Thankful for so much, it's impossible to itemize...remember even. Shame on me.
Do consider, today at least, that without the gift of life itself, nothing else is possible. Then pause and thank your Maker.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
This is Tyranny
Hobby Lobby, the national arts and crafts supplies chain, sued the federal government for relief from that part of Obamacare that required the company to provide morning-after and week-after birth control pills as part of its employee health care plan. The owner claimed the mandate violated his pro-life religious beliefs and thereby the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment. U.S, Federal District Judge Joe Heat disagreed, rejecting the request and ruling that:
"Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion."It's not coming ladies and gentlemen, it's already here.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Rush is Right
Since the election, more than a few of the political consultant class have been quite publicly explaining away the Romney loss by blaming it on among other things the disproportionate influence on the Republican Party of right-wing talk radio personalities, especially Rush Limbaugh. The argument--it's more childishly petulant excuse-making than argument actually--is that Rush has made the party too conservative to win a national election.
Ahem...
...moderate Republicans have succeeded in getting their candidate or a candidate to their liking nominated for the last 20 years. (Yes, even George W. eschewed direct identification with movement conservatives in 2000. Remember "compassionate conservatism"?) Save for the 2004 election when the same W. won their enthusiastic support for unapologetically responding to the national security challenges post 9/11, conservatives in each election have had to swallow hard in order to pull the lever for the party's eventual nominee. But pull them they did and had it not been for Rush Limbaugh--him more than anyone else I'd argue--many if not most of those same conservatives would have either stayed home on election day, or worse, launched a third party effort that would have been a disaster for both the Republican Party and conservatism. Ross Perot was just such a disaster in '92 and '96 because many foolishly thought him a conservative alternative to George the First and Bob Dole despite Rush's best efforts to discredit his crazy candidacy.
However many votes the party may attract by moving to the ideological center, it will lose more, many more, by alienating it's to this point still loyal conservative base.
And to think these guys make millions, win or lose.
Ahem...
...moderate Republicans have succeeded in getting their candidate or a candidate to their liking nominated for the last 20 years. (Yes, even George W. eschewed direct identification with movement conservatives in 2000. Remember "compassionate conservatism"?) Save for the 2004 election when the same W. won their enthusiastic support for unapologetically responding to the national security challenges post 9/11, conservatives in each election have had to swallow hard in order to pull the lever for the party's eventual nominee. But pull them they did and had it not been for Rush Limbaugh--him more than anyone else I'd argue--many if not most of those same conservatives would have either stayed home on election day, or worse, launched a third party effort that would have been a disaster for both the Republican Party and conservatism. Ross Perot was just such a disaster in '92 and '96 because many foolishly thought him a conservative alternative to George the First and Bob Dole despite Rush's best efforts to discredit his crazy candidacy.
However many votes the party may attract by moving to the ideological center, it will lose more, many more, by alienating it's to this point still loyal conservative base.
And to think these guys make millions, win or lose.
Rush is Wrong
The people didn't vote for Santa Clause almost two weeks ago. Sure, Santa gives stuff away, but he doesn't take from anyone
We Shall Overcome
With the right to unrestricted military service secure, and the one for legal marriage within grasp, the next great challenge for the country's homosexuals is to win the struggle for the right to public nudity.
But when the practice is threatened in even otherwise freedom-loving San Francisco, you know reactionary forces may already have the upper hand.
Meanwhile, professional Republicans, their campaign consultants, and many pundits as well are urging the GOP to ignore the demands of the Tea Party and instead to pursue aggressively some middle way. The very high stakes are of course the votes of the nation's election-deciding moderates. The strategy they suggest is for the party to remain in principle opposed to public nudity, but to communicate clearly nonetheless its willingness to compromise on the issue, topless or bottomless, for example, but not both.
But when the practice is threatened in even otherwise freedom-loving San Francisco, you know reactionary forces may already have the upper hand.
Meanwhile, professional Republicans, their campaign consultants, and many pundits as well are urging the GOP to ignore the demands of the Tea Party and instead to pursue aggressively some middle way. The very high stakes are of course the votes of the nation's election-deciding moderates. The strategy they suggest is for the party to remain in principle opposed to public nudity, but to communicate clearly nonetheless its willingness to compromise on the issue, topless or bottomless, for example, but not both.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Where Sheepskins are Nervous
Fordham's president finds conservative gadfly Ann Coulter beyond the pale and recently convinced (coerced?) the College Republicans to withdraw her invitation to speak at the university. But Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, famous defender of infanticide and bestiality, apparently passed moral muster and was a most welcome participant and speaker at a panel discussion the college hosted yesterday afternoon.
Shame on Fordham!
Yea, I know, I know. It's nigh impossible to shame Lefties.
Shame on Fordham!
Yea, I know, I know. It's nigh impossible to shame Lefties.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Wait Just One Minute!
It appears that FOX News is going to focus its attention on the alleged alteration of the intelligence talking points that Ambassador Rice used to dissemble on the five Sunday news shows two months ago. (The non-FOX News doesn't care one way or the other save for the fact that it's a timely and very welcome distraction.) This is a mistake.
I wasn't there, so I can't know what actually transpired. But, judging from the reports of the congressmen who were, I know I would have reacted very differently to Petraeus's testimony.
What do I mean?
Had I been there, as soon as I heard the former CIA Chief say to those of us assembled that not only did he know from the beginning that it was a terrorist attack, but that he said as much at the time, I would have raised up out of my chair, and while shaking my fist at him shouted something like: "The hell you did General! Not only did you testify to the contrary at the time, but it was widely reported that you did so. If indeed your initial testimony was otherwise, not only have you not seen fit to correct the record during the intervening two months, but every @#$%& representative of this feckless administration, from the President to the janitor, has used since then that very testimony to hide behind. Now, while my aid goes to retrieve copies of the transcript from your prior visit with us, I suggest you think a little harder and perhaps remember a little more clearly exactly what it was you said back then. And remember General, this time you're under oath."
But that probably explains why I'm not now, and probably never will be a congressman.
I wasn't there, so I can't know what actually transpired. But, judging from the reports of the congressmen who were, I know I would have reacted very differently to Petraeus's testimony.
What do I mean?
Had I been there, as soon as I heard the former CIA Chief say to those of us assembled that not only did he know from the beginning that it was a terrorist attack, but that he said as much at the time, I would have raised up out of my chair, and while shaking my fist at him shouted something like: "The hell you did General! Not only did you testify to the contrary at the time, but it was widely reported that you did so. If indeed your initial testimony was otherwise, not only have you not seen fit to correct the record during the intervening two months, but every @#$%& representative of this feckless administration, from the President to the janitor, has used since then that very testimony to hide behind. Now, while my aid goes to retrieve copies of the transcript from your prior visit with us, I suggest you think a little harder and perhaps remember a little more clearly exactly what it was you said back then. And remember General, this time you're under oath."
But that probably explains why I'm not now, and probably never will be a congressman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)