It can be summed up in this little quote:
Democrats are looking ahead to expanded power.
I am so not looking forward to the next 4 years.
I haven’t posted much this week. Perhaps it’s because I’m not thinking much this week. Here’s a little scrimpet of stuff that has passed by my noggin but is too little to write about –
Yes, I made up the word “scrimpet” just now.
I find this story in the Houston Chronicle amusing:
Republican Gov. Rick Perry rallied his evangelical, socially conservative base on the issue, but political analysts said Proposition 2’s success doesn’t necessarily predict future success for individual politicians.
“I don’t see how it can be useful for a party or a candidate because this so transcends all the political parties and the typical categorizations,” said Kelly Shackelford, president of the conservative Free Market Foundation, which backed the amendment.
I see. So while Democrats opposed Proposition 2’s ban on gay marriage and Republicans supported a ban, the fact that the rank and file Democrat voted for Proposition 2 also doesn’t mean they support Republican principles. Huh.
Looks and smells like denial to me. The Democratic party has been supporting every far-left anti-moral cause for the last decade and don’t understand why they’re losing elections. To oppose Proposition 2 and take credit for its passage simultaneously is a fascinating study in doublespeak.
Hmm. Nothing inspires me to blog today. I tossed some ideas at myself but nothing stuck.
North Korea says the have nukes and don’t want to talk about it. The U.S. says we ought to talk about it. No solutions look good at the moment. Let North Korea keep the nukes? Force them to disarm? Blah.
And at the same time, Prince Charles decides to marry Camilla Parker Bowles. Coincidence? I think not.
Wardhill Churchill sounds like a bigoted lunatic. I predict he’ll voluntarily step down to save face. If not, he should be fired. Free speech isn’t the issue, by the way.
Stock market is down. Weather is cold. Irv’s still in the hospital. I think I’ll need a new car by the summer of 2007. I’m going to buy some sort of mp3 player. This weekend has plays to see, dancing, Star Trek, birthday parties, Valentine’s dinner, …
Whoa. I have a lot to blog about. I wonder where I should start…
OpinionJournal today asks, “What do the Democrats stand for?” Then proceeds to eloquently trash the heart of liberalism and what is stands for. Excellent reading today; while applauding the heart behind liberalism, once you recognize that liberalism has a cost, you next have to ask, “how much cost is too much?” And as soon as you ask that question, you become a conservative.
Let me preface today’s thought with a statement, I am not necessarily a Republican. Really. I’m not. I’m mostly conservative with a sprinkling of liberal and libertarian ideas once in while. I want a government that’s only there when needed and completely absent when it’s not. One that doesn’t push a liberal morality on me and doesn’t restrict my conservative morality.
That about sums my political philosophy in a nutshell; the Republicans share a lot more of my philosophy than the Democrats. Would I switch parties if the Democrats held my ideals instead? In a heartbeat.
But that’s not going to happen anytime soon. I thought with the election over, the Democrats would rethink the strategy that brought them defeat: oppose everything.
The same Democrats that said Social Security was a crisis when Clinton was President are now saying, “Crisis? What crisis?” And then they’ll oppose Bush’s Social Security reform ideas, not because they have any better idea, but because they can’t stand the thought of somebody else’s idea succeeding. What the Democrats achieve with this strategy is alienating people like me who would much rather see them engage the ideas rationally.
Is Social Security in trouble? Everybody says yes; they only disagree with the number of years we have left. Most say that Social Security will be bankrupt within this generation. Republicans say “fix it;” the Democrats are saying… “leave it broke.”
The libertarian streak in me says eliminate Social Security altogether; give the 12.4% tax back to the people and tell them to save it themselves. The realist in me knows that won’t work; while some people will save that money for retirement, the other 99% will buy a plasma television on the way home tonight.
I’m not interested in changing social security for me; I’m in the late baby boomer generation where the existing social security system will fail me. I’ll be stuck with the old system. But what about younger workers in their 20’s and 30’s? What’s so wrong about fixing the system so it will work for them? Give them a system where the money is theirs instead of the government’s and watch them thrive.
Right now it’s only the Republicans offering ideas; the Democrats just oppose whatever it is. I’m on the side of those that at least are trying.
Yep, I’m boycotting “Winter Holidays” as a completely useless and meaningless psuedo-pagan holiday.
I’m celebrating Christmas. The birth of Christ, a reminder He came to die for our sins, the loving and giving we share with each other as we remember the loving and giving Jesus gave to us. I’ll happily pile on the odd Christmas traditions of trees and mistletoes and lights and presents and poinsettias and reindeer and whatnot. Christmas is a beautiful season.
If the ACLU gets their way, Christmas would be gone. Every year the non-existent “separation of church and state” doctrine chips away a little more of Christmas. This week I’ve seen stories of removing any religious reference from Christmas and school bands can’t play Christmas songs that contain references to Jesus or Santa Claus, even if the lyrics aren’t included.
The “separation of church and state” doesn’t exist in the US Constitution. In fact, it ends with “Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, […]” The “Year of Our Lord” cannot refer to anybody but Jesus, and the US Contitution is, by definition, constitutional.
Instead the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” If I want to celebrate a religious and wholy holy Christian Christmas, I have that right. Whenever and wherever I wish to celebrate it.
I find it amazing that when I lived in Singapore, the country happily celebrated Christmas as a Christian holiday. They also celebrated Hari Raya Puasa, Ramadan, and Hari Raya Haji for the Muslims, Vesak Day for the Buddhists, Deepavali for the Hindus. Chinese New Year and the completely secular National Day, too. A little something for everyone. But in the mostly Christian USA, with the help of the ACLU, we’re trying to ban Christmas and celebrate “Seasons Greetings,” whatever that is.
Why hasn’t Christmas been completely outlawed? Pardon My English has an opinion – it’s all about money:
Letâ€™s face it. The only thing that is keeping Christmas from being completely wiped out by secularism is its value to society as an economic engine. At Christmas, businesses collect huge amounts of their yearly revenue, simply because the holiday involves the giving and receiving of gifts. If Christians decided to make their presents, to stick to cookies and parties, or to just give their funds to the church and the poor at Christmastime, the public square would be denuded of its wintertime religious activity faster than you can say, â€œMerry Snowday.â€
I’ll be celebrating Christmas this year with all the love and joy and celebration that goes with it. Cold generic people can celebrate the cold generic Winter Holiday, but I’m having none of it.
If John Kerry didn’t cheat, what is he removing from his pocket?
(c) No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.
(d) Notwithstanding subparagraph 5(c), the candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color and type of paper each side prefers. Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium, table or other structure to be used by the candidate in that debate.
Bottom line: John Kerry can’t bring so much as a ball point pen to this debate, yet he clearly removes something white and unfolds it, placing it on the lecturn. The only thing I can think of that would *not* be cheating would be a hankerchief, but Kerry never used a hankerchief in the debate and would be far more likely to leave that in his pocket until he needed it.
The rules, agreed to by both parties, were designed to make the playing field even for both parties. If John Kerry relied on the use of prepared notes to make his point, if would give him an incredible edge.
Watch the video for yourself; after the commercial and within the 1st 30 seconds, what does John Kerry remove from his pocket?
Update: Slow motion replay at The Daily Recycler give it to you in great detail. It looks like he takes a paper from his pocket, unfolds it, and places it on the lecturn.
Update 2: Zoom in, high resolution. Cheater.