Did you know today the Treasury Department made the pay czar Ken Feinberg available for interviews to the White House news organizations - all of them except Fox. The networks, though, refused. Charles Krauthammer discusses it here.
Good for them - they did the right thing. The White House should not get to pick and choose which media outlets get access to its public forums. Wow. I can't believe I even had to write that sentence.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Friday, October 02, 2009
Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child
This articleis the best I've read so far about the shameful Polanski rape and run. Honestly, there can be no "mitigating factors" to excuse Polanski's behavior. He should go to jail for a very long time.
Let's Hope Letterman is Not Our Moral Compass
David Letterman revealedon his show last night that he has has extramarital affairs with members of his staff. He admitted this in lieu of being extorted by a CBS employee who had pictures of Letterman's indiscretions. The employee has been arrested in NYC for extortion.
Letterman recently hit 7 million viewers for his late-night show - when President Obama visited. His ratings trailed those of Conan O'Brien's show before that.
It was certainly right that Letterman fess up, and great that he actually got the extortioner on tape and that man has been arrested. But honestly, let's stop idolizing these people who really aren't worth idolizing. Let's stop watching their shows, and laughing at their jokes. We can find better entertainment. Have you tried the game Set? It's awesome.
Letterman recently hit 7 million viewers for his late-night show - when President Obama visited. His ratings trailed those of Conan O'Brien's show before that.
It was certainly right that Letterman fess up, and great that he actually got the extortioner on tape and that man has been arrested. But honestly, let's stop idolizing these people who really aren't worth idolizing. Let's stop watching their shows, and laughing at their jokes. We can find better entertainment. Have you tried the game Set? It's awesome.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
ACORN Hilarity by John Stewart
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Audacity of Hos | ||||
| ||||
ACORN should be disbanded. Both houses of Congress have voted to defund the organization. The President should sign this bill, and sever his ties with it.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
More on Laws
Daniel Henninger has this piece in today's Opinion Journal about Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to name a special prosecutor to investigate CIA agents. Mr. Holder cited the Justice Department's Office of Legal Responsibility as one of the reasons he felt compelled to start the hunt that will inevitably lead to indictments of CIA agents acting within CIA guidelines.
Mr. Henninger relates that announcement to the announcement from Scotland's Justice Minister that he released the Lockerbie bomber because of due process and the laws of Scotland. Mr. Henninger's piece reflects on the fact that sometimes the laws have exceptions. He brings it back to Olver Twist:
So which should prevail? Laws or politics or experience? When are exceptions warranted? In the case of the Massachusetts legislature, if the dominant party really thinks that waiting until January to have the people elect a Senator would put the people of Massachusetts unrepresented in the U.S. Senate during these "critical" times, then politics should win and they should change the law to allow the governor to appoint an interim senator. What about the CIA agents? Laws or experience? I think searching for men to indict in this instance would be wrong. These agents were working within CIA guidelines, guidelines that were approved by the Senate. I do not believe Nancy Pelosi that the CIA lied to her. She just is not credible.
I fully believe that our experience makes us better people, and forms who we are more than anything else we spend time doing - schooling, career, family. Our life experiences teach us the realities of who we are, and who our neighbors are. It's learning we can't get except through living. It's why older people are so wise. It's why our views often change. It's why we become more tolerant, more compassionate, more loving and more forgiving. I wish we could use our experience this way on a macro level - in politics and government and big systems.
And the lockerbie bomber? He should have stayed in jail.
Mr. Henninger relates that announcement to the announcement from Scotland's Justice Minister that he released the Lockerbie bomber because of due process and the laws of Scotland. Mr. Henninger's piece reflects on the fact that sometimes the laws have exceptions. He brings it back to Olver Twist:
Faced with a similarly fastidious assertion of the law's triumphal self-regard in "Oliver Twist," Mr. Bumble replied: "If the law supposed that, the law is a ass—a idiot." Mr. Bumble added something acutely relevant to what is happening to the war on terror: "The worst I wish the law," said Mr. Bumble, "is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience."
So which should prevail? Laws or politics or experience? When are exceptions warranted? In the case of the Massachusetts legislature, if the dominant party really thinks that waiting until January to have the people elect a Senator would put the people of Massachusetts unrepresented in the U.S. Senate during these "critical" times, then politics should win and they should change the law to allow the governor to appoint an interim senator. What about the CIA agents? Laws or experience? I think searching for men to indict in this instance would be wrong. These agents were working within CIA guidelines, guidelines that were approved by the Senate. I do not believe Nancy Pelosi that the CIA lied to her. She just is not credible.
I fully believe that our experience makes us better people, and forms who we are more than anything else we spend time doing - schooling, career, family. Our life experiences teach us the realities of who we are, and who our neighbors are. It's learning we can't get except through living. It's why older people are so wise. It's why our views often change. It's why we become more tolerant, more compassionate, more loving and more forgiving. I wish we could use our experience this way on a macro level - in politics and government and big systems.
And the lockerbie bomber? He should have stayed in jail.
A Different Viewpoint
I enjoyed these two opposite-view pieces, here and here, on Senator Kennedy's replacement. Massachusetts law requires that the state wait and hold a special election to elect a replacing Senator, rather than have the state governor appoint a replacement. Apparently the law was changed by a Democratic legislature in 2004 to stop Republican governor Mitt Romney from appointing a replacement for Senator John Kerry if he was elected President. I obviously find the first opinion much more persuasive than the second. Unfortunately, changing laws to benefit particular parties is nothing new in a system of partisan politics.
It's kind of like dirty lawyering - or, just good lawyering, for that matter. A prosecutor delays a trial for a few months. When the defense lawyer tries to bring in a key witness's record for fraud, lying, bad character, etc., the judge denies the request because the witness's actions were, just barely, more than 10 years ago. Good lawyering on the part of the prosecutor or sneaky, dirty lawyering? Most would say good lawyering. You have to know the rules, and play by them. I guess the Massachusetts legislature not only knows the rules but is willing to change them when needed.
Good politics? Maybe. But is that really their end goal?
It's kind of like dirty lawyering - or, just good lawyering, for that matter. A prosecutor delays a trial for a few months. When the defense lawyer tries to bring in a key witness's record for fraud, lying, bad character, etc., the judge denies the request because the witness's actions were, just barely, more than 10 years ago. Good lawyering on the part of the prosecutor or sneaky, dirty lawyering? Most would say good lawyering. You have to know the rules, and play by them. I guess the Massachusetts legislature not only knows the rules but is willing to change them when needed.
Good politics? Maybe. But is that really their end goal?
Monday, December 22, 2008
Charles Krauthammer - No Inheritance in Senate
Charles Krauthammer has a problem with appointing Caroline Kennedy to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.
I agree.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy. She seems a fine person. She certainly has led the life of a worthy socialite helping all the right causes. But when the mayor of New York endorses her candidacy by offering, among other reasons, that 'her uncle has been one of the best senators that we have had in an awful long time,' we've reached the point of embarrassment.
I agree.
Bleeding Hearts, Tight Wallets
Nicholas Kristof has an op-ed today noting that his research has found that "liberals are personally stingy."
I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives that are cheapskates as well. But the kind of giving Mr. Kristof is talking about - personal donations to local charities, volunteering, taking care of each other, especially the poor, needy and elderly in our own neighborhoods, has always been the best, most effective kind of giving. Supporting government policies that give to the poor is not enough. Nor is donating money to a church enough. We can all give a little more of our resources and our time to benefit those in need.
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives that are cheapskates as well. But the kind of giving Mr. Kristof is talking about - personal donations to local charities, volunteering, taking care of each other, especially the poor, needy and elderly in our own neighborhoods, has always been the best, most effective kind of giving. Supporting government policies that give to the poor is not enough. Nor is donating money to a church enough. We can all give a little more of our resources and our time to benefit those in need.
Monday, December 15, 2008
One More (Mormon) Thing
So, not to belabor the previous discussions, but there is one more aspect to the current campaign against the Mormon church: it isn't the first. Mormon history is replete with periods of intolerance, forced migration and even violence. Early members of the church were physically, often violently, forced from their homes and settlements in Missouri and Illinois. Early members in the Utah Territory endured the Utah War, in which the U.S. government sent its army to quell the people of Utah.
A lot of these incidents were supposedly incited by the Mormons' belief in polygamy, but their belief was not the singular reason for the constant and relentless persecution. Non-Mormon neighbors were often upset that the Mormons quickly became the majority of the areas they populated, elected members to political office, and seemed to all vote together. The Mormons also worked hard to increase the value of their land and properties, and in an era of government land-grants, their property became quite attractive.
These instances were not limited to the 1800s, either. The Mormon test oath began in the 19th century but lasted into the 20th. The test oath, enshrined in the Idaho territorial statutes, and later the Idaho constitution, required that a person disclaim membership in the Mormon church before he could vote or hold public office. The actual statute provided that "no person who … is a member of any order, organization or association which teaches, advises, counsels or encourages its members [to enter into what was then known as "plural" or "celestial marriage"] … is permitted to vote at any election, or to hold any position or office." Simply, the Mormon test oath had the effect of disqualifying all Mormons, bigamist or not, who would not disavow their beliefs.
A non-polygamist Idaho Mormon named Samuel Davis challenged the oath with others whose only offense was their church affiliation after they were convicted of conspiracy for attempting to register to vote in the Idaho territory in spite of the oath. They appealed their case all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1890, the Supreme Court upheld their convictions, comparing the Mormon doctrine of "celestial marriage" to rites of human sacrifice. The Court ruled that because Davis' church advocated "a practical resistance to the laws of the Territory" it was within the territory's power to require that any voter or candidate for public office "take an oath that he does not belong to an order that advises a disregard" of the law.
It wasn't until 1982 that the state of Idaho expunged the Mormon test oath from its state constitution by referendum. The vote was 66% to 33% (that's right, 33% of voting citizens in Idaho in 1982 voted in favor of keeping a test oath against Mormons on the Idaho constitution.) In 1993, the Supreme Court was still citing Davis v. Beason as binding precedent. But in 1996, it overruled it to the extent it would permit legal prejudice against the church.
Members of the Mormon church have long been ridiculed and persecuted for their beliefs. But beliefs are supposed to be safe, right? Political power makes people uncomfortable. Is it really the problem that some members of the Mormon church believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, which the majority of the country also believes, or is it something else? Are people upset that the Mormon church was able to bring people together? To raise money? To pool resources and to encourage its members to actually impact the political process?
The Mormon church is not out to rule the world, or the government. And its members won't likely be cowed into silence, either. In fact, many believe that persecution is a sign of righteousness. So they say, bring it on.
A lot of these incidents were supposedly incited by the Mormons' belief in polygamy, but their belief was not the singular reason for the constant and relentless persecution. Non-Mormon neighbors were often upset that the Mormons quickly became the majority of the areas they populated, elected members to political office, and seemed to all vote together. The Mormons also worked hard to increase the value of their land and properties, and in an era of government land-grants, their property became quite attractive.
These instances were not limited to the 1800s, either. The Mormon test oath began in the 19th century but lasted into the 20th. The test oath, enshrined in the Idaho territorial statutes, and later the Idaho constitution, required that a person disclaim membership in the Mormon church before he could vote or hold public office. The actual statute provided that "no person who … is a member of any order, organization or association which teaches, advises, counsels or encourages its members [to enter into what was then known as "plural" or "celestial marriage"] … is permitted to vote at any election, or to hold any position or office." Simply, the Mormon test oath had the effect of disqualifying all Mormons, bigamist or not, who would not disavow their beliefs.
A non-polygamist Idaho Mormon named Samuel Davis challenged the oath with others whose only offense was their church affiliation after they were convicted of conspiracy for attempting to register to vote in the Idaho territory in spite of the oath. They appealed their case all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1890, the Supreme Court upheld their convictions, comparing the Mormon doctrine of "celestial marriage" to rites of human sacrifice. The Court ruled that because Davis' church advocated "a practical resistance to the laws of the Territory" it was within the territory's power to require that any voter or candidate for public office "take an oath that he does not belong to an order that advises a disregard" of the law.
It wasn't until 1982 that the state of Idaho expunged the Mormon test oath from its state constitution by referendum. The vote was 66% to 33% (that's right, 33% of voting citizens in Idaho in 1982 voted in favor of keeping a test oath against Mormons on the Idaho constitution.) In 1993, the Supreme Court was still citing Davis v. Beason as binding precedent. But in 1996, it overruled it to the extent it would permit legal prejudice against the church.
Members of the Mormon church have long been ridiculed and persecuted for their beliefs. But beliefs are supposed to be safe, right? Political power makes people uncomfortable. Is it really the problem that some members of the Mormon church believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, which the majority of the country also believes, or is it something else? Are people upset that the Mormon church was able to bring people together? To raise money? To pool resources and to encourage its members to actually impact the political process?
The Mormon church is not out to rule the world, or the government. And its members won't likely be cowed into silence, either. In fact, many believe that persecution is a sign of righteousness. So they say, bring it on.
Well Said, Mr. Hanson
Victor Davis Hanson has some insight this morning on why our present generation fails in both ethics and common decency:
A relativist and therapeutic curriculum - that sounds exactly like what is being taught today. John Tierney similarly wonders why our children are spending precious hours in school learning about recycling instead of science. He tells about a second-grade class in West Virginia that spent time campaigning to keep an uneconomical recycling program alive. I guess budgets don't matter in our current spend-as-you-want world. Besides, I'm sure the children felt really good about themselves, you know, for saving the world and all.
When one reviews the released tapes from a thuggish Gov. Blagojevich, or remembers what Richard Fuld was doing at Lehman Brothers, recalls the base Wall Street criminality of a Bernard Madoff, or hears the latest December 7th sermon of ignorance and hate from Rev. Wright, and then tries to come up with some overarching (and secular) reason for such failure in our present generation of both ethics and common decency at so many different levels of our society, at least one common denominator seems to be the collapse of the liberal arts at all levels in our education system. We long ago abandoned non-ideological courses on civics, ethics, history, literature, and philosophy, and introduced in their place both a relativist and therapeutic curriculum, and a vocational one aimed only at acquiring the material good life.
I am not suggesting that the failure of K-12, and the greater failure of our universities, created ipsis factis such moral obtuseness in our popular culture, only that it did not produce enough citizens who knew right from wrong to stop the general madness swirling around them.
A relativist and therapeutic curriculum - that sounds exactly like what is being taught today. John Tierney similarly wonders why our children are spending precious hours in school learning about recycling instead of science. He tells about a second-grade class in West Virginia that spent time campaigning to keep an uneconomical recycling program alive. I guess budgets don't matter in our current spend-as-you-want world. Besides, I'm sure the children felt really good about themselves, you know, for saving the world and all.
Monday, December 08, 2008
The Mormon Church, Again
I've been sitting on thisall day, tired of talking about it, but still bothered by it. The author, Rick Jacobs, felt a need to respond to earlier articles standing up for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, specifically the piece by Jonah Goldberg, and their right to participate in politics. Mr. Jacobs defends the bigoted commercial by stating there was little discussion during the entire campaign about "the truth". His truth is this:
The article then proceeds to claim that Mormons were disproportionately involved in the Yes on 8 campaign and chides them for not taking responsibility for "leading the fight." Mr. Jacobs also faults the church for wanting to join other groups that also supported Yes on 8 - especially groups that have a better image than the church does.
You don't say.
Mr. Jacob argues that
This is the crux of his argument, of his justification for the vandalism and physical threats to Mormons. He is wrong. Members of the church do have a right to claim persecution for the hate-mongering ads and the threats against life and property. Just as others have a right to claim persecution for the denial of the alleged right to marry. And yes, the right of two men or two women to marry is an alleged right. I understand that the California court has said that the right exists in the California Constitution. But I think they are wrong. And so do a majority of California citizens.
The political process of defining rights is necessary in a democracy. And a democracy has to protect the valid rights of a minority group against a majority group that doesn't want to protect those rights. But we can't allow the minority group to define the right and then scream harassment. Rights are rights - and to define them, we must look to history and tradition and morality. Marriage is not an intrinsic right in the eyes of the state.
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints campaigned vigorously to strip rights from gays and lesbians.
The article then proceeds to claim that Mormons were disproportionately involved in the Yes on 8 campaign and chides them for not taking responsibility for "leading the fight." Mr. Jacobs also faults the church for wanting to join other groups that also supported Yes on 8 - especially groups that have a better image than the church does.
You don't say.
Mr. Jacob argues that
[t]he LDS Church or any other organization has every right to use its power to influence elections to any extent that is legal. What it doesn't have a right to do is claim persecution when other organizations do nothing but expose the church's forays into the political arena before a discerning public.
This is the crux of his argument, of his justification for the vandalism and physical threats to Mormons. He is wrong. Members of the church do have a right to claim persecution for the hate-mongering ads and the threats against life and property. Just as others have a right to claim persecution for the denial of the alleged right to marry. And yes, the right of two men or two women to marry is an alleged right. I understand that the California court has said that the right exists in the California Constitution. But I think they are wrong. And so do a majority of California citizens.
The political process of defining rights is necessary in a democracy. And a democracy has to protect the valid rights of a minority group against a majority group that doesn't want to protect those rights. But we can't allow the minority group to define the right and then scream harassment. Rights are rights - and to define them, we must look to history and tradition and morality. Marriage is not an intrinsic right in the eyes of the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
