We’ve all heard the phrase “The Greatest Generation”, spoken in reference to the kids who came of age during the great depression, fought to victory in World War II, staved off communism for a few decades, and many finished their working lives by placing American astronauts on the moon. I’ll certainly agree that from a historical viewpoint they are indeed The Greatest Generation, and I for one am a bit envious. I’m one of the “Baby Boom” generation (actually I pre-date the baby boom by a few years), that didn’t manage to do anything quite as spectacular as winning WW II, or being the first men on the moon. But we did manage to survive the disruption of the Vietnam years, and the technological era we brought about is second to none. (So are the world wide problems we seem to be getting blamed for.)
Now we have yet another generation coming along, and searching for a definitive title. By this, I’m referring to the current crop of “Under Thirties” among us. Perhaps unfairly, they seem to be earning the title of ‘The Dumbest Generation’ as publicized by Mark Bauerlein in his recent book by that name. “Don’t trust anyone under thirty” he loudly proclaims, rightly or wrongly. We all know that finding examples of teens' and twenty-somethings' “ignorance” is pretty easy… Two thirds of high-school seniors in 2006 couldn't explain an old photo of a sign over a theater door reading COLORED ENTRANCE. In 2001, 52 percent identified Germany, Japan, and Italy as Americas’ WW II allies, but not the Soviet Union. One quarter of 18- to 24-year-olds in a recent survey didn’t know who Dick Cheney or William Rehnquist are. The world's most heavily defended border? Would you believe Mexico’s border with the United States, according to 30 percent of that same age group? College professors are shocked to find students who respond blank-eyed to mention of fireside chats or Antietam or even Pearl Harbor. Many parents are appalled that their little darlings don't know Chaucer from Chopin. Bauerlein sees such ignorance as an intellectual, economic and civic disaster in the making, claiming “the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future”, and that "no cohort in human history has opened such a fissure between its material conditions and its intellectual attainments." He is a little late with his complaint of course… the old folks have been complaining about their kid’s cultural collapse and ignorance of history since admirers of Sophocles moaned that the popularity of Aristophanes was leading to the end of Greek civilization! The Civil War generation was aghast at Ned Buntline’s 1870’s dime novels. Victorian scholars considered Dickens a lightweight compared with other authors of the time. In a Newsweek report, Bauerlein laments that "there is no memory of the past, just like when the Khmer Rouge said 'this is day zero.' Historical memory is essential to a free people. If you don't know which rights are protected in the First Amendment, how can you think critically about rights in the U.S.?" Fair enough I’d guess, but I’d also think that if our young people don't know the Bill of Rights it’s not stupidity but rather a failure of their parents, the school system, and of society (which you might be aware is run by grown-ups) to require them to know it. Drawing on history, it’s noted that philosopher George Santayana in 1905, despaired of a generation's historical ignorance, warning that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
The generation in question has been called “fatally flawed,” accused of lacking values, social awareness, or caring about anyone or anything. Author Jean Twenge dubs them “Generation Me”, saying that self esteem programs in schools combined with the Internet may be unleashing “a little army of narcissists” on society. Others argue that youth, consumed by their celebrity and internet obsessions, are superficial and lacking social skills. Busy e-mailing and text-messaging, uploading photographs onto MySpace and Facebook, and creating playlists for iPods, they have trouble identifying the three branches of the American government and where Iraq is on the map.
Bauerlein cites assorted evidence that young Americans have stopped reading books, and blames the "low knowledge levels" of adolescents mainly on the Internet. "The world delivers facts and events and art and ideas," he writes, "but the young American mind hasn't opened." Warning that "knowledge is never more than one generation away from oblivion," Bauerlein is only one of a long-line of Chicken Little critics of American culture that began shortly after the Revolutionary War, when British and French “gentry” visited our shores, and bemoaned the fact that we generally lived in log cabins, with nary a hereditary castle or opera house to be found.
Like many, I’m appalled when I see the reading, writing, and arithmetic skills of our younger citizens displayed first hand. I know high school graduates who read at what I consider a third grade level, and whom I very much doubt are able to count past ten with their tennis shoes on! I have on occasion been known to mutter something about “dumb #&%*^ teenagers” when some kid on a skateboard zips in front of me while jabbering away on his cell phone. (I really don’t know why a ‘tween-ager even needs a cellular telephone!) At the same time I’ve also been known to unfavorably mention the ancestry of adults using a cell phone, particularly when they cut me off in traffic, apparently having failed to realize that their little bitty car isn’t going to make very much of an impression on the front bumper of a forty thousand pound firetruck!
Perhaps the kids can’t quote Shakespeare line by line, and perhaps their version of American English isn’t the same thing I learned in school. Many times their penmanship is atrocious, but then my penmanship is atrocious as well. Strangely enough I’ve found that many of our kids can intelligently discuss orbital dynamics or quantum physics about as easily as they can the lifestyle of Brittany Spears. Given the deep-rooted tradition of anti-intellectualism in the United States, I rather doubt that digital technology is responsible for the dumbing down of Americans as Bauerlein suggests. Digital technology and the internet simply make it easier for us to find whatever data we might need, in what approximates a personal copy of the largest library in existence. Without I contend, having to memorize thousands of printed pages, often specialized data that you’ll probably never again have a use for. (Remember all those boring hours spent in history class, trying to remember names, dates, and places? Try doing an internet search for “Peloponnesian War” and see what turns up!) While we older “generation whatever” folks might have a full set of lumps with the digital age, we should remember that the secret is to know how to find whatever information you presently need, in a hurry, and the kids seem to have that down pat!
The next time you try to program your VCR, who are you going to call for help… the graybeard down the road… or perhaps that fourteen year old computer nerd you seem to have spawned?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Congress
It would seem that our illustrious Democratic controlled congress has finally accomplished something never before done – they’ve achieved the lowest congressional approval rating in the history of political polls. Not surprisingly, President Bush, with his own voter approval rating sitting somewhere down in the basement, has a higher rating than congress. Only 9 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing according to the latest Rassmusen poll. And I rather suspect that those 9 percent are probably sitting in their padded private rooms, waiting for the man in the white jacket to bring them their nice medication. Once upon a time, when a certain nation’s leadership was similarly disliked by the common people, those in power famously suggested that the unwashed mob eat cake. What followed is a history lesson worth considering by our congress. No government really wants to find out what happens if they allow their approval rating to reach zero.
The logical question of course is why this particular congress is so disliked by the American people? Why is this congress such a failure? Is it because they just don’t care, are obsessed with petty partisan squabbles, and apparently are totally contemptuous of the American people? Looking at the various issues since the Democrats took control, Congress seems perfectly willing to sacrifice the health and safety of the American people for free trade relations with China and Mexico, only pay lip service to the public demand for secure borders, seem hell-bent on bailing the financial industry out of their self caused problems, and aren‘t at all bothered by the doubling of gas prices. There seems to be no shame on the Hill nor worry about the fact that the American voters consider them total failures. Instead, these self-obsessed, do-nothing politicians go about their daily business of fleecing the public, and laughing at the wishes of the masses that elected them to their high-and-mighty public offices. This might in part explain why, if we had a Bastille in this country, it would quite likely have been stormed long before now!
If Newt Gingrich's Republican majority had faced a 9 percent approval rating in the 1996 presidential election, the media certainly wouldn't have let us forget it. So given that the media's frequently reminding Americans of President Bush's low numbers (in the upper twenties), why is the mainstream media ignoring the almost nonexistent approval rating for Congress under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, even though they missed no opportunity to point out who was in control of Congress in 2006? (You might also note that Congress is controlled by "mainstream" Democrats, since the mainstream media reports there are no “liberal” Democrats in Congress.) When the result of the survey hit the wires, none of the evening news programs covered the story, not even as a brief mention. The talk news shows made no comment about the development either.
Rasmussen’s news release noted that the numbers are pretty bad even among the Democrats, who gave Congress a 17% positive rating last month, and are now down to 13%. Republicans give Congress a good or excellent rating of 8%, a one point improvement from last month, while the Independent voters giving Congress a 3% positive rating. One reason for the low numbers is that 72% of the electorate apparently believes that members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers than in taking care of the nations business. While it’s seemingly our national pastime to dislike politicians, there are scores of Washington lawmakers who make a difference in the lives of those who elected them. But divided government, full-time reelection campaigning, and a lobbyist stranglehold on the legislative process have joined forces to cause the current problems, with Republicans and Democrats both deserving a share of the blame. Blinded by partisanship, the lack of effective legislation at this time of record gas prices and economic collapse means that Congress is about as popular as a swarm of mosquitoes at a Sunday school picnic. Despite democratic assurances that things would be different this time around (where have I heard that one before?), as of July 4th Congress has passed 260 laws, the lowest number in the last thirty years. Of all the crucial issues facing the nation, 74 of those laws are for naming post offices and 148 could be called ‘substantive’ laws by someone, considering that this substantive legislation includes a law requiring the flag be flown on Father’s Day. Only 8 were “must pass” appropriations bills.
These numbers don’t include assorted resolutions that the Senate or the House took time to consider and then passed, such as: 1) Recognizing soil as an essential natural resource, and soils professionals as playing a critical role in managing our Nation's soil resources; 2) Designating July 2007 as "National Watermelon Month”; 3) Congratulating the men's volleyball team of the University of California, Irvine, for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Men's Volleyball National Championship; 4) Recognizing the 70th anniversary of the Idaho Potato Commission and designating May 2007 as "Idaho Potato Month”; and 5) Expressing support for designation of June 30 as "National Corvette Day". Both presidential candidates had resolutions of their own to be concerned with, Sen. Obama worked to pass a resolution congratulating the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship, while Sen. McCain co-sponsored a resolution congratulating the University of Arizona Wildcats for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Softball Championship. Congress wants to look like they are doing the peoples’ business rather than merely twiddling their thumbs and devouring the public treasury, so they resort to National Corvette Day!
With a popularity rating number so low, we might expect that Pelosi and Reid would resign in disgrace, shamed by the fact that the only thing they can claim to have accomplished is totally losing the confidence of nearly everyone in the country. If they don’t resign, out of simple respect for the American people, the leadership of both houses might well consider apologizing and resigning en masse.
Perhaps our elitist government officials might consider that sometimes the people get what they want, regardless of what the elitist media tell us we’re supposed to want. If the American voters can ever connect the economic downturn along with food and gas price increases, to continual congressional waffling, partisanship, and inaction, congress (and the White House) won’t know what hit them this November.
The logical question of course is why this particular congress is so disliked by the American people? Why is this congress such a failure? Is it because they just don’t care, are obsessed with petty partisan squabbles, and apparently are totally contemptuous of the American people? Looking at the various issues since the Democrats took control, Congress seems perfectly willing to sacrifice the health and safety of the American people for free trade relations with China and Mexico, only pay lip service to the public demand for secure borders, seem hell-bent on bailing the financial industry out of their self caused problems, and aren‘t at all bothered by the doubling of gas prices. There seems to be no shame on the Hill nor worry about the fact that the American voters consider them total failures. Instead, these self-obsessed, do-nothing politicians go about their daily business of fleecing the public, and laughing at the wishes of the masses that elected them to their high-and-mighty public offices. This might in part explain why, if we had a Bastille in this country, it would quite likely have been stormed long before now!
If Newt Gingrich's Republican majority had faced a 9 percent approval rating in the 1996 presidential election, the media certainly wouldn't have let us forget it. So given that the media's frequently reminding Americans of President Bush's low numbers (in the upper twenties), why is the mainstream media ignoring the almost nonexistent approval rating for Congress under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, even though they missed no opportunity to point out who was in control of Congress in 2006? (You might also note that Congress is controlled by "mainstream" Democrats, since the mainstream media reports there are no “liberal” Democrats in Congress.) When the result of the survey hit the wires, none of the evening news programs covered the story, not even as a brief mention. The talk news shows made no comment about the development either.
Rasmussen’s news release noted that the numbers are pretty bad even among the Democrats, who gave Congress a 17% positive rating last month, and are now down to 13%. Republicans give Congress a good or excellent rating of 8%, a one point improvement from last month, while the Independent voters giving Congress a 3% positive rating. One reason for the low numbers is that 72% of the electorate apparently believes that members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers than in taking care of the nations business. While it’s seemingly our national pastime to dislike politicians, there are scores of Washington lawmakers who make a difference in the lives of those who elected them. But divided government, full-time reelection campaigning, and a lobbyist stranglehold on the legislative process have joined forces to cause the current problems, with Republicans and Democrats both deserving a share of the blame. Blinded by partisanship, the lack of effective legislation at this time of record gas prices and economic collapse means that Congress is about as popular as a swarm of mosquitoes at a Sunday school picnic. Despite democratic assurances that things would be different this time around (where have I heard that one before?), as of July 4th Congress has passed 260 laws, the lowest number in the last thirty years. Of all the crucial issues facing the nation, 74 of those laws are for naming post offices and 148 could be called ‘substantive’ laws by someone, considering that this substantive legislation includes a law requiring the flag be flown on Father’s Day. Only 8 were “must pass” appropriations bills.
These numbers don’t include assorted resolutions that the Senate or the House took time to consider and then passed, such as: 1) Recognizing soil as an essential natural resource, and soils professionals as playing a critical role in managing our Nation's soil resources; 2) Designating July 2007 as "National Watermelon Month”; 3) Congratulating the men's volleyball team of the University of California, Irvine, for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Men's Volleyball National Championship; 4) Recognizing the 70th anniversary of the Idaho Potato Commission and designating May 2007 as "Idaho Potato Month”; and 5) Expressing support for designation of June 30 as "National Corvette Day". Both presidential candidates had resolutions of their own to be concerned with, Sen. Obama worked to pass a resolution congratulating the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship, while Sen. McCain co-sponsored a resolution congratulating the University of Arizona Wildcats for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Softball Championship. Congress wants to look like they are doing the peoples’ business rather than merely twiddling their thumbs and devouring the public treasury, so they resort to National Corvette Day!
With a popularity rating number so low, we might expect that Pelosi and Reid would resign in disgrace, shamed by the fact that the only thing they can claim to have accomplished is totally losing the confidence of nearly everyone in the country. If they don’t resign, out of simple respect for the American people, the leadership of both houses might well consider apologizing and resigning en masse.
Perhaps our elitist government officials might consider that sometimes the people get what they want, regardless of what the elitist media tell us we’re supposed to want. If the American voters can ever connect the economic downturn along with food and gas price increases, to continual congressional waffling, partisanship, and inaction, congress (and the White House) won’t know what hit them this November.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
2ed Amendment Decision
I sorta - kinda got busy over the 4th of July weekend, and forgot to post that issue's column. So... here it is, somewhat out of sequence.
- - - -
From my viewpoint, the cheers presently coming from the conservative right is a fitting counterpoint to the weeping, wailing, tearing of hair, and gnashing of teeth going on within the ranks of the liberal left. The reason behind all these histrionics of course is the Supreme Courts June 26th decision upholding the Second Amendment Right to keep and bear Arms. In their first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history, the court ruled that American citizens do after all, have the right to own guns, striking down the District of Columbia’s long standing ban on privately owned handguns, and not incidentally putting at risk nearly all the anti-gun laws on the books. It’s my understanding that the NRA has already filed suite hither and yon, contesting a number of those laws. For the first time in many years, I’ll hoist a glass to the honorable justices over this one, and yet another to the NRA!
The city of DC's argument was that by denying citizens the right to own handguns, there were less guns available to be stolen by criminals. The long-debated question is whether such a gun law has any effect on violent crime. Apparently not, as since the ban was passed, more than 8400 people have been murdered within the boundaries of Americas capitol city!
The second amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." To most of us, on the conservative right and the moderate middle ground at least, those twenty-seven words simply indicate that the government, any government in this country, may not restrict the ownership or possesion of “arms”. The defination of ‘Arms’ ranges from rocks and clubs through knives, spears, swords, and firearms, all the way up to ICBM’s and probably nuclear weapons as well, as the left wing spokesmen have been so quick to point out. However, with current prices, even buying a new hunting rifle would put a severe strain on my monthly budget, much less an ICBM! So, just for the sake of argument, lets strike the wide assortment of WMD’s from the list of legal arms. Looking somewhat further down the list of potential weapons, we might want to consider things like combat aircraft and battleships, or perhaps tanks and artillary pieces. Here again, the sheer price of these things puts them out of the reach of most people, so we have another weapons category that really isn’t part of the question. Besides, I’d rather doubt that the Fish & Game people would smile kindly on my going elk hunting with a forty millimeter grenade launcher mounted in the back of my pick-up! I’m reasonably sure that there are a few weapons of this sort floating around, but for the life of me I don’t know why anybody would feel they need something like that. Within the realm of more probable weapons, we’ll find a collection of full and semi-automatic weapons (“assault rifles”, sub-machine guns, and the like) that most people could probably afford, and often already own, both legally and illegally, despite all the gun laws on the books, the liberal left hysteronics, and all the best efforts of the Brady Bunch. But despite the movies from Hollywood, and the gory news headlines, these types of weapons are very rarely used in the commission of a crime.
The mainstream media tells us that the basic issue for the court was whether the second amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is in some arcane way tied to service in a state militia. In my view this is only partially true. When our constitution was written (and based on English Common Law), all male members of our society were considered to be members of the militia, were expected to possess arms and to be proficient in their use. Those armed citizens were also expected to take up their arms in defense of the Republic whenever necessary. Thus, the second amendment specifically denied the government any right to limit or restrict the citizens access to arms of any sort. I’ll agree that for the most part that the situation found in the late 1700’s does not exist today, but neither does it change the fact that our constitution guarentees American citizens the right to keep and bear arms if they so desire! The only way that can be changed is by means of a constitutional amendment, agreed to by Congress and two thirds of the states (an agreement that might be somewhat difficult to obtain), not by a back room decision among a few individuals.
The real question facing the court however is the sancity of our constitution. Is it a “living document” that can be changed whenever some weeping willie decides to save us from ourselves, or is it to be the Law of the Land, set forth for all to see as was the ancient Roman Law “… that should be written down in order to prevent magistrates from applying the law in an arbitrary fashion…”, and certainly not easily discarded by anyone who decides they don’t like things the way they are? In the early days of our nation’s history, Europeans generally looked down on us because we had the strange idea that common sense, along with individual and civic responsibility, was a suitable replacement for the orders of high born royalty. Our constitution was written by men who firmly believed in those precepts, and for nearly 200 years our freedom loving nation prospered. Now however we have citizens who believe we can easily discard whatever portion of our constitutional law that they consider inconvienient. The Supreme Court has just demonstrated that constitutional law is not so easily tossed in the trashcan.
We’ll often hear a plaintive cry that “… it’s for the cheeeldren…” from the far left whenever they’re in a “ban the guns” mode. OK, I have nothing against safety, public or individual, and yes, I’d like my kids and grandkids to be reasonably safe as well. But I’m also realist enough to know that nothing is completely safe in this world. Far to many children have their young lives cut short each year, for many reasons. Chief among those is the simple failure of the family to teach our children of lifes hazards. It seems we want “the law” to take the responsibility of caring of the kids, because we’re just to busy (or to lazy) to do it ourselves! Failing that, the utopians among us apparently feel that lifes hazards can be banned by the stroke of a pen despite what our law says. Hey, reality check here! Like any other tool in mankinds history, firearms have a definate place in our lives, and our kids had better learn about their function and use, along with learning the personal responsibility that accompanies bearing arms.
The world is not a safe place despite all the vapid utopian dreams that seem to come from the liberal members of society. Just because we’d like to be safe doesn’t mean that nature is going to change it’s ways anytime soon, and I for one would think that our kids would be far better served if they learn that “safety” and “responsibility” does not happen just because we’d wish it so, and that an iron bound constitution “writ in stone” is the only way to guarentee their freedom!
- - - -
From my viewpoint, the cheers presently coming from the conservative right is a fitting counterpoint to the weeping, wailing, tearing of hair, and gnashing of teeth going on within the ranks of the liberal left. The reason behind all these histrionics of course is the Supreme Courts June 26th decision upholding the Second Amendment Right to keep and bear Arms. In their first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history, the court ruled that American citizens do after all, have the right to own guns, striking down the District of Columbia’s long standing ban on privately owned handguns, and not incidentally putting at risk nearly all the anti-gun laws on the books. It’s my understanding that the NRA has already filed suite hither and yon, contesting a number of those laws. For the first time in many years, I’ll hoist a glass to the honorable justices over this one, and yet another to the NRA!
The city of DC's argument was that by denying citizens the right to own handguns, there were less guns available to be stolen by criminals. The long-debated question is whether such a gun law has any effect on violent crime. Apparently not, as since the ban was passed, more than 8400 people have been murdered within the boundaries of Americas capitol city!
The second amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." To most of us, on the conservative right and the moderate middle ground at least, those twenty-seven words simply indicate that the government, any government in this country, may not restrict the ownership or possesion of “arms”. The defination of ‘Arms’ ranges from rocks and clubs through knives, spears, swords, and firearms, all the way up to ICBM’s and probably nuclear weapons as well, as the left wing spokesmen have been so quick to point out. However, with current prices, even buying a new hunting rifle would put a severe strain on my monthly budget, much less an ICBM! So, just for the sake of argument, lets strike the wide assortment of WMD’s from the list of legal arms. Looking somewhat further down the list of potential weapons, we might want to consider things like combat aircraft and battleships, or perhaps tanks and artillary pieces. Here again, the sheer price of these things puts them out of the reach of most people, so we have another weapons category that really isn’t part of the question. Besides, I’d rather doubt that the Fish & Game people would smile kindly on my going elk hunting with a forty millimeter grenade launcher mounted in the back of my pick-up! I’m reasonably sure that there are a few weapons of this sort floating around, but for the life of me I don’t know why anybody would feel they need something like that. Within the realm of more probable weapons, we’ll find a collection of full and semi-automatic weapons (“assault rifles”, sub-machine guns, and the like) that most people could probably afford, and often already own, both legally and illegally, despite all the gun laws on the books, the liberal left hysteronics, and all the best efforts of the Brady Bunch. But despite the movies from Hollywood, and the gory news headlines, these types of weapons are very rarely used in the commission of a crime.
The mainstream media tells us that the basic issue for the court was whether the second amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is in some arcane way tied to service in a state militia. In my view this is only partially true. When our constitution was written (and based on English Common Law), all male members of our society were considered to be members of the militia, were expected to possess arms and to be proficient in their use. Those armed citizens were also expected to take up their arms in defense of the Republic whenever necessary. Thus, the second amendment specifically denied the government any right to limit or restrict the citizens access to arms of any sort. I’ll agree that for the most part that the situation found in the late 1700’s does not exist today, but neither does it change the fact that our constitution guarentees American citizens the right to keep and bear arms if they so desire! The only way that can be changed is by means of a constitutional amendment, agreed to by Congress and two thirds of the states (an agreement that might be somewhat difficult to obtain), not by a back room decision among a few individuals.
The real question facing the court however is the sancity of our constitution. Is it a “living document” that can be changed whenever some weeping willie decides to save us from ourselves, or is it to be the Law of the Land, set forth for all to see as was the ancient Roman Law “… that should be written down in order to prevent magistrates from applying the law in an arbitrary fashion…”, and certainly not easily discarded by anyone who decides they don’t like things the way they are? In the early days of our nation’s history, Europeans generally looked down on us because we had the strange idea that common sense, along with individual and civic responsibility, was a suitable replacement for the orders of high born royalty. Our constitution was written by men who firmly believed in those precepts, and for nearly 200 years our freedom loving nation prospered. Now however we have citizens who believe we can easily discard whatever portion of our constitutional law that they consider inconvienient. The Supreme Court has just demonstrated that constitutional law is not so easily tossed in the trashcan.
We’ll often hear a plaintive cry that “… it’s for the cheeeldren…” from the far left whenever they’re in a “ban the guns” mode. OK, I have nothing against safety, public or individual, and yes, I’d like my kids and grandkids to be reasonably safe as well. But I’m also realist enough to know that nothing is completely safe in this world. Far to many children have their young lives cut short each year, for many reasons. Chief among those is the simple failure of the family to teach our children of lifes hazards. It seems we want “the law” to take the responsibility of caring of the kids, because we’re just to busy (or to lazy) to do it ourselves! Failing that, the utopians among us apparently feel that lifes hazards can be banned by the stroke of a pen despite what our law says. Hey, reality check here! Like any other tool in mankinds history, firearms have a definate place in our lives, and our kids had better learn about their function and use, along with learning the personal responsibility that accompanies bearing arms.
The world is not a safe place despite all the vapid utopian dreams that seem to come from the liberal members of society. Just because we’d like to be safe doesn’t mean that nature is going to change it’s ways anytime soon, and I for one would think that our kids would be far better served if they learn that “safety” and “responsibility” does not happen just because we’d wish it so, and that an iron bound constitution “writ in stone” is the only way to guarentee their freedom!
Flip-Flop
What keeps politicians honest? A lot of people would answer that question with a heartfelt “not a cotton-picking thing!” Over the last few years a series of political scandals have given us the popular view that politicians are nothing more than a collection of liars and crooks. Sometimes I agree with that particular idea rather vocally… however, while there will always be plenty of dishonest people in politics, most American politicians don’t end their careers by being arrested and marched out of their offices in handcuffs. So, other than the threat of upset voters, what makes politicians keep their campaign promises? Once again the answer is “absolutely nothing”. The only thing going for the voters is that they can make an educated selection from the candidates being offered up by the various political parties, mostly by looking at the candidate’s history, his voting record on important issues, and listening to what he says in the here and now. There are warning signs that a politician may not believe in what he says publicly of course, but those are signs that observant voters can look for. One of those is “flip-flopping” on various issues. If a politician can change his “views” without a good explanation during a campaign, voters can be pretty sure that what he is telling them is nothing more than a momentary political expedient. If he doesn’t hold his views strongly, voters sure can’t trust the politician to keep his campaign promises, or to support the position of the people he hopes will vote for him.
In the last few days, charges of flip-flopping against both presidential candidates started flying thick and fast. For Senator McCain, the flip-flop is his proposal to resume offshore drilling. As the Washington Post pointed out, “McCain's announcement is a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign.” Well, OK, while his switch has the environmentalists weeping and wailing, he also states that a policy which made sense when gasoline was about a buck a gallon doesn’t make much sense with gas at four bucks a gallon.
The charges against Senator Obama have been more numerous and difficult to explain. An Obama primary campaign slogan was “Only Barack Obama Consistently Opposed NAFTA”, and that the threat to “opt-out” could be used as a “hammer” to force Canada and Mexico to "renegotiate" NAFTA. But, on the flip side, Obama said that he was “not a big believer in doing things unilaterally’ and that he wouldn’t force a renegotiation of NAFTA. His explanation for the change in position was that "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." Still, Obama’s senior economics adviser, Austin Goolsbee, was caught telling Canadians that Obama didn’t really mean his promise to renegotiate the treaty. For Democrats the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was a position in which no compromise was allowed. In September, Obama’s campaign claimed he would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But recently Obama switched and supported the FISA compromise which granted telecom companies legal amnesty. Democrat party activists are calling Obama’s switch a “disaster.” Last year, Obama’s stance on Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns was loudly applauded for his dedication to saving public financing of presidential campaigns. Numerous editorials tore into Obama’s opponents for not making the same promise. The excuse for his now breaking this promise is that “The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who have become masters at gaming this broken system.” Still, he hasn’t explained why the system is any more broken now than it was last fall.
So John McCain is now against the federal ban on oil drilling in coastal waters, and Barack Obama is not going to accept public campaign funds… The jury is still out on whether McCain made the proper political move in changing his drilling views, but in Obama’s case it’s simple, he’ll now have more campaign money to spend than McCain, and right now money is extremely important to politicians.
One internet source of the candidate’s states positions is “Project Vote Smart” (located at http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm ). After spending hours wading through their statistics and questionnaires, I’ve found the following about the two leading candidates;
Obama’s claimed stance on abortion is that they should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade, and apparently he has little else to say on the subject. In the case of affirmative action he claims to support taking race and sex into account in college admission, public employment, and government contracting. On crime control he says he favors penalties other than incarceration for some non-violent offenders, increased funding for inmate rehab programs, and funding for juvenile offender “boot camps”. Under the heading of Economy and Employment he favors low interest loans for starting, expanding, or relocating businesses. (A few years ago I’d have loved to have seen that happen!) He’d also like to see an increase in job training programs. On the Environment & Energy chart he wants to require cleaner burning fuels, and supports industrial “self auditing” to clean up pollution.
Sen. Obama’s stance on government reform is interesting even if uncommitted. He’s undecided on term limits at the state level, undecided on requiring a balanced federal budget, supports campaign finance disclosure and partial funding for state level campaigns. On firearms issues he supports banning the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic weapons, increased restrictions on purchase and possession of firearms, and of course he would require child safety locks to be provided by the manufacturer. In the area of Health and social issues he wants to ensure basic health care through managed care, insurance reforms, and state funding. He also seems to think that the states should increase their funding for most federally mandated social programs.
Senator McCain would support abortion when pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the woman’s life is endangered. He would prohibit “partial birth” abortions and public funding of abortion clinics. On budgetary, spending, and tax issues he would pretty much maintain the status quo, with a slight increase in defense spending. Apparently however, Mr. McCain supports the Presidents tax reduction issue. He hasn’t said much about campaign finance and government reform issues. He does support the death penalty, prosecution of minors as adults when charged with violent crimes, mandatory prison time for drug dealers, and vocational training programs for prison inmates. On education issues he supports national standards for students, school vouchers, charter schools, teacher testing and merit pay, and school infrastructure and technology improvements. For social security he would allow individuals to invest in and manage their own private retirement accounts. Responding to employment and affirmative action questions he would increase funding for national job-training programs that re-train displaced workers, and reduce government regulation of the private sector. Not much is said about affirmative action. On environmental issues he supports the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, along with healthy forests legislation. He would also require compensation for land owners when environmental regulations affect the use of their property. In firearms issues he would strengthen enforcement of existing gun laws, allow concealed carry, and protect licensed gun dealers from lawsuits by crime victims. He supports stem cell research with existing stem cell lines, supports a “Patient’s Bill of Rights”, and limiting punitive damages in medical malpractice suits.
With regard to International Aid, Policy, and Trade Issues, McCain’s said that “While implementing reforms, our nation should participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations when defense of our national interests and values calls for such action, provided the U.S. maintains operational control of our forces. Aid should be granted to countries when extraordinary circumstances cause disaster and threaten civilian lives.” And that “Aid should be granted to countries when it is in the security interests of the United States.” As expected he supports the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, and continuing sanctions against North Korea and Iran. He opposes allowing Law Enforcement agencies greater discretion in “spying” on American citizens, but in the same breath supports Homeland Security. Nor does he rule out pre-emptive strikes on other countries when evaluated on a case by case basis. Sen. McCain apparently supports NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO as well.
So, there are the stated positions on various issues. Now of course we’ll see if the candidates continue with those beliefs, or if they just “tell the crowd what they want to hear”. Character and honesty will show through I suspect, if it’s there at all.
In the last few days, charges of flip-flopping against both presidential candidates started flying thick and fast. For Senator McCain, the flip-flop is his proposal to resume offshore drilling. As the Washington Post pointed out, “McCain's announcement is a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign.” Well, OK, while his switch has the environmentalists weeping and wailing, he also states that a policy which made sense when gasoline was about a buck a gallon doesn’t make much sense with gas at four bucks a gallon.
The charges against Senator Obama have been more numerous and difficult to explain. An Obama primary campaign slogan was “Only Barack Obama Consistently Opposed NAFTA”, and that the threat to “opt-out” could be used as a “hammer” to force Canada and Mexico to "renegotiate" NAFTA. But, on the flip side, Obama said that he was “not a big believer in doing things unilaterally’ and that he wouldn’t force a renegotiation of NAFTA. His explanation for the change in position was that "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." Still, Obama’s senior economics adviser, Austin Goolsbee, was caught telling Canadians that Obama didn’t really mean his promise to renegotiate the treaty. For Democrats the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was a position in which no compromise was allowed. In September, Obama’s campaign claimed he would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But recently Obama switched and supported the FISA compromise which granted telecom companies legal amnesty. Democrat party activists are calling Obama’s switch a “disaster.” Last year, Obama’s stance on Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns was loudly applauded for his dedication to saving public financing of presidential campaigns. Numerous editorials tore into Obama’s opponents for not making the same promise. The excuse for his now breaking this promise is that “The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who have become masters at gaming this broken system.” Still, he hasn’t explained why the system is any more broken now than it was last fall.
So John McCain is now against the federal ban on oil drilling in coastal waters, and Barack Obama is not going to accept public campaign funds… The jury is still out on whether McCain made the proper political move in changing his drilling views, but in Obama’s case it’s simple, he’ll now have more campaign money to spend than McCain, and right now money is extremely important to politicians.
One internet source of the candidate’s states positions is “Project Vote Smart” (located at http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm ). After spending hours wading through their statistics and questionnaires, I’ve found the following about the two leading candidates;
Obama’s claimed stance on abortion is that they should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade, and apparently he has little else to say on the subject. In the case of affirmative action he claims to support taking race and sex into account in college admission, public employment, and government contracting. On crime control he says he favors penalties other than incarceration for some non-violent offenders, increased funding for inmate rehab programs, and funding for juvenile offender “boot camps”. Under the heading of Economy and Employment he favors low interest loans for starting, expanding, or relocating businesses. (A few years ago I’d have loved to have seen that happen!) He’d also like to see an increase in job training programs. On the Environment & Energy chart he wants to require cleaner burning fuels, and supports industrial “self auditing” to clean up pollution.
Sen. Obama’s stance on government reform is interesting even if uncommitted. He’s undecided on term limits at the state level, undecided on requiring a balanced federal budget, supports campaign finance disclosure and partial funding for state level campaigns. On firearms issues he supports banning the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic weapons, increased restrictions on purchase and possession of firearms, and of course he would require child safety locks to be provided by the manufacturer. In the area of Health and social issues he wants to ensure basic health care through managed care, insurance reforms, and state funding. He also seems to think that the states should increase their funding for most federally mandated social programs.
Senator McCain would support abortion when pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the woman’s life is endangered. He would prohibit “partial birth” abortions and public funding of abortion clinics. On budgetary, spending, and tax issues he would pretty much maintain the status quo, with a slight increase in defense spending. Apparently however, Mr. McCain supports the Presidents tax reduction issue. He hasn’t said much about campaign finance and government reform issues. He does support the death penalty, prosecution of minors as adults when charged with violent crimes, mandatory prison time for drug dealers, and vocational training programs for prison inmates. On education issues he supports national standards for students, school vouchers, charter schools, teacher testing and merit pay, and school infrastructure and technology improvements. For social security he would allow individuals to invest in and manage their own private retirement accounts. Responding to employment and affirmative action questions he would increase funding for national job-training programs that re-train displaced workers, and reduce government regulation of the private sector. Not much is said about affirmative action. On environmental issues he supports the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, along with healthy forests legislation. He would also require compensation for land owners when environmental regulations affect the use of their property. In firearms issues he would strengthen enforcement of existing gun laws, allow concealed carry, and protect licensed gun dealers from lawsuits by crime victims. He supports stem cell research with existing stem cell lines, supports a “Patient’s Bill of Rights”, and limiting punitive damages in medical malpractice suits.
With regard to International Aid, Policy, and Trade Issues, McCain’s said that “While implementing reforms, our nation should participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations when defense of our national interests and values calls for such action, provided the U.S. maintains operational control of our forces. Aid should be granted to countries when extraordinary circumstances cause disaster and threaten civilian lives.” And that “Aid should be granted to countries when it is in the security interests of the United States.” As expected he supports the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, and continuing sanctions against North Korea and Iran. He opposes allowing Law Enforcement agencies greater discretion in “spying” on American citizens, but in the same breath supports Homeland Security. Nor does he rule out pre-emptive strikes on other countries when evaluated on a case by case basis. Sen. McCain apparently supports NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO as well.
So, there are the stated positions on various issues. Now of course we’ll see if the candidates continue with those beliefs, or if they just “tell the crowd what they want to hear”. Character and honesty will show through I suspect, if it’s there at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)