^.^
Alright, I usually don't bother covering such things as the impending doom that results from legislation that is being contemplated by Congress...because one chamber of the Congress or the other usually doesn't like it...or the Persident may very well veto the measure...either way, the proposed bill will probably die.
So, what is different in this case, the case of the proposed emergency funding bill for the soldiers in Iraq? As I heard first from NPR, then from one of my friends, and finally from Glenn Beck on his show today, the problem is that all sorts of offers are being made to Congressmen if they will not vote for the emergency funding...
Here are some of the goodies being offered, if only the Congressmen being approached will simply forget their consciences, and vote against the troops... (items taken from the Washington Times (3-20-07))...
- $3.7 billion in farm subsidies for drought relief in Colorado.
- $25 million for California spinach growers.
- $75 million for peanut storage.
- $500 million for wildfire suppression in the US West.
- $120 million to assist Atlantic coast fishermen.
- $2.9 billion in additional Gulf Coast hurricane relief.
- $2.4 billion spread amongst programs such as social problems, money for rural schools in the US Northwest, health insurance for poor children, energy assistance for poor families, and other programs...
And as if this were not enough, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also threw in the goodie of a minimum wage increase...once again, you have to vote against funding the troops. Troops in one hand...all the goodies in the other...you can't have both.
What has happened is that the Liberalista Democrats have appended an amendment to the emergency spending bill which calls for the troops in Iraq to be withdrawn by September of next year. Once again, you either vote for the amendment, or you don't get the goodies.
In response to this, President Bush has asked that Congress send him a "clean" bill, one without strings attached. His statement was as follows:
"They have a responsibility to pass a clean bill that does not use funding for our troops as leverage to get special-interest spending for their districts," said Mr. Bush, whose initial request funded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as about $3.4 billion in hurricane relief. "They have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay."
As I told my friend, these issues, the funding of these projects, and the funding of our troops, should not be a part of the same discussion. People who support the troops in the field should not have to choose between that support, and funding for things to help with affairs in their districts.
Now, as it stands, the Liberalista Democrats are going to be stymied because there is no support for a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. All of this haggling over the bill means nothing because there is no support for the bill in the Senate, and if it manages to pass the Senate, President Bush will veto the thing.
Democrats should stop playing politics with the emergency spending bill and get it passed cleanly so that our troops have the money they need to function in the field, where they face life-threatening situations on a daily basis. It would be the right thing to do.
The problem is that politicians on both sides of the aisle don't always do the right thing.
I might very well start writing Congressional representatives in the states targetted by this latest deluge of pork.
John B.
Blogger Guy
PS: Over the next few days, I will be contacting the following Congressional members:
Wayne T. Gilchrest R-MD
Roscoe G. Bartlett R-MD
Sam Farr D-CA
Sanford D. Bishop Jr. D-GA
Henry C. Johnson Jr. D-GA
Jim Marshall D-GA
John Barrow D-GA
David Scott D-GA
Charles Boustany Jr. R-LA
Marilyn N. Musgrave R-CO
Thomas G. Tancredo R-CO
Barbara Cubin R-WY
and I will be commenting to them on this issue. If I get any response other than a standard "thank you for contacting us" note, I will post it here.
Oh, and I just saw this from The Hill, the DC newspaper that writes about Congressional matters:
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is holding the implied threat of lost committee seats over the heads of Democratic Caucus members who may vote against her $124 billion Iraq war supplemental bill."
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Hillary Running for Dogcatcher?
^.^
At some point last week, I received an automated email from Newsmax with blurbs about some of the items in the news. The item leading the headlines was "Bill Clinton to N.Y. Times: Stop Picking on Hillary", and it was printed at Newsmax.com on March 16th.
The lead paragraph goes like this:
"Bill Clinton has lashed out against an old ally, the New York Times, saying the paper wasn’t giving his wife Hillary "a fair shake.”
The story then details that at a fund-raiser at the Trump Tower in New York, former President Bill Clinton spent most of two hours attacking the New York Times, because according to him, the Times was attacking Hillary for her vote in favor of the war in Iraq. According to another attendee, the former President noted that the Times did not go after Senator (and Presidental candidate) Barack Obama when he side-stepped the issue of whether he would have voted in favor of the Iraq war.
Please note that I have referred to Bill Clinton as a "former President" twice now in that last paragraph...it's kinda important.
Let me point out that on the one hand, I can certainly understand why Bill Clinton would be upset. We're talking about his wife after all, so there is the "don't pick on my wife" angle. There's also the fact that she's a woman, which as I said recently does not mean that she can not or should not run for President, but it does cause an almost automatic "don't pick on the girl" reaction from a lot of people. And of course, if the allegation, story, or whatever is outright WRONG, all sorts of other things come into play...but that's not the case here.
On the other hand, Bill Clinton, as a former President, should know EXACTLY what that job entails, and he should know EXACTLY how hard it is to get that job, and how much people are going to slam anyone who goes for this particular brass ring.
In case he's forgotten, people should remind Mr. Clinton that the office of President is not like running for dogcatcher, and we are not electing the leader of the Emerald City, or some other mythical place where there is not much in the way of violence or unpleasantness.
Mr. Clinton's major complaint with the Times is that it treats Hillary unfairly...well sir, I think the American people got out of the "fairness to our leaders" business about the time that President Johnson extended our involvement in Vietnam one time too many, and after President Nixon was found to be behind the break-in at the Watergate. Ever since 1975, the American people have looked somewhat suspiciously at their Presidents...and this does not count the fact that in most cases, their suspicion has been rewarded with at least the shadow of malfeasance. Can we say Iran-Contra, the October Surprise, Monica-gate, and any number of the conspiracy theories that people accuse the Bush (43) administration of being involved in...
So YES, Americans might very well be unfair to our Presidents. How about the fact that the economy is doing decently, and the war in Iraq is actually producing good results, if you get past the Liberalista spin in the media... You don't see G.W. Bush getting credit for that. Unfairness works both ways.
And that's just on the home front. I don't think our allies will give us much grief about having a woman President, especially in the post-Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Corazon Aquino, etc world we are now in. However, I also don't buy the idea that our enemies will simply give Hillary a pass because she is a woman. While they might respect the United States because woman at the helm or not, we can still incinerate them off the face of the planet in a moment's notice, do you honestly think that the insane evil imp running Iran at the moment really cares about being fair to Hillary?
Hell no, folks! He's out to maintain or bolster his national interests, and he'd be stupid not to (just like everyone else in the world is out for their own national interests...hence keeping historians like me in business...).
Because the world is not Camelot, or Oz, we need to elect Presidents who have been toughened by the electoral experience. This is why Guido the Average Joe won't be running in 2012. This is why respected media types like Rush Limbaugh don't get in, even though they have excellent insight on things political, economic, and diplomatic...they realize that their lives might be ruined in the process.
Hillary Clinton being treated unfairly should be taken as part of the game, and it is good that WE treat her, and all of the other candidates as unfairly as we wish...because at least when we do it, no real harm comes to the country. ALL of the candidates had best get used to it, because when our leaders have to deal with the Evil Imp of Iran or one of the other mega-baddies on the world stage, there won't be time for a crash course in the real world of politics.
John B.
Blogger Guy
At some point last week, I received an automated email from Newsmax with blurbs about some of the items in the news. The item leading the headlines was "Bill Clinton to N.Y. Times: Stop Picking on Hillary", and it was printed at Newsmax.com on March 16th.
The lead paragraph goes like this:
"Bill Clinton has lashed out against an old ally, the New York Times, saying the paper wasn’t giving his wife Hillary "a fair shake.”
The story then details that at a fund-raiser at the Trump Tower in New York, former President Bill Clinton spent most of two hours attacking the New York Times, because according to him, the Times was attacking Hillary for her vote in favor of the war in Iraq. According to another attendee, the former President noted that the Times did not go after Senator (and Presidental candidate) Barack Obama when he side-stepped the issue of whether he would have voted in favor of the Iraq war.
Please note that I have referred to Bill Clinton as a "former President" twice now in that last paragraph...it's kinda important.
Let me point out that on the one hand, I can certainly understand why Bill Clinton would be upset. We're talking about his wife after all, so there is the "don't pick on my wife" angle. There's also the fact that she's a woman, which as I said recently does not mean that she can not or should not run for President, but it does cause an almost automatic "don't pick on the girl" reaction from a lot of people. And of course, if the allegation, story, or whatever is outright WRONG, all sorts of other things come into play...but that's not the case here.
On the other hand, Bill Clinton, as a former President, should know EXACTLY what that job entails, and he should know EXACTLY how hard it is to get that job, and how much people are going to slam anyone who goes for this particular brass ring.
In case he's forgotten, people should remind Mr. Clinton that the office of President is not like running for dogcatcher, and we are not electing the leader of the Emerald City, or some other mythical place where there is not much in the way of violence or unpleasantness.
Mr. Clinton's major complaint with the Times is that it treats Hillary unfairly...well sir, I think the American people got out of the "fairness to our leaders" business about the time that President Johnson extended our involvement in Vietnam one time too many, and after President Nixon was found to be behind the break-in at the Watergate. Ever since 1975, the American people have looked somewhat suspiciously at their Presidents...and this does not count the fact that in most cases, their suspicion has been rewarded with at least the shadow of malfeasance. Can we say Iran-Contra, the October Surprise, Monica-gate, and any number of the conspiracy theories that people accuse the Bush (43) administration of being involved in...
So YES, Americans might very well be unfair to our Presidents. How about the fact that the economy is doing decently, and the war in Iraq is actually producing good results, if you get past the Liberalista spin in the media... You don't see G.W. Bush getting credit for that. Unfairness works both ways.
And that's just on the home front. I don't think our allies will give us much grief about having a woman President, especially in the post-Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Corazon Aquino, etc world we are now in. However, I also don't buy the idea that our enemies will simply give Hillary a pass because she is a woman. While they might respect the United States because woman at the helm or not, we can still incinerate them off the face of the planet in a moment's notice, do you honestly think that the insane evil imp running Iran at the moment really cares about being fair to Hillary?
Hell no, folks! He's out to maintain or bolster his national interests, and he'd be stupid not to (just like everyone else in the world is out for their own national interests...hence keeping historians like me in business...).
Because the world is not Camelot, or Oz, we need to elect Presidents who have been toughened by the electoral experience. This is why Guido the Average Joe won't be running in 2012. This is why respected media types like Rush Limbaugh don't get in, even though they have excellent insight on things political, economic, and diplomatic...they realize that their lives might be ruined in the process.
Hillary Clinton being treated unfairly should be taken as part of the game, and it is good that WE treat her, and all of the other candidates as unfairly as we wish...because at least when we do it, no real harm comes to the country. ALL of the candidates had best get used to it, because when our leaders have to deal with the Evil Imp of Iran or one of the other mega-baddies on the world stage, there won't be time for a crash course in the real world of politics.
John B.
Blogger Guy
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Sex Ed
^.^
Forget Sex Ed classes! Some students in an Indianapolis middle school have been taking the "birds and the bees" to all new places, namely the shop class.
This story is being reported by local radio talk shows and it gained national attention on Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor" on today's show.
Getting both the print version from the FOX News website, and after listening to the story on The Factor, I have got to officially declare that some of our schools have become basically the equivalent of multi-million dollar bunny hutches where our sixth-grade children can *breed*.
Before you hit that button and fire off a hate-filled email, let me fill you in on some of the details.
The local talk-show host covering this story stated that the shop classroom where this incident took place is an L-shaped room, where part of the room could be obscured from the view of the teacher. Add to that at least one student distracting the teacher, and with all of the clatter of the workshop, and you can see *how* this happened.
The problem then becomes the reaction of the school district, which has covered up the actions they may have taken against these students. We're talking covered up to the point that we're only hearing about this incident NOW.
Now, on the issue of the school district, apparently there is a board meeting of the school board here within a week or two, and The Factor is planning on being there. I can't wait to see the fur flying at that meeting, because I can also see a ton of parents descending on that building like a pack of frenzied alley cats. The idea that the school district has been mum on how this sort of thing could have been allowed to happen at the middle school, as well as actions taken against the students and perhaps even the teacher and administration of the school can only send the message that having sex in school is totally acceptable.
Those of you who think that sexual encounters in school are a rare thing, you must have been in an ice cave in Antartica for the last decade or so. On another Blogger blog, I counted the number of instances of women teachers having sex with male students. There were 16 articles, and all of them were instances of female teachers having sex with male students. I am certain that this was not a scientific survey of all instances of teacher/student sex, but one of the things that really caught me was the fact that so many of these stories seem to float under the radar.
The underlying issue is that parents are missing in action in the lives of their children. I am not saying that parents are the complete and only answer, nor am I saying that they are infallible...after all, some parents are totally WHACKED, and I can speak from expeience. However, once again speaking from experience, I can say that if parents aren't in the picture, and if other family members aren't there, people *will* learn about sex, and they'll get their education in ways that parents won't approve of.
While I think that the parents in East Indianapolis will have some very valid questions for the school board, the members of that board will have at least one equally biting question.
Where were you?
John B.
Blogger Guy
Forget Sex Ed classes! Some students in an Indianapolis middle school have been taking the "birds and the bees" to all new places, namely the shop class.
This story is being reported by local radio talk shows and it gained national attention on Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor" on today's show.
Getting both the print version from the FOX News website, and after listening to the story on The Factor, I have got to officially declare that some of our schools have become basically the equivalent of multi-million dollar bunny hutches where our sixth-grade children can *breed*.
Before you hit that button and fire off a hate-filled email, let me fill you in on some of the details.
The local talk-show host covering this story stated that the shop classroom where this incident took place is an L-shaped room, where part of the room could be obscured from the view of the teacher. Add to that at least one student distracting the teacher, and with all of the clatter of the workshop, and you can see *how* this happened.
The problem then becomes the reaction of the school district, which has covered up the actions they may have taken against these students. We're talking covered up to the point that we're only hearing about this incident NOW.
Now, on the issue of the school district, apparently there is a board meeting of the school board here within a week or two, and The Factor is planning on being there. I can't wait to see the fur flying at that meeting, because I can also see a ton of parents descending on that building like a pack of frenzied alley cats. The idea that the school district has been mum on how this sort of thing could have been allowed to happen at the middle school, as well as actions taken against the students and perhaps even the teacher and administration of the school can only send the message that having sex in school is totally acceptable.
Those of you who think that sexual encounters in school are a rare thing, you must have been in an ice cave in Antartica for the last decade or so. On another Blogger blog, I counted the number of instances of women teachers having sex with male students. There were 16 articles, and all of them were instances of female teachers having sex with male students. I am certain that this was not a scientific survey of all instances of teacher/student sex, but one of the things that really caught me was the fact that so many of these stories seem to float under the radar.
The underlying issue is that parents are missing in action in the lives of their children. I am not saying that parents are the complete and only answer, nor am I saying that they are infallible...after all, some parents are totally WHACKED, and I can speak from expeience. However, once again speaking from experience, I can say that if parents aren't in the picture, and if other family members aren't there, people *will* learn about sex, and they'll get their education in ways that parents won't approve of.
While I think that the parents in East Indianapolis will have some very valid questions for the school board, the members of that board will have at least one equally biting question.
Where were you?
John B.
Blogger Guy
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Judge Not...
^.^
Now, after all of my latest posts, I make value judgements, and I say we should do such and such, and why...because I believe it's the best thing for the country, or for humanity in general.
Now, I can hear some of you out there... "Hey John, aren't you a Christian, and doesn't the Bible tell you that you should not judge people?" Yep! The Big J says so in Matthew 7:1, "Judge not lest ye be judged."
However, there is a difference between judging a PERSON, and judging their thoughts, actions, and opinions. If we were not allowed to form Christian-based value judgements, then why did Jesus clear out all of the money-changers in the Temple? (Matthew 21:12-13)
To put it simply, the Bible is full of value judgements...have you taken a look at the Ten Commandments? Each of the dictates contained there is a value judgement...you know, murder is bad, stealing things is bad, lusting after someone's wife is bad... Now, when you go and start talking about *people*, you have to be careful. A person who steals is a thief...that's a fact. However, people are in generally good people...until it's an unmitigated fact that they're not.
The biggest standard in judging people is that we as Christians is that we "love the sinner, and hate the sin." Thus we can and should condemn homosexuality as an abomination to God, (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:24), however Jesus never condemned the SINNER, he offered them repentence. It's in that vein that Christians should act...we condemn the SIN, not the SINNER.
However, there is the other extreme to judging the SINNER, and that is when people decide that THEY can decide what is truth. They don't want anyone to make value judgements whatsoever. If you believe that your beliefs are the TRUTH, then they are, and who am I to tell you that you are wrong.
I guess this means that Adolf Hitler and his Third Reich buddies had their own truths too, and we should respect them because we should not impose our truths on others. Just a reminder, these are the people who came up with that wonderful set of truths encapsulated in the book "101 Ways to Cook Humans."
Yeah, for those of you who figure you can find your own truths, let's see how fast you change your mind when you confront someone who has decided that *his* truth is that you don't exist anymore. I'll place bets on how quick you find God.
John B.
Blogger Guy
Now, after all of my latest posts, I make value judgements, and I say we should do such and such, and why...because I believe it's the best thing for the country, or for humanity in general.
Now, I can hear some of you out there... "Hey John, aren't you a Christian, and doesn't the Bible tell you that you should not judge people?" Yep! The Big J says so in Matthew 7:1, "Judge not lest ye be judged."
However, there is a difference between judging a PERSON, and judging their thoughts, actions, and opinions. If we were not allowed to form Christian-based value judgements, then why did Jesus clear out all of the money-changers in the Temple? (Matthew 21:12-13)
To put it simply, the Bible is full of value judgements...have you taken a look at the Ten Commandments? Each of the dictates contained there is a value judgement...you know, murder is bad, stealing things is bad, lusting after someone's wife is bad... Now, when you go and start talking about *people*, you have to be careful. A person who steals is a thief...that's a fact. However, people are in generally good people...until it's an unmitigated fact that they're not.
The biggest standard in judging people is that we as Christians is that we "love the sinner, and hate the sin." Thus we can and should condemn homosexuality as an abomination to God, (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:24), however Jesus never condemned the SINNER, he offered them repentence. It's in that vein that Christians should act...we condemn the SIN, not the SINNER.
However, there is the other extreme to judging the SINNER, and that is when people decide that THEY can decide what is truth. They don't want anyone to make value judgements whatsoever. If you believe that your beliefs are the TRUTH, then they are, and who am I to tell you that you are wrong.
I guess this means that Adolf Hitler and his Third Reich buddies had their own truths too, and we should respect them because we should not impose our truths on others. Just a reminder, these are the people who came up with that wonderful set of truths encapsulated in the book "101 Ways to Cook Humans."
Yeah, for those of you who figure you can find your own truths, let's see how fast you change your mind when you confront someone who has decided that *his* truth is that you don't exist anymore. I'll place bets on how quick you find God.
John B.
Blogger Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)