and processed food is. But, the magazine article and book do not cast themselves as a compendium of strange and disgusting facts; instead, they seem to regard the book as a serious reference tool.

The bottom line is this: if you are eating fast food or processed food so much that the recommendations in this book are actually going to make a difference in your diet, you are probably already in big blood-congealing, heart-stopping trouble. I cannot imagine for the life of me that anyone who cares about health would actually use the book as a menu guide. If you care enough about your family’s diet to buy the book, it seems to me the only sensible thing to do is read it through once, then decide ever after to avoid all chain restaurants, and consign all your processed foods to the garbage can, never to be bought or consumed again. This book is like telling you that cyanide is more painless than strychnine.

And, heaven forbid, if the meals discussed in the book really do make up your regular family fare, for goodness’ sake, you are probably better off not knowing what you are putting in your body. For those who truly want to eat healthily, but don’t have a clue what you ought to be feeding your children, don’t buy the book. Here, I’ll give you some advice for free that is tremendously more healthful than the book, and it will only take about eight seconds of your time: cut out all sodas, all foods and drinks with added sugar of any form, cut out processed foods, and stop eating at restaurants, then replace them with home-made meals made from fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, whole natural grains, and natural meats. Add a bit of TLC, and you will save yourself a lot of time, money, doctor’s bills, and fat farm visits.

As I said above, almost every family and every individual, even those who are generally health conscious, probably indulge in the occasional fast food meal now and then. But it seems to me that it is a sort of guilty pleasure, and one you usually regret within about two hours, anyway. And while I can appreciate the novelty of finding out that that I would be better off ordering a chicken sandwich than a Caesar salad: what fun is that? If I can’t enjoy the indulgence of eating something I just have a craving for, however unhealthy it is, then there’s no point to the exercise. Just give me my double-double animal style fix every couple of months, and I’m good.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Top Five Cheapest–But Least Healthy–Fast Food Choices
• Cheap Meal Ideas – 3 Alternatives to Fast Food
• Penny-Wise And Health Foolish Fast Foods

No related posts.

It may seem uncharitable during this Christmas season to write an essay that is basically a rant, but I cannot help it. I went to the store to buy a traditional Christmas card—not a box of cards, but just one card, a special Christmas card—to hold some movie passes we bought as a gift for our babysitter. Our babysitter, like us, is Catholic. Or, shall we say, we are all practicing Catholics, as it seems that in this modern world, there is a not-so-small distinction between practicing and non-practicing Catholics.

And in this store, which shall remain unnamed, I could not find a single card that was remotely reminiscent of, well, Christmas. The card section was overflowing with Santas, snowmen, reindeer, trees, ornaments, stockings, snowy villages, wrapped gifts, and so on. Now, I do not want to be too presumptuous here, but doesn’t Christmas have something to do with a very special baby being born in a manger in Bethlehem?  You would never know from the card selection.

To make matters worse, the Christmas card section had a separate heading for “religious” cards. I understand when there are separate “religious” headings for birthdays, mother’s day, or even weddings, but putting up a separate heading of “religious” for Christmas is incredibly irritating, as though Christmas is first a secular holiday, and only incidentally related to religion. After all, the day is named after Christ, in case anybody cared to notice. I mean, how come the Hanukkah cards did not have a separate “religious” section? This, to me, is like having a “religious” section for baptism cards.

But even in the religious section, I could not find a suitable card. One had a gilded angel, but the only one that showed a manger scene was a sort of cartoon depiction of the blessed event. Now, a child’s drawing of the Nativity may be cute and dear if it is drawn by one of your own children or by a young niece or nephew, but a printed, mass-produced, happy-face line-drawing card is distinctly lacking in the sort of reverence and solemnity I had been hoping to convey as a proper commemoration of the day.

I am now thoroughly sick of the blatant effort of “progressive” malcontents to suck any vestige of Christ out of Christmas whenever it may appear in any public forum, even in a shopping mall. Apparently, only a fragment of these frantic, harried shoppers scrambling to conquer their gifts lists believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God.  But after all, the fact that we—those of us who are Christian—share gifts is specifically to emulate those Three Wise Men who gave gifts to the holy child. Since this is where the Christmas gift-giving tradition originated, it seems remarkably peevish to nevertheless celebrate the day with friends and family, yet simultaneously resent Christmas’ religious significance.

Nothing seems to escape. Christmas music is also being sanitized with more and more “seasonal” songs. I enjoy a good old croon as much as anybody, but apparently it is becoming taboo to play traditional carols that mention Jesus, Mary, angels, or God. We are getting plenty of Bing’s White Christmas and Dino’s Winter Wonderland, and, I shudder, a selection of today’s hip young wailers destroying some modern classic with grating vocal gymnastics. But for the most part, gone are any carols with references to that first Christmas, it seems, except for instrumental versions. Heaven forbid—excuse me, earth forbid—that Christians should be allowed to acknowledge just what we are celebrating.

And that’s dreadful. Because here in our home, we are trying to raise our children to view Christmas in the proper light. Of course it is a time that they receive presents, but it is also a time to give presents, to remember what those presents signify, to spend time with those we love and to show our love not only by giving gifts to friends and family, but giving also to those who are less fortunate whom we don’t know. But it is difficult to convey even this small lesson to our children, when so many people they see are simply engaged in a frenzy of ill-tempered consumption. It is galling, to say the least, to have a day that we regard as spiritually meaningful secularized to the point, not of meaninglessness, but worse: of meaning something that is the opposite of what it ought to mean.

I certainly do not want to imply that everyone must celebrate Christmas as we do. Rather, all those of other faiths, agnostics, or atheists should simply and respectfully allow those of us who do believe to celebrate the birth of the Christ child consistent with our time-honored traditions.  I suppose I have no strong objections, in the abstract, to anyone who wants to celebrate Christmas in their own way.  But I do not understand why Christians must therefore be forced to forsake any mention of Christ when that is the whole point of  our holiday. It seems rather ridiculous for non-Christians to get so exercised about it by militantly insisting upon a holiday filled only with cartoon Santas, inane music, and generic “holiday” greetings.

Atheists could hold their own holiday, which I would most happily ignore out of respect for their beliefs. They could celebrate Darwin’s birthday, for example, by sending each other cards with pictures of chimps and singing about the wonders of stepping forth from a blob of primordial slime. But it is the height of irony, isn’t it, that those who would denigrate Christianity bring more attention to Christmas day, and, not incidentally, to themselves, by their boorish anti-religious behavior and even more boorish insistence on the importance of Christmas by their unceasing efforts to secularize it completely. Rather like mohawked, tattooed, and pierced “non-conformists”, if they weren’t so antagonistically obsessed with what conformity IS, they might realize how silly and foolish they looked.

So I say to all of you out there who joyously celebrate the birth of Jesus in the best Christmas tradition:  I share your joy on this special day.  And I wish to everyone in the world–yes, everyone–a very Merry Christmas.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The joy of celebrating a godless Christmas.
• Is Christmas Only for Christians?

No related posts.

A lot of people talk these days about how much they care about one cause or another. They are plastered all over the covers of magazines. Some people want to save the planet, others want to help all the starving children in Africa, or to free the people of Tibet, or oppose the atrocities in Darfur. I do not want to make light of these things; they are serious matters, (that is, all but the first one). But I’m not sure all this caring about the whole world is actually making the world a better place.

In particular, I am bemused by people who seem to make a contest of simply caring. They will say and do anything to prove that they care. They study what they care about; rarely do they question what they study, but they study, anyway. And when you run into those people, let me warn you: do not try to compete. They care about everything more than you do. They care so much that they buy T-shirts, bumper stickers, jeweled brooches shaped like ribbons, rubber bracelets, and baseball caps. This way, you can see that they care by what they wear, even if they have never been within 1,000 miles of what they care about. Apparently, their willingness to wear obnoxious fashion accessories is intended to demonstrate to the rest of the world how selfless they are.

Lots of people also care by going to balls, dances, dinners, speeches, rock concerts, and rallies. Sure, it may just look like they are having a lot of fun with their friends and rubbing elbows with a bunch of celebrities, but, for them, this is “charity work.” Mother Teresa, it would appear, had nothing on them.

I would guess that at least half the stars in Hollywood have entered into some sort of implicit caring contest. They all search for a unique cause that they pin their names on: for some its animals, for others it’s one disease or another, and so on. Now that AIDS is passé, they are madly scrambling to try and find some unique niche that has not been staked out by an even more illustrious celebrity. I can appreciate the fact that some of them believe their famous names can be used to bring needed public attention to serious matters, but even then, I cannot fathom why all of America needs to care about every problem in the world.

I can also applaud when someone donates money to this or that worthwhile cause. Everyone should endeavor to be charitable. However, it is incorrect to presume that this is the moral equivalent of a “good work,” as that term is properly understood. Going to a rock concert to benefit the victims of a tsunami is, well . . . it is simply going to a rock concert. And as for the performing band: they are simply doing what they usually do, they are just not making their normal profit for a night’s work. That may be commendable, but is not the same thing as bringing a poor man on the street a hot bowl of soup and a pair of shoes.

I do not want to belittle the benefits of providing funds to worthy causes (assuming that the money actually gets there), I simply find it disturbing that people necessarily equate this sort of sterile “giving” to more concrete virtues. In particular, it is easy to be generous when your bank account shows six or seven zeroes before the decimal point, but it is hard for me to get exercised about a faraway cause, or to feel guilt when I decide some cause does not justify more than an honorable mention in my nightly prayer intentions. If people have the time and wherewithal to be extravagantly generous, more power to them, but I sincerely wish these people would spare me the wisdom of their worldly insights as though I have some personal obligation to share their passion du jour.

It is especially galling when some of the same individuals who try to preach about our “humanitarian” obligations simultaneously treat the humans around them—spouses, children, family members, friends, and associates—like expendable or inconvenient appendages that can be cast aside in pursuit of some other goal. This is simply moral confusion. It is easy to care about pet causes when that is what they are: pets. Like having a pet dog, these people can just dump some food in their pet’s bowl, then pat their heads now and then when it suits their needs and makes them feel better. It is a much more commendable, if less glamorous, thing to bear the daily responsibility of being a dependable, patient, forgiving, present, caring, and loving spouse, parent, child, sibling, neighbor, and friend. Dedication to a grand cause, in the way these people do it, is an indulgence. As a matter of fact, I sometimes think their zeal for these causes is directly proportionate to the guilt they feel for being obscenely wealthy or dissolute.

By questioning the worthiness of this hip trend toward caring for every outlandish and far-flung cause under the sun, I certainly do not wish to tar everyone with the same brush. There are very many wealthy people who are also good people, who feel that giving toward a worthy cause is the right thing to do given their good fortune, and it is their way of sharing their bounty with others less fortunate. But I would just as soon dispense with the insinuations of people whose overt caring is manifestly aimed at making normal, hardworking, middle-class Joes believe that they really need to care or do something about some injustice operating 6,000 miles away. Caring about such things is truly a luxury for those with too much time on their hands, and one that many normal people cannot, and need not, afford.

For those of us who are simply trying to provide a safe and nurturing home for our families, with enough food to eat and enough financial security to see our way through an uncertain future, the welfare of Tibetan exiles comes in, oh, a distant fiftieth or sixtieth place on our lists of priorities. My own moral obligations are pretty well staked out between these four walls; what is not covered here is generally spent in my church, my neighborhood, and my town. After all, if I simply take a short drive, I encounter plenty of people within eyeshot that would clearly benefit from a kind word or deed. Beyond that, there is little room or time in my life for pie-in-the-sky world-saving. I will leave that to the super-heroes of Hollywood and Manhattan.

However, I sincerely wish that these people, like any good superheroes, would hide their true identities and accept thanks from those they have helped as reward enough. Not only do I have no authority or desire to canonize such worthies, I would respect them more if their efforts did not seem so palpably calculated to provide some depth to their otherwise shallow and superficial public personae.

Let me be clear: I am all for caring. But just caring about some obscure cause does little, by itself, to create a better world. All of this energy and money given over to publicity and charitable “events” might be better spent modestly lending a helping hand or sympathetic ear to one’s downtrodden neighbors. Compassion requires a human hand, and a human face. And that human face should not be of Benjamin Franklin, peering out from a hundred dollar bill, spent on a trendy T-shirt intended to show the world how much you “care.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ben Affleck Do-Gooding in Congo, Africa
• Naomi Is Not Wanted

No related posts.

Now that the Senate has shot down the first $15 billion auto bailout package, members of Congress are busy pitching new ideas all over the place in the hopes of selling a more palatable plan to America than just throwing money at the problem. After seeing the banks take our money and run, Congress thinks it has wised up to the foolishness of freely handing out money to people who have a decidedly poor record of fiscal wisdom. So despite willfully blinding itself to that economic reality, Congress now labors under the delusion that it has figured out its own idiocy.

Not wanting to get burned twice, these geniuses in Congress believe that the best way to protect the federal purse-strings is to tell the Big Three how they ought to structure their companies as a condition of receiving our tax dollars. While some of the ideas being floated around may sound like good policies, as a general matter, they are giving me a tremendously bitter taste. I have grave misgivings with the idea of the federal government lending money to these companies under any circumstances whatsoever.

I’m no fan of the UAW’s extortionate and pork-laden contracts, and I do not endorse the idea of freely giving handouts. But this currently trending notion toward providing management advice is a dangerous idea for a number of reasons, and those reasons can be condensed into four main objections.

First, if Congress does not trust these companies with cash, it needs to ask itself why. In other words, if the management of these companies does not know already how to operate their concerns without huge losses, then is it really wise for Congress to help these companies spend themselves out of this current crisis under any condition? Further, to make any loan conditions meaningful, what is the recourse? When all the money is gone and the companies go under—despite all the conditions—how does Congress exact its pound of flesh? Oh, there is no real recourse, is there? We are simply putting brain-dead companies on life-support.

Second, by placing conditions on how these companies will operate, Congress is injecting itself into the micromanagement of these nominally private enterprises, which brings us one step closer to the nationalization of private industry. It is one thing to tell all companies that they must provide healthcare and a minimum wage. It is another thing to tell specific companies exactly how and what to provide as compensation and benefits, how much to compensate their executives, and how to structure their retirement packages. For the sake of our economy, I would not want the Big Three to fail. But socialism is a price I am unwilling to pay even in—or rather, especially in—this climate. We cannot delude ourselves that a move in this direction will be “temporary” or “extraordinary.” Once the precedent is set, we have taken a large step toward that destination. It cannot be undone, and the next step, or the next time, will be all that much easier and less painful. Desperation and disaster are precisely the circumstances under which the leftists have justified a move toward socialism.

Third, regarding the conditions imposed: whom, exactly, does Congress think it is kidding? Sure, we can agree that reducing labor costs is one, or even the most, significant problem that needs to be addressed by these companies in order to bring them back to life, but to assume that this will somehow cure all the ills that are ailing these companies is naïve beyond measure. Call me crazy, but I daresay not a single Congressmember has the faintest idea how to run an efficient multi-billion-dollar operation, let alone one that is intended to make a profit, and it is nothing short of ludicrous for these jokers to solemnly nod at one another and pat each other’s backs under the misconception that meeting a shopping list of conditions is going to somehow fix what has become broken. These companies are in serious trouble from the ground up. To my mind, it is far from reassuring that these charlatans in Congress have suddenly gotten the idea that it might be fun to play CEO and act like they understand what must be done. Armchair quarterbacking can be fun; it is quite another thing to be put on the field. Congressmembers won’t be the ones that get sacked when reality comes charging; we will.

Which brings me to the fourth item. Any bailout will simply compound the real problem, because it will allow Congress to get yet another pass. When will Congress—or better yet, the American public—finally confront Congress’ significant share of culpability for the failure of the Big Three? For years, Congress and its partners in crime—the behemoth Frankensteinian federal agencies they created—have sought to regulate every aspect of these companies’ operations. Every single one of those regulations was calculated to make it more costly for any company in America to manufacture anything; consequently, they add a significant federal markup to the costs of American products that places them beyond the ability to compete.

For years, American industry has seen jobs go overseas, because it is simply too expensive to manufacture in the U.S. compared to other countries. We have become a net importer, rather than an exporter, because we cannot compete with the low labor and overhead costs of foreign companies. The wealth that could have been created by our own workforce has disappeared; much of our economy is service-based (or, worse, vapor-based, as we found with fog-backed securities). Fewer and fewer companies in America are utilizing our vast resources of raw materials and adding value to them through human labor. Indeed, we do not even produce the raw materials we are capable of producing, since Congress has worked relentlessly to shut down our access to our own cheap oil, cheap minerals, cheap lumber, and cheap textile resources. America is not producing wealth, it is squelching or squandering it: thanks largely to government policy. Lots of Americans think regulations are benign, but when the Small Business Administration tells you that 19 cents of every dollar spent by small businesses is on regulatory compliance, and that larger businesses spend $5,000 per employee on regulatory compliance, you had better be prepared for the consequences. Yet these same Americans still want to be able to buy everything at Wal-Mart prices.

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t Congress actually do something that it has the power to do, if not the guts: instead of just handing out more of the cash we taxpayers have busted our asses earning, pass legislation that will protect the Big Three, and create a regulatory environment that would both enable them and force them to fix themselves. Better yet, exempt the Big Three from some of the nonsense legislation that has handcuffed them, and allow them the opportunity to bootstrap themselves out of this problem . . . or sink in the attempt.

For decades now, the modus operandi of the United States government has been to try to solve problems not by actually solving them, but running around them: instead of taking measures that would actually educate or train minorities, they gave us affirmative action; instead of providing a tax structure that allows mothers the choice or opportunity to stay at home to raise their own children, they funneled all the federal benefits into daycare programs; instead of encouraging through favorable legislation a steady supply of housing to keep pace with demand, they encouraged sub-prime loans on overpriced property. The results of these policies have been both predictable and disastrous. Now, with the Big Three, we are going to get another dose of this same brand of foolishness: “Let’s not actually confront the source of the problem, let’s just kludge up a band-aid out of greenbacks and spit.”

So here we are again, letting Congress “solve” a problem without actually solving it. Until Congress finds the courage to make some difficult and necessary choices because that is the right thing to do, instead of pandering to noisy, open-handed, know-nothing lobbyists and special interest groups by avoiding problems, putting them off until tomorrow, or covering the symptoms with billion-dollar cortisone injections, we’re heading for disaster.

I don’t know how many ways I can say it: the problem with the Big Three is not that the free market has failed them, it is that they have not operated within the free market. So long as workers are able to dictate the value of labor without reference to what the market can support, so long as Congress creates an economic environment that handicaps the ability of American companies to manufacture goods that can be sold competitively throughout the world’s markets, the problems confronted by the Big Three will simply be exacerbated, and replicate themselves throughout our economy.

It is dismaying, to say the least, that many so-called conservatives are demanding accountability milestones as a condition of a federal bailout, as though this is a panacea for the problems confronted by the Big Three. They need to revisit a few economic truths about how businesses ought to operate, and display the courage of their convictions—if only for the sake of holding their heads up when the future consequences of this present desperation comes crashing in on America.

There is a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Add to that spinelessness, ignorance, and hubris, and you have defined the path staked out by Congress to America’s future.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Workers wages the straw that broke the automakers’ backs
• DOW opens down sharply, President reconsiders tapping TARP funds

No related posts.

Now that the election is over, Obama’s win seems, in retrospect, to be the natural result of the farce that has become our presidential election. I mean, if anyone in the media had any sense or brains, why was no one mining the one obvious and vein-rich question troubling our political landscape: is this really the best America can do?

But it is one thing to accept that at least one of these fools had to win, and another to confront the fact that a disturbingly large number of young Americans have an incomprehensible adoration of Barack Obama. I can only conclude that it is the manifestation of some variety of premature dementia. At any rate, it is inexplicable by rational processes.

Let us take Obama’s meaningless campaign themes of “Hope” and “Change.” This same weightless aura is also conveyed by the insipid title to his book, “The Audacity of Hope.” This seems to me to be the essence of his persona: every vocal outpouring of his has the same overflow of practiced, smooth, grandiose . . . nothingness. It is like listening to Jesse Jackson without the theatrics and Muhammad Ali poetry, but with good grammar and diction. Is this what impresses Americans today: a stream-of-consciousness ether of abstract nonsense? Is this what Americans interpret as intelligence, conviction, and purpose?

Because when you boil down all his flowery verbiage into actual policies, they are of the same regurgitated big-government boondoggle variety that has been doled out by the Democratic Party at least since George McGovern. At his best, Obama has the gift of dressing them up very stylishly, but without a teleprompter, he sounds like a delinquent student trying to con his way through an oral exam.

The idea that all these young pups believe that Barack Obama not only is, but is capable of being, some kind of messianic savior is, in a way, grotesque. Because whatever kind of president he turns out to be, his caliber as a man is troublingly dubious. And while I could draw this conclusion by reference to a sizable selection of his questionable relationships and activities, I need only examine one: his church.

Like many other Americans, I saw Reverend Wright’s ranting spiel against America. The man has clearly got a race chip on his spiritual shoulder. But the fact that Obama attended Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years does not bother me. What bothers me is: Obama left it.

Believe me, I am no fan of Reverend Wright’s brand of “liberation theology.” Indeed, his invocation asking God to damn America clearly smacked of political discourse rather than theological sermonizing, insofar as America, being a country, has no immortal soul to damn. It also strikes one as a startlingly un-Christian sentiment: turn the other cheek, my kingdom is not of this earth, and all that. But after watching other more extended videos of Reverend Wright, it seemed to me that his sermonizing, as a general rule, was no more remarkable than other garden-variety Bible-thumping. And, much as I hate to agree with Bill Maher on anything, I suspect he is correct in that this sort of preaching has been going on in America’s black churches for decades; it is just that most non-black Americans have neither witnessed it, nor had any particular reason to pay attention to it.

But then we have Barack Obama.

Initially, Obama stated that he never personally witnessed the America-bashing in 20 years of attending the church, and never had even an inkling of Rev. Wright’s views despite his obvious close association. That, quite simply, is very hard to believe, especially since Rev. Wright himself explained on national television that his views were nothing remarkable within the bounds of liberation theology. It also explains, very plainly, Michelle Obama’s sentiment that she had never before been proud of America. But fine, let it go; I will willingly suspend my disbelief, and take Obama at his word.

But then what happened? After offering a rather feeble defense of himself and his church, Barack Obama and his family resigned their membership. Just on the surface, that would seem to validate the criticisms, rather than diminish them. But even more: what does that resignation tell us about Barack Obama’s spiritual convictions? Instead of standing by his friends, his pastor, his church, his congregation, and his faith, of 20 years, the Obamas resigned in June: a full five months before the election. That is quite an act of recantation. In short, Barack Obama took the low road. He preferred to surrender the integrity of his immortal soul rather than risk a continued publicity fallout that might impact the election.

In comparison, take JFK: his nomination was directly responsible for a strengthening of the Republican Party, as many Democrats had a difficult time accepting his Catholic faith and abandoned the party. The idea now seems almost quaint, given the lukewarm adherence to dogma practiced by so many nominal Catholics today, but a fair number of Americans believed that Kennedy, as president, would split his allegiance by doing the Pope’s bidding. Of course, it seems now to have been a fear that was wholly unfounded, but JFK was unapologetic—and he prevailed anyway.

We have no such worry with Obama. We know where his allegiance lies: it lies with his ruthless pursuit of the ambition to power.

And before anyone takes umbrage, Obama’s behavior cannot be rationalized by claiming that he was trying to protect his church. That justification simply does not stand up to scrutiny: Rev. Wright is hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to the glare of klieg lights. His already public profile and his eager willingness to appear on national television to further espouse his uncharitable views could hardly support the claim that the Obamas were trying to shield the congregation from negative publicity. Besides, the worst had been done; little more could have been exposed that would have adversely affected the church.

No, the clear import of the Obamas’ decision was to deflate any objections Americans could have to Rev. Wright’s anti-American rantings. Barack Obama offered a perfunctory expression of surprise and astonishment that Rev. Wright could be so unpatriotically irreverent, and, to put substance behind this posture, he resigned his membership. So middle America shielded its eyes, and consoled itself that, See? Surely, Barack Obama himself could not really share such unpalatable views. And Obama’s die-hard followers never had a problem with it anyway, since they most likely agreed with Rev. Wright’s sentiments.

While those of Obama’s followers who are atheistic or agnostic are probably not troubled by Obama’s resignation, given that they view religious faith as nothing but a delusion, they would be missing the point. If Obama truly believes in God, as his longstanding church membership would suggest, then resigning his membership says a great deal about his character and his priorities. If a man is willing to sever such longstanding ties to his faith and his community, what sort of allegiance can anyone expect him to demonstrate with respect to any other principle or relationship?

Since winning the election, the Obamas have relocated to Washington, D.C., and instead of trying to find another spiritual home, he has chosen to spend his Sundays working out at the gym. While by no means would I expect Obama to spend every waking moment trying to find a new church in his new city, I can’t help but wonder what message his sudden lack of interest in setting aside time for God sends to his two young children. I know what message it sends to me.

What kind of a man sacrifices a relationship of 20 years in pursuit of ambition? What kind of a man abandons spiritual succor to embrace worldly power? Whatever the answer, Obama is that kind of man. Believe it or not, as someone who does not support him, that is somewhat consoling to me: at least I can be assured that any belief he purports to espouse is likely to be a product of political expediency rather than true conviction.

So Obama himself does not particularly bother me. No, I am troubled by something else. And that is: what sort of person idolizes a man like Obama? Because that is the sort of person who put him in the Oval Office, and that is the sort of person who is populating this once great nation of ours. In four or eight years, Barack Obama will be irrelevant. The real struggle facing America is for the minds and character of our electorate.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Obama Got Elected
• “I think most people voted for Barack Obama because they decided they wanted him to be in their living room for the next 4 years explaining policy.

No related posts.

Well, isn’t it a relief that everyone has now woken up to the fact that our irresponsible government is being . . . irresponsible. Our lovely Uncle Sam, that freeloading sponge of a relative absconded with our national credit card and gave $700 billion to failed banks that loaned money to people whom anyone with sense would not have loaned a dime in order for them to purchase properties for which anyone with sense would not have paid that much. (Okay, it is a little more complicated than that . . . but that’s the bottom line, isn’t it?)

That bit of legislative mischief was rammed through like lightning, when all of us taxpayers were still reeling from the fact that our retirement funds suddenly took on the appearance of a Christmas club account. In our shock, few Americans were able to completely digest the full idiocy of the government’s assurances that such a step was “necessary” to shore up our ailing economy.

With this track record, it is no wonder the heads of GM, Ford, and Chrysler decided to try their luck at bellying up to the public trough. In round one, the Big Three came to Congress with their expectant hats out, asking for a measly $25 billion. Of course, we might ask: why come to Congress? Just borrow some money from AIG and Citibank! However, round one did not go their way, so they have now jumped into the ring for round two. This time, apparently, they are actually presenting a plan to Congress for what they are going to do with the money—what a concept!

But of course, the cat is out of the bag now. America has thrown a handful of cold water on its face and slapped itself on the cheek a few times and wants some answers. So those same Senators and Congressmen who handed out our children’s soon-to-be hard-earned cash to a slew of failed banks with nary a second thought are now behaving as though they are incensed . . . outraged . . . shocked . . . that these irresponsible companies have been . . . irresponsible. Amazingly, Congress has suddenly become very tightfisted with our money.

I can’t help but marvel at the irony of the whole situation: who is Congress to get uppity and holier-than-though about fiscal irresponsibility, lack of prudence, and squandering of revenues? If ever there was a group that has no call to throw stones, it is Congress! In fact, Congress should be enormously flattered. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the Big Three simply emulated their model: spend more than you bring in, and hope the future takes care of itself! The only problem is that automobile manufacturers must unfortunately depend upon the market for cars to support their companies. Unlike Congress, they don’t have an endless stream of hapless taxpayers being forced to support their lavish habits. At least, not yet.

But there is even irony upon irony, because a good number of these same spend-happy Congressmen and Congresswomen have shamelessly pandered to the autoworker’s union, the UAW, in an effort to harvest their votes and volunteerism. All this time, these legislators have sided with the UAW, supporting through legislation the means by which the union could hold the Big Three management over the barrel, forcing them to meet every demand or face the closing of their factories. “Never mind that there is foreign competition!” “Never mind that sales are down!” “Give us what we want!” And they did: to the tune of over $70 as average hourly compensation. Nice work, if you can get it. To put this in perspective, Toyota’s U.S. workers have an average compensation just over $40 per hour. But Congress not only cheered on the UAW, they aided and abetted them; it was a mutual palm-greasing relationship. It’s no mystery why the Big Three needs Congress to bail them out: these congressmen and congresswomen would not be where they are today without the whole machine in motion. They OWE them.

So the spectacle of our Congress demanding accountability and prudence is frankly sending me into fits– as they say in the text-world, ROFLMAO. Exactly what leg is Congress standing on? What shred of integrity or honor can these legislators draw upon? It is not that I am in favor of an auto industry bailout, mind you, I just want to know: what is the overriding guiding principle that inspires our esteemed Congressmembers? I mean, other than, “Oh, crap, guys. America’s paying attention. I think the jig may be up.”

I anticipate that there would be a tremendous and negative effect on the American economy overall if the Big Three actually go under, and it is certainly not a spectacle I relish witnessing. But as bad as things may get, I cannot help but feel a certain satisfaction that the UAW and the executives who run these U.S. automakers may finally be getting a lesson in basic market economics. Unlike the stockholders who actually owned these companies, the fortunes of these employees did not rise and fall on the performance of the company. No, following the socialist model, they simply united in the mistaken belief that it is possible to establish the value of labor without regard to whether they could sell the cars they were building at a price that would support it.

I truly feel sorry for those who are facing layoffs and unemployment, but had these companies shown the slightest inclination to work within the limits of what the market was dictating, autoworkers and the companies that have paid their extortionate demands would not now be facing a dire future. And now, rather than face the reality they created, they want to cement their erroneous beliefs by having the U.S. taxpayer bail them out—essentially, forcing us all to further subsidize the cost of the cars simply to meet their compensation demands. That, America, is a brand of socialism we must not tolerate. No, it is high time that everyone at the Big Three ran smack dab into reality.

My only regret is that we cannot similarly force Congress to file Chapter 11. After selling out our future to their prep-school pals on Wall Street, they should be hanging their heads in shame, not puffing themselves up and acting as though they are miserly guardians of our well-being. If we really wanted a just world, nearly every member of Congress for the last 30 years would be facing the same fate confronting so many other Americans today: unemployment. How much do we plan to put up with, America?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Democrats Ask Automakers for Way Forward
• UAW Chief: Auto Bailout Is Necessary
• Obama, UAW weigh in on auto industry crisis

No related posts.

It is amazing how often I hear liberals talk about wealthy people. They seem to be obsessed with them, knowing exactly how much money they spent on this or that house or boat or car or outfit. And most of the time they are discussing these things (which is none of their business, anyway), they do so with this resentful, sour look. Now, personally, wealth doesn’t bother me; I would like to be wealthy myself, as a matter of fact.

But a lot of liberals talk as though wealthy people are evil simply because they are wealthy. But here’s the thing: they usually only hate wealthy people who became wealthy by hard work. They never seem to hate movie or television stars, pop stars, liberal writers, liberal politicians, or professional athletes.

This is very strange. I mean, a movie star or pop singer can make millions of dollars for a few months of mediocre work, and he or she only makes himself or herself (and maybe an agent) rich. And they get paid outrageous sums even when they produce garbage. Moreover, the money they make usually comes from teenagers who sponged the money off of their parents. In fact, while I like to be entertained as much as the next person, I cannot see that they provide anything of practical utility to anyone.

In contrast, a top oil company executive usually works 60 to 70 hours a week, month after month, keeping tens of thousands of people employed, keeping food on their tables, roofs over their heads, and medical care for their families, plus they try to make sure all the stockholders in the company, like union pensioners, get a good return on their investment and can retire in comfort. Oh, not to mention, they make their money off of people like me, because they provide gas for me to travel and so that all the goods I want to buy can be delivered to my local supermarket.

Now, to my mind, if someone can do all that and still bring in a hefty profit for their company, I say: terrific! But a liberal just seethes at the fact that a person who does all that should get a few million in compensation. Keanu Reeves made $200 million off of the Matrix movies. (Astounding.) Yet I’m supposed to resent the CEO of Exxon? And it’s even worse than that. Because what the liberal wants to do is to tax the heck out of the CEO’s salary so that it can be given to some deadbeat on welfare.

To me, this demonstrates the stupidity of resenting wealth. A person only works hard if he or she obtains a benefit from the hard work. When you don’t get any benefit from hard work, you have a tendency to become lazy, and do only what gets you by. And when you give something to someone who is lazy because they are lazy, they continue to be lazy. The one thing liberals just can’t figure out is that the difference between wealthy people and poor people is seldom money. Oh, there is a second thing. The second thing they don’t get is that wealth is not a zero sum game. They don’t understand that wealth can be created.

And for those liberals who are scratching their heads, let me explain. There is one primary reason that countries like Japan and Switzerland are wealthy. And it has nothing to do with natural resources; both countries would be unable to grow enough food or mine enough ore or grow enough trees to support their populations. What they do have is people with a strong work ethic, and people who take pride in producing top quality goods. You see, it is still prestigious to own a Swiss watch, and people travel to Switzerland because they run things well—banks, hotels, resorts, spas, chocolate factories. And Japan produces top-quality automobiles and electronic equipment. A mere 40 years ago, the phrase “Made in Japan” used to be a joke—it meant something was cheap and shoddy. Not anymore. Today, it means something is made well and packaged attractively. (China has now taken over the cheap and shoddy department.) The Japanese work ethic created the fastest growing national economy the world has ever seen.

These countries have become wealthy primarily as a result of human effort—adding value to meager resources and inexpensive raw materials. This also explains, incidentally, why America is becoming poorer. The difference between wealth and poverty is: human effort. People can create wealth simply by the exertion of effort. For example, if two neighbors lived side by side in identical houses (which happens pretty often these days, with tract neighborhoods), and made identical salaries, but one person sat on his duff, watched television, and drank beer while the other person regularly mowed and watered his lawn, picked weeds, eradicated pests, tended the plants and trees, cleaned the house, maintained the structure, and so on, the weed-picker’s house would be worth more.

Yet, despite the obvious truth of this statement, the liberal mind simply cannot wrap itself around the idea that hard work—the right kind of hard work—can create wealth out of almost nothing. They, like their mentor Karl Marx, sit around on their duff thinking they are smart, and that, by virtue of being smart, they deserve to have the wealth that other people have created through effort. Or else, they equate hard work with simply spending a lot of hours digging up holes and filling them in, rather than actually producing anything of value. This is why we see so many silly bumper stickers.

Liberals want to live in a sort of fairyland of liberal meritocracy, where people who do things like spout liberal aphorisms at college universities live the lives of kings, while other people, like corporate executives, who actually have to bear responsibility for the tangible results of the decisions they make and produce goods that people actually want and need, get zilch. No wonder liberals are liberals. Basically, they don’t understand that a thing is worth only what someone else is willing to pay for it. And nobody wants to listen to college professors. Students only listen because their parents are paying for a college education, and because they want a lucrative job at a software company when they graduate.

I mean, the liberals got all steamed up because Cindy McCain wore a $20,000 dress. (How come they don’t mind when Jessica Simpson wears a $20,000 dress?) But they should be happy—ecstatic, in fact—that she’s wearing that dress. I mean, when a liberal buys a dress at Wal-Mart for $35, she (or he, I guess) is only supporting a lowly Chinese pinko running a sweatshop, whereas Cindy is supporting a New York City cocktail liberal or a snobby Paris socialist.

Now, Cindy’s family made its money distributing beer. If ever there was a family that earned its keep, Cindy’s family is it. They distribute a product that people are willing to pay for in either an up or a down economy. The liberals’ problem is that they think it is possible to create an economic system in which someone is willing to pay them a lot of money just to drink it.

No related posts.

In my last post, I explained how audacious the California Supreme Court and Proposition 8 foes were in ignoring standard legal procedure with regard to the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8. As of yesterday, the Court went ahead and decided to accept the lawsuit for review. The good news is that the Court refused the stay. That is: as of now, Proposition 8 is in effect. This was a prudent measure, since, should the lawsuit fail, we would have the law yo-yo-ing back and forth a little too much even for this Court.

But ignoring legal procedure, of course, was just the tip of the iceberg. Let us now confront the insult to the injury, and get to meat of their argument.

Here is what the lawsuit claims: Proposition 8 is not an “amendment” to the Constitution that can be enacted by ballot proposition. Rather, it is a “revision” to the Constitution, which requires passage by the legislature as well as the voters. Ergo: Proposition 8 has no effect. Nada. Zilch. We just wasted a lot of time and money and anguish for nothing.

Okay, let’s back up a little bit. How come no one brought up this “amendment/revision” argument before November 4, or even questioned it? How come California’s Attorney General did not suggest this or even hint at a problem in its published analysis of the ballot measure? And why did California’s Secretary of State certify this Proposition for the November ballot, without getting a legal opinion on this point? Anyone? (Sound of crickets chirping.)

If you find the distinction between an “amendment” and a “revision” mind-numbing, that is because it is. This is the sort of thing lawyers get paid outrageous sums to argue about. And the worst thing is, nobody really knows what these terms ought to mean, at least insofar as they relate to our Constitution. In a way, the meaning is left largely up to the Court. I know: Oh, great.

But even if you don’t appreciate the legal niceties, here is a step-by-step analysis of what is going on:

–To begin, a statute is different from the Constitution. A statute is a law, but if a statute violates the Constitution, the statute is invalid, because the Constitution sits at the top of the legal hierarchy. Before the Court’s May 15 opinion, there was a statute on the books (passed by Californians in 2000) that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

–On May 15, the California Supreme Court declared that the statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and thus denying marriage to gay couples, violated the state Constitution’s equal protection clause. In this opinion, the Court acknowledged that the State of California, since its inception, had understood marriage as only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court’s opinion therefore constituted a reversal of all of California’s legal history (not to mention world history, but never mind . . . never mind).

–On November 4, the people of California told the Court where they could stick it, and passed Proposition 8 as an amendment to the state Constitution. Because Proposition 8 is now part of the Constitution, and not merely a statute, the California Supreme Court must accept it as the final word on the law of the state.

–Those opposed to Proposition 8 are now arguing before the Court that Proposition 8 is not an “amendment” at all, but a “sweeping revision” of the Constitution, and, because it was not passed by the legislature, it has no force or effect.

Now, here’s the problem; please follow, if you will. If I understand this argument correctly, when the Court changed California’s entire legal history on May 15, 2008, by throwing out the statutory definition of marriage and rejecting 150 years of California law, this was NOT a “revision” of our Constitution (which the Court is not allowed to do), but merely an “interpretation.” And now, if we want to go back to how the law existed those many eons ago on May 14, 2008, to how it was interpreted since the very first statute on marriage ever entered California’s code books, we now have to “revise” our Constitution? Haha! Oh . . . wait. I’m not sure if this is one of those situations where, if this were not so funny, it would be pathetic, or if this were not so pathetic, it would be funny.

This is incredible. In fact, I kind of relish the idea of the Supreme Court entertaining this spurious argument by declaring that the California Constitution revised itself, all on its own, while nobody was looking, and if we Californians want it to mean what it always used to mean, we now have to revise it back. No . . . really.

Let’s just take a good hard look at what the Court did on May 15. I know most people could not be bothered to slog through that frankly ludicrous tome that was intended to pass for a legal opinion, so I will try to explain it here. In fact, I think the Court went out of its way to make that opinion long and convoluted . . . because if the average Californian understood what they said, they’d be really pissed off.

We will start with standard Equal Protection analysis. It goes like this: first, you have to decide if the class of persons being discriminated against is a “suspect” classification. That is, it is okay for the law to discriminate sometimes, such as when females should get separate bathrooms from males, or illegal aliens should not be allowed to vote (ACORN notwithstanding). Other times, the classification is “suspect”—that is, no one can think of a reason to discriminate other than just bald prejudice, such as when blacks were forced to sit in the backs of buses.

Second, if you do find a suspect classification, Courts have to give the challenged statute what is called “strict scrutiny.” That is, when you have a statute that discriminates against a group, the Court looks at the statute really hard to see if there is any conceivable sound and good reason for the discrimination. The challenged statute may only be upheld if the court finds that: (1) the state has a “compelling interest” in achieving the goal of the statute, and (2) the statute is “narrowly tailored” to serve that purpose. Got all that? Okay, now to the Court’s analysis.

On May 15, the Court held that homosexuality is a “suspect” classification. It said that, in the matter of marriage, there is NO rational reason to differentiate between homosexuals and heterosexuals. I’m not kidding. Let’s move on: now we apply strict scrutiny. (Just to warn you: basically, in law, nothing stands up to strict scrutiny.) The Supreme Court said that California has no compelling interest in defining marriage to limit it to heterosexual relationships. NO COMPELLING INTEREST. Consequently, the statute that defines marriage is invalid.

Before I continue, I want to discuss this idea of “no compelling interest.” I have a hard time with this. Why? Well, because California has an entire code book dedicated to marriage law, which has applied exclusively to heterosexual couples throughout California’s history. Laws relating to marriage have existed since statehood because marriage has been, historically, the foundation of the family, which in turn has been the foundation of society as a whole. As a result, married couples have special legal treatment with respect property, contracts, criminal law, testimony, wills, estates, tax, and so on. You need a special license at the county office in order to get married, and counties keep records of marriage permanently. Marriage also creates certain presumptions in the law with respect to children. We have an entire court system dedicated to families. Family law is a specialized area of law practice, as is divorce law. Lawyers can make entire careers out of focusing just on these specific subjects. Law schools teach entire courses just on community property, which is a legal relationship that applies only to married couples. In fact, Community Property is one of only twelve subjects tested on the California State Bar exam, beating out such subjects as tax, intellectual property, securities, environmental law, and administrative law. So here we have whole bodies of California law relating to the protection and preservation of marriage, and marriage as the foundation of the family unit. We have whole bureaucracies that deal with matters related to marriage. These laws and administrative agencies represent untold hours of deliberating in the state legislature, in our state court system, and in our local government, and considerable sums of public money. And so, I am truly puzzled: can the California Supreme Court explain why the state of California spent so much time, money, energy, and resources on something the state has NO COMPELLING INTEREST in? Mind- boggling, to say the least.

How in the world did the Court arrive at its peculiar perspective? The Court reasoned (if you can call it that): (one) the legislature treats gay couples almost the same as married couples; so (two) it is therefore unfair, as a constitutional matter, to treat them differently. Hence, the equal protection clause DEMANDS that we give gay couples the right to marry.

You see, it all started when the legislature began to give a few rights here and there to homosexual couples. Even though California had a statute that said the term “marriage” applied only to heterosexuals, the legislature enacted a whole raft of other statutes giving homosexuals treatment very similar to married couples. So, instead of letting the legislature just do its thing, the Court said: “Ah, what the heck. Let’s go whole hog. If the legislature treats them as though they are sort of equal, even though we have a statute that says they are not, we may as well declare them equal as a matter of constitutional law.” Voila!

Now this is an interesting way to reason. Essentially, the Court contended that domestic partnership statutes, by treating gay couples similarly to married couples, governed their equal protection analysis. But how can statutes dictate the meaning of the Constitution? Especially when, at the same time, the Court is confronted by another statute that unequivocally states that marriage and domestic partnership are two different things. Ultimately, in trying to resolve a non-existent conflict between these statutes, the Court just decided to just declare the inconvenient one unconstitutional.

And what is even more interesting, you see, is that if Californians had only been smart enough to not give gay couples any rights at all, we would never have made them equal. Apparently, it is not enough that Californians were happy to let people have the freedom to live life as they choose, regardless of their personal views. It is not even enough that Californians were willing to recognize a slew of legal benefits to accrue to gay couples. No, Californians put themselves in a pickle. The Court concluded that Californians are a bunch of bigots because we didn’t go all the way, and declared that we could not be bigots anymore.

And then, along came Proposition 8 to put everything back to the way it was. Proposition 8 added just one simple sentence to the California Constitution. That sentence reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” And within a couple short weeks, we now have a brand new lawsuit to hash it all out again. The Court has a brand new opportunity to tell the majority of California voters that what they want and what they believe does not matter. I can just imagine the Court’s (unwritten) opinion:

Californians tried to take away privileges that we bestowed out of our ineffable wisdom and superior understanding of what California really needs—things that California’s citizens don’t understand because they are just ignorant voters. Honoring and revering thousands of years of tradition and law, and adhering to their most deeply held moral values, is unimportant . . . worthless. It is nothing more than an expression of “hate.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• More on the anti Prop 8 lawsuits
• The plot thickens in California
• AG Brown Asks CA Supreme Court to Review Prop 8 Constitutionality… Now

No related posts.