* – I need this license plate:
* – after losing two in a row to Dallas and New Orleans (congrats, Saintseester), my Falcons bounced back to beat Washington 31 to 17, thanks mostly to Michael “the Burner” Turner getting back on track, rumbling for 166yds and two TDs.
“Matty Ice” needs to stop throwing picks, though.
This one’s political the rest of the way through, folks. Sorry.
* – so the House passed PelosiCare. Yippee-frickin’-skip. At least it was close (220 to 215). At least there’s a good chance the Senate version of the bill will get shot down. I was also pleased to see 39 Democrats be truly “bipartisan” and vote with their heads and according to the will of their constituencies and vote against this nearly-2,000 page monstrosity.
I mean, seriously, folks, do you want a health care bill that will require you to purchase an insurance policy for at least $15,000? And if you don’t you will go to jail?!?!?! You want a bill that will raise your taxes? You want a bill that will require you to prove that you’re enrolled in a qualified plan and that will fine you if you don’t (oh, btw, illegal aliens are exempt from this clause)? Isn’t filing your taxes enough of a pain in the ass as it is?
* – speaking of paying attention to the will of the constituency, I have something to say here that might not be to popular with the GLBTQ crowd, but hear me out…
First, understand that I am PRO-gay marriage. I just cannot fathom denying people the right to call their love a marriage and the benefits thereof just because of their gender preference. I voted to sustain the gay marriage law in the state of Maine. I was disappointed that the law was repealed via a referendum vote back on November 3rd.
That being said, I understand where some of the anti-gay marriage crowd was coming from when they voted to repeal the law. No, I don’t understand where the bigots are coming from. No, I don’t understand where the narrow-minded religious zealots are coming from. I do understand where those who felt the law was forced upon them are coming from. A while ago there was a gay rights referendum vote in Maine that was defeated. Whether you agree with them or not, the people spoke and said they didn’t want that law. The state government then essentially said, “Well, maybe you say you don’t want it, but we know better than you. We’re smarter than you and more enlightened than you, so we’re just going to pass this law anyway.”
And that’s exactly what the state government did.
What the anti-gay marriage crowd did was exercise their legal rights. They gathered enough petition signatures to force the matter to a vote in a referendum. They campaigned vigorously to make their position heard. They voted in the referendum and won. Those of us who disagree with them may not like the results, but they played by the rules and won fair and square in an exercise of democracy.
The pro-gay marriage advocates shouldn’t quit. I’m sure they won’t. They can play the same game, and they can win. What they need to do is learn from this defeat. It seems to me the two biggest worries people had about legalizing gay marriage were the possibility of religious institutions being forced to perform ceremonies they didn’t want to and the possibility of their children being taught about homosexuality at an inappropriate age and/or being indoctrinated about homosexuality. I distinctly remember one ad from the anti-gay marriage side that had a woman claiming to be a mother from Massachusetts whose second-grader was being taught about gay marriage in school. Even worse, she was not allowed to remove her child from that class! Now, I don’t know if that example is true or not. I never heard anybody from the pro-gay marriage side specifically deny it or disprove it, so I’ll have to assume it’s true.
Know what? As pro-gay marriage as I may be, I do find that example disturbing. I think the second grade is too early to be teaching my child about sexuality, hetero- or homo-. I also think it’s wrong to not allow me to remove my child from that class if I want to. It’s my child, not yours. I’ll decide when he or she is ready to learn about sex, thank you very much.
What the pro-gay marriage leadership in the state of Maine needs to do is write a piece of proposed legislation that makes it clear that no religious institution will be forced to perform a ceremony it does not want to, nor will it be penalized in any way, shape, or form if it chooses not to. This proposed legislation also needs to assure people that schools will not be forced or even asked to teach homosexuality at an inappropriate age (what would an appropriate age be? Well, as a suggestion, I remember having my Sex Ed classes in school when I was in the sixth grade). In addition, such education should be from a scientific perspective, not social. In other words, it should taught as a part of human sexuality, of biology and/or psychology, not as a social commentary. Educate, don’t indoctrinate. Finally, if a parent wants to pull his or her child out of a sexuality class, he or she should be able to do it without fear of repercussions against him or her or the child.
When such a piece of proposed legislation is written, follow the lead of the anti-gay marriage folks. Get the word out. Gather the signatures on a petition. Put it up for a vote on a referendum. Win your rights back.
* – still GLBTQ related, but on a slightly different tack: I have one issue with this story. While not quoted in this article, the Maine Human Rights Commission has been quoted as saying in regards to the situation, “Gender is a state of mind.”
Um, no, gender is defined by biology. Forgive my bluntness, but this is very simple: if you have a dick, you’re a boy. If you have a pussy, you’re girl. Have a dick? Use they boy’s room. Have a pussy? Use the girl’s room. Especially when you’re in the 5th-fucking-grade!
Gender is NOT a state of mind! Gender preference is.
* – staying with health care for just a bit longer, I have to respond to a blog post I saw that essentially said “Of course we have a right to health care. It’s right there in the Declaration of Independence (“…certain unalienable rights, that among these are life…”) and the Constitution (“…promote the general Welfare…”)”
First of all, the “life” in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” is just way too vague to be used as a defense of health care reform. Hell, you could use that as a defense of repealing the death penalty (which I’m sure this blogger would). You could also use it as a defense of being anti-abortion (which I’m sure this blogger would not). Call me crazy, but given that this passage was in the Declaration of Independence, I’m fairly certain the authors were defining “life” as in a life of freedom, a life free from the constraints they were living under at that time, which they likely felt wasn’t a “life” at all, but rather just an existence.
There’s a difference.
As far as the tired old argument of “promote the general Welfare” being a clause for government-provided health care, consider the following:
* – the same blogger also used the results of election in New York Congressional District 23 to take a shot at (as he calls them) “you Teabaggers/Carpetbaggers.” The Democrat, Bill Owens, won the election, a pretty remarkable accomplishment, given that the district had been solidly Republican for generations. However, the Republican Owens was initially running against, Diedre Scozzafava, was truly a RINO (Republican In Name Only). She was anti-gun. She was pro-choice. She embraced the stimulus bill. She was endorsed by ACORN. When she ended her campaign on Halloween Day, she endorsed Owens. Essentially, her winning would have been no different than Owens winning. Disgusted at the thought that such a liberal candidate would represent the Republican Party, the Conservative Party nominated Doug Hoffman, a career accountant with no previous political experience.
The blogger contemptuously mentioned the fact that Hoffman had people like Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson throw their support behind him, and yet he still lost. Stunningly, this blogger failed to mention how many times President Obama and Vice President Biden went to New Jersey to campaign for Democrat incumbent Governor Jon Corzine and that Corzine still lost to Chris Christie, even though New Jersey is a notoriously Democrat state.
The bottom line, sir, is that Owens defeated a heretofore unknown, third-party candidate by a mere 4%. To borrow a line from Glenn Beck, that’s like the Yankees beating a high school team by only four runs.
And you’re proud of this?!
Oh, and by the way, it took Owens a mere one hour after his victory to break four of his campaign promises.
Hope you’re happy.
* – hey, 13 dead and 29 wounded in a shooting at Ft. Hood, TX. Let’s give a shout-out!
* – oh, yeah, that Congressional Medal of Honor winner he gave the shout-out to? Not a Medal of Honor winner. A Medal of Freedom winner. Bit of a difference.
Think I’m nitpicking? Thinking to yourself, “Jeez, Falcon, give the guy a break! It was an honest, simple mistake!” Yeah? Really?
What would you have done if G.W. had made that mistake? What do you think the media would have done?
* – more evidence that these jobs that were “saved” by the stimulus weren’t.
* – speaking of the stimulus, how’s that working out for the 10.2% currently unemployed in America?
* – and the walls of ACORN continue to come tumbling down…
* – from Newsmax magazine…
President Barack Obama’s decision to spurn German President Angela Merkel’s invitation to attend ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago is “the most telling nonevent of his presidency.”
That’s the view of National Review Editor Rich Lowry, who notes that Obama has visited more foreign countries than any other president during his first year in office, yet has begged off going to Berlin to celebrate the Nov. 9 anniversary because of a crowded schedule.
“It’s hard to imagine any other American president eschewing the occasion,” Lowry writes.
“Wouldn’t Obama at least want to take the occasion to celebrate freedom and human rights those most cherished liberal values? Not necessarily. He has mostly jettisoned them as foreign-policy goals in favor of a misbegotten realism that soft-pedals the crimes of nasty regimes around the world.
“During the Cold War, we undermined our enemies by shining a bright light on their repression,” Lowry writes. “In Berlin, JFK called out the Communists on their ‘offense against humanity.’ Obama would utter such a phrase only with the greatest trepidation, lest it undermine a future opportunity for dialogue.”
The Berlin Wall came down because the free world, led by America, stood resolute against communist tyranny. But for Obama, “we are less an exceptional power than one among many, seeking deals with our peers in Beijing and Moscow,” Lowry observes.
“Why would Obama want to celebrate the refuseniks of the Eastern Bloc when he won’t even meet with the Dalai Lama in advance of his trip to China?”
(Obama did speak at the ceremony – via a giant TV screen)
* – from my bother-in-law’s brother over at The Pinetar Rag:
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.
–Rev. William John Henry Boetcker