Just Get It Done

During our latest snowstorm, the snowplows skipped our neighborhood. This meant we had four inches of fresh powder atop five inches of packed, wet, snow. I do not own a four-wheel drive vehicle. My minivan did fine until I hit an intersection where I had to turn, at which point I lost all momentum and traction. The first time I got stuck in the road several neighbors stopped and gave me a push. The second time there was no one around. I retrieved my preschooler from his car-seat and trudged the block to our home. Snow shovel in hand I went back and freed my van. Then I spent half an hour, in seven degree weather, shoveling that intersection by hand.

There are other mothers in our neighborhood who would have to get through that intersection in order to retrieve their children from school. We have elderly neighbors. The snowplows obviously weren’t coming anytime soon.

Yes, I could have called the town or the homeowners association and complained.

I could have finished freeing my van and left everyone else to their own devices. They probably all have four wheel drive anyway.

But I wasn’t raised that way.

I was, am, a military brat. We moved quite often and always several hundred, or thousand, miles from our previous home. Despite the constant uprooting and lack of stable friendships, my brother and I were always taught the value of community. Neighbors looked out for each other. We shoveled neighbors driveways, helped the folks across the creek cut back the kudzu and poison ivy, and unloaded groceries for the young mom across the street.

We do have evidence of that same community spirit in our current area. A kind, and as yet anonymous, neighbor used his snow blower to clear all of the sidewalks on our street during a previous storm. We live so close to the local elementary school that most of our children walk to school. We watch out for those kids whose parents work and make sure they get home safe- and promptly. Every morning and afternoon four parents volunteer their time to serve as crossing guards- rain, snow, or wind we’re out there looking out for the neighborhood.

Perhaps that is why the issues of the un-plowed intersection so irritated me. Perhaps it was the fact that while I worked so hard shoveling all that snow off the road, a gentleman ten feet away was using a snow blower on his driveway and pretending to ignore my presence. I think, however, what so irked me was the fact that so many folks drove through, or pushed themselves out of, that intersection but didn’t stop to think about clearing it.

It is evidence of what I like to call the “Katrina” effect. Remember the interviews of rescued New Orleans residents following Hurricane Katrina? There were so many elderly unable to move from their homes. They, and apparently all of their able-bodied neighbors, thought the government would send someone to move them out of harm’s way. Other refugees cursed the government for not providing adequate emergency shelter or methods to escape the city. What happened to community? What happened to providing for ourselves?

When we depend on a nebulous government entity for our own safety, we are doomed as a country and as a species. We must re-develop that integral sense of self preservation and self sufficiency. We do still have the capacity to care for our community, despite the separation provided by electronic media, big-box stores, and super highways. That spark of involvement and caring must be nurtured in our children and fostered for future generations. We must ask not what our government can, must, or should, do for us. We must ask what we can do for each other without having to be told, or taxed, to do.

If the little old lady down the street is bedridden and there’s a hurricane coming, make room in your car for her. If the mother of three down the block has lost her husband in the war, make sure she has food to put on the table and someone to watch the kids. If your road is un-plowed and folks are in danger of being stranded, grab your shovel and get to work.

We’d accomplish a lot more in this country if we spent less time whining about government failures and more time working to help ourselves.

Just to Clarify

Just in case my prose was a bit too obtuse in my previous entry, I feel I should point out a few key facts:

1. I never said I hold all of Islam responsible for 9/11. I do, however, find the association between well-funded Islamic organizations and international terrorism to be disturbing and something that should be investigated further.

2. The government will not, CAN NOT, prevent the construction of the mosque. Once the zoning board ruled in their favor, the mosque has every legal standing. The point, of course, is not CAN they build a mosque there, it’s SHOULD they.

3. In my opinion the construction of a mosque in that location is inciting ill will, even violence, towards that specific house of worship as well as against other Muslim Americans. To build an Islamic cultural center in that location smacks of public opinion tone deafness. The President, by voicing his support, again shows how out of touch he is with the majority of Americans.

4. Read my post, below, again. I was, I am, protesting the construction of the mosque and the fact that anyone who speaks out, in the negative, about this issue is attacked. To call me racist, bigoted and un-American is patently unfair. I’m doing a very American thing- using words and ideas to protest.

Yesterday an MSNBC reporter compared those who disagree with the mosque construction location to the 9/11 hijackers. When I read Norah O’Donnell’s comments I said some very unprintable things. Then I read that Speaker Pelosi believes that those protesting the mosque are doing so for political aims and the “funding of those people” should be investigated.

Those people, Madam Speaker, include Harry Reid: the Majority Leader of the Senate and one of your party cohorts. Those people include as many as 70% of the American public. By insinuating that there must be some vast conspiracy going on that would allow Americans to vocalize their opposition to such an emotional issue, you show your own tone-deafness. Americans are blessed with good schools, cheap forms of communication and the 1st Amendment. That 1st Amendment that protects the right of crass individuals to build an inflammatory symbol at the location of a national tragedy also allows Americans to protest that self-same construction. We should be able to do so without threat of investigation and without being compared to mass murders.

We are the people. We are making our voices heard. You can stomp your foot and refuse to listen, but keep in mind what happens to recalcitrant toddlers who employ such actions: they get sent to their rooms for a time-out. We the people may very well send you home.

Never Forgetting, Not Yet Forgiving

I’ve been told, by the President of the United States, by the Mayor of New York, by the Governor of New Jersey, that protesting the erection of a mosque less than half a block from “Ground Zero” is not the American way. That, as Americans, we live the beliefs of religious freedom, cultural tolerance, and forgiveness. That opposing this center of religious worship is racist, bigoted, and jingoistic.

My religion teaches me to turn the other cheek, to forgive those who have sinned against me as they forgive me when I sin against them. My God is a loving God, his son and prophets espouse love for all mankind, even the most flawed among us. As a lover of this God, as a lover of the Constitution that shapes our government and ensures our freedoms, freedoms I believe to have been handed down quite literally from our Creator, I should forgive the Islamic radicals who visited death and destruction upon my country- upon me.

I’ve also been told that time heals all wounds. I’ve been told I’m educated enough to differentiate between radicals sects and peaceful brethren of the Book.

But, you know, I cannot recall anyone lecturing the survivors of the Bataan Death March about forgiveness and American support of multi-culturism. I don’t recall a Shinto temple being erected anywhere near the watery grave of the Arizona. I don’t recall liberating forces looking into the emaciated faces of Nazi death camp survivors and telling them to suck it up and cease their whining.

There are some wounds that take generations to heal- lifetimes, in fact. Those who lived through the horror have to fade from the Earth before the trauma of the event can be allowed to weaken. Before the grass can grow green over the scarred land and the hatred can dim in men’s eyes, there has to be a generational disconnect.

We are imperfect beings, humans. We do not forgive easily. We struggle with fear, irrational hatred, and bitter memories. We kneel in prayer, before many gods, seeking the Grace to be better, holier, more forgiving.

So, Mr. President, Mr. Mayor, Governor, you may try to lecture me on the American way and Christian forgiveness, but if the Lord God Almighty struggles daily to teach me that lesson, just how successful are you going to be?

When you have run into a shattered, burning, building to save complete strangers, or wrestled with knife wielding madmen in a vow to live, and die, as you chose, then you may lecture us on the American Way. When you have served one single day in a hostile foreign land, shot at, maimed emotionally and physically in dogged pursuit of the human abominations behind terrorism, then you may remind us of the duties of a citizen.

When you have stood and watched your co-workers and the people you passed in the hallways burn to death in a man-made hell on Earth, you can lecture us on forgiveness. For shame Mayor Bloomberg, for you personally. Can you not recall watching bodies plummet from the skies? Many may have forgotten that particular horror in a sea of cataclysmic images- the American press is too “sensitive” to publish those pictures any more. But you, a citizen, a LEADER, of that scarred city should never, ever, forget.

When you have made a call to your mother telling her: “I don’t know what’s happening. I don’t know where they want us to go. I have to go now. I love you.” Then you may preach to me about “moving on”. When you’ve smelled the smoke, for days, drifting across the Potomac and known that you smell the bodies of servicemen, flight attendants, pilots, and middle school children on a field trip, then, maybe, just maybe, you can tell me that Americans share the blame for 9/11.

Until you can do these things, until you have made more than a token effort to understand that nine years does not heal the emotional scars of abject terror, you may not look down your sanctimonious nose and tell me about bigotry, hate, and love of freedom.

Someday the Lord shall teach my soul to love and heal the battered psyche of everyone who personally lived through that day. Until that day I shall pray for his guidance and struggle against oppression and terror. I shall serve my country and God- my God, the loving God, the God of forgiveness and righteousness.

You, sirs, are not God.

Proposed Campaign Commercial!

I have a proposed campaign slogan for opponents of the health care reform travesty:

Why do Democrats Hate Our Children?

Cue sympathetic female voice from somewhere off camera:
Senator/ Representative (insert name here), why do you hate our children? You voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that caps the amount families can spend each year through their pre-tax “Flexible Spending Accounts”. We can no longer effectively use these accounts to pay for little Maggie’s occupational therapy.

Cue: picture of darling Maggie, confined to a wheelchair

Maggie has cerebral palsy, which is a result of her premature birth. We are lucky to have Maggie, thanks to the wonderful life saving devices in the Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care Units. You voted against an amendment to stop the added tax on these devices. Now they will be more expensive to create and use.

Dear Senator/representative X: why have you made it more expensive to treat and care for our children? Why did you vote against measures meant to help our children and for federal subsidization of Viagra to convicted child molesters?

-----------------------

Think this is an exaggeration or over-reaction? Shocked that your Senators and Representatives could be so crass, so stupid, as to vote for a cap on FSA’s and a tax on medical devices? Think again.

Cap on FSA’s as stated in the bill: page 1960 lines 5-16
Senate Amendment to exempt pediatric devices from medical tax
Senate Amendment to prevent subsidization of Viagra to rapists and child molesters

Constitutional Challenges to health care "reform"

In case you haven’t heard, 11 state attorneys general have signed on to a lawsuit declaring the recently passed health care reform act to be unconstitutional. If you’ll recall, I mentioned just such a concern a few weeks ago: An Apple a Day...

Defenders of the bill claim the Congress has a Constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce. They are correct. With such a right, and responsibility, comes the ability to regulate health insurance companies and large multi-state health care providers. What the regulation of interstate commerce does not cover is the right to tell Americans that they must be insured or what form that insurance must take. Health care is not, on an individual level, an economic activity- it is a personal choice. The bill itself acknowledges the personal choice of individuals when it exempts from fines those with religious objections. If a person is guaranteed the First Amendment right to follow his religion, and thus refuse health care services or insurance, the decision to sign up for health insurance is, de facto, a personal freedom choice and not an economic activity.

The darker, and politically more volatile, constitutional dispute over the bill comes from its specific exemption of illegal aliens from fines or fees associated with mandated coverage. The 5th Amendment concludes:
....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
The 14th Amendment states:
Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

One of the primary money sinks of our health care system is that hospitals and associated health care providers have to provide treatment to individuals regardless of their immigration status. From a humanitarian perspective this is a very good thing. We do not want, nor should we ever advocate, persons to suffer when care can be provided. There are also very real public health benefits to treating all residents, even non citizens. Contagious diseases do not stop to ask for immigration documents before jumping from one host to another. So, we currently treat all persons needing immediate medical care, and if they cannot pay then the government picks up the tab. The government pays that tab with tax dollars.

Many of the new fines and fees on uninsured individuals as set forth in this new legislation specifically exempt illegal aliens. Obviously it would be hard to enforce such fines on undocumented and transient persons. However, by paying for the treatment of these individuals the States, and the Federal government, effectively have jurisdiction over said persons. The states must, by the 14th amendment, treat all persons under their jurisdiction equally. There is an inherent inequality in creating an exempted sub-class of persons. Add to that the taking of private property: income, and using it for public functions (paying for the health care of those who do not pay into the systems themselves) without the just compensation of equal benefits and consideration, and you have a violation of the Constitutional “fairness’ clauses.

Healthcare links

I’ve been really ill for the past few weeks, so please excuse my lack of updates.

I have joined a group on Facebook named “Vote No on healthcare or we vote YES for your opponent”. If you’re a Facebook member, join up and then tell your friends.

While I work on catching up, feel free to browse the links below regarding today’s news about the health-care boondoggle.

Malkin: A wrench in Dem’s Wreckonciliation Plans
IBD: Democrats Stop Trying to win over Stupak, Pro-life Dems
Washington Post: Student Loan Overhaul likely to join Senate healthcare bill
CNN: Health Care Reform Deadlines: DOA

An Apple A Day Takes Your Rights Away

President Obama this morning unveiled his new! improved! shiny! version of health care reform. The rumor that has circulated for the past week is that the President, through Sen. Reid, will try to force the bill through using the budget reconciliation process. I won’t bore you with Senate procedural details; the heart of the matter is that there aren’t enough votes to make the current Senate version agree with the current House version of the bill. So, the President and Senator Reid, as Majority Leader of the Senate, will try a new “strategery”. I hope for the country’s sake they fail. I also hope for the country’s sake they succeed- because there is no surer way to guarantee landslide losses for incumbents come November. This bill is reviled by sane Americans, and rightly so.

Here is the text of the new bill: http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal
Courtesy of the on-the-ball folks at Congress.org here are the salient bits:

Cadillac tax change. Under the Obama plan, the tax on expensive health insurance plans won't kick in until 2018 and would affect fewer people.
This is still class warfare John Edwards style. They are taking from people who can pay for health insurance to pay for those who cannot. We already do this with Medicare and Medicaid. This is yet another government entitlement program of wealth re-distribution.

Payroll tax expansion. To make up for the lost revenue from the Cadillac tax, the President has proposed increasing the payroll tax employers pay for Medicare.
Because with a 90% GDP to debt ratio and a ballooning national debt, during a recession, the thing we really need is to take more money from those folks still able to offer good paying jobs to people. (Excuse me, my sarcasm leaked onto the keyboard)

Expanded coverage. The officials added that 31 million more Americans will be insured under the plan, which expands federal subsidies for low-income Americans.
There is nothing wrong with helping those truly in need to receive health care. The problem I have with this plan, and all others like it, is that it is run by the notoriously inefficient and, by definition, out-of-touch federal government. This leads to fraud and waste and, again, adds one more entitlement to the American way of life.

State subsidies. The plan offers full federal support for four years to expand Medicaid in all 50 states, not just Nebraska as proposed in the Senate plan.
Left to their own devices, without Federal hands in their pockets and the coffers of their local employers, States could manage Medicaid on their own. If we have a federally guaranteed health plan, then why do we still need Medicaid? If we still have Medicaid regulated by the states, why do we need federal programs to back it up? Am I the only one scratching my head over this?

Denials and mandate. Insurance companies would no longer be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. To balance the cost of this, the President's plan penalizes people without insurance to encourage them to buy a plan.
Oh for fraks sake people. I’m all for reasonable restrictions on what health insurance companies can and cannot define as pre-existing conditions, but penalizing people without health insurance? That means that those of us in the work force for years who have found jobs with “Cadillac plans” will be taxed, that those young folks just entering the workforce who haven’t found a job with health insurance will be fined for not having insurance, and employers will be taxed… just to be fair!

Premium hike controls. Federal regulators would have more power to stop insurance companies from increasing health insurance premiums, traditionally the realm of state governments.
Did we repeal the 10th amendment while I was asleep? The more responsibilities you remove from the purview of state governments, the more rights you strip from the people.

We are citizens of a Federal Republic. We have elected representatives at the local, state and national level responsible for Constitutionally out-lined areas of responsibility. Your Federal representatives are, with this plan, saying that your local and state governments no longer have the authority, and by extension the knowledge, to protect the health care of their constituents.

Let me put this another way: The President’s health care plan, if it passes as is, negates all your recent votes for local and state officials. He, and the Congress, will have stripped away rights from the states and you, the people. He’s saying your state and city officials cannot be trusted to run things effectively. The federal government will tell you what health insurance means, what kind you can have, and how much you have to pay for it. You are not adult enough to choose your own plan. Your elected representatives are not adult enough to do their jobs- but you don’t get to decide that through impeachment or voting procedures. Federal big-brother has decided what is best for you.

The President of the United States and Senator Harry Reid have just proposed disenfranchising you.

Mt. Vernon, Tea Parties, and parties

Yesterday, conservative leaders and activists from around the country signed a document called the Mt. Vernon Statement. It outlines what the writers feel are the keystones of the conservative movement. I won’t waste column space here repeating the whole document verbatim, please read it for yourself. (Also, isn’t it amazing how the page font, layout, and colors are so similar to this blog? Pure coincidence!)

The Mt. Vernon statement has been praised as “an elegant tribute to limited government and the Founding Fathers” by Michelle Malkin. Senator DeMint (R-SC) called for the replacement of any member of Congress who did not sign the statement. It, the Mt. Vernon Statement, is being hailed as the Sharon Statement and Contract with America of the new century.

CPAC also begins today along with warnings from political strategists, most notably Karl Rove, that the tea party movement must not try to re-invent itself as a third party option for the upcoming election cycle.

It is important to pause and consider that while conservatives and tea party activists seem to have a great deal in common right now, they- we- are not identical faces of the political coin.

Broader conservatives principles, as outlined multiple times and constantly revised for political necessity or pure sound-bite palatability, encompass social as well as fiscal issues. My own statement of conservative principles can be found here. Put one hundred conservative activists in a room and you’ll come out with 75 different variations of what it means to be a conservative. If you doubt me on this, spend a few days at CPAC. I’ve seen it happen, in living color so to speak.

The Tea Party movement, however, is not about social conservatism, or even Republican social issues. The broad appeal of the Tea Party is that it appeals to a vast swath of Americans tired of having to tighten their own belts while the government continues to spend our money as if it is a never-ending well of goodies. The Tea Party-goers who staged such loud and vociferous protests over the health care reform bill were not united about the social implications regarding national health care- they were protesting the astounding, bankruptcy inducing, costs of the measure.

Parties like to define themselves. It is part of the political process. “We stand for this while those guys over there are against it!” Just as human beings instinctively seek someone or something to blame for hardships and misfortunes, we also seek to define the world around us. All too often we broaden party definitions in order to garner more support- the “Big Tent” phenomenon. After a few years that party is so inclusive of different ideas that it no longer resembles the original. The backlash is often punctuated by a watershed document, statement, or referendum outlining the “true” platform of the party. We see this happening now in the Republican party as the conservative base of the party re-assert their political, and literary, muscle.

The Tea Party movement, and the country, cannot afford to engage in the cycle of inclusiveness and contraction that our political parties endure. Fiscal responsibility and reform are unifying issues that can, and rightly should, garner support from Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, libertarians and independents.

We should not be appointing leaders of the Tea Party, signing broader conservative mandates, or demanding loyalty to a specific establishment party platform.

We should be electing leaders who agree with what members of the Tea Party are saying, signing laws reducing spending and the role of government, and demanding loyalty to the Constitution.

Scarlett Says: The Constitution is the ultimate manifesto of American politics. It is the only one with which elected officials and the American people, need to adhere.

Tough Choices Now for a Fiscally Stable Future

The Tea Party movement, rank and file Republicans, Libertarians, conservatives and even, shockingly, Democrats are united behind one rallying cry: fiscal responsibility. Of course, it’s easy to pay lip service to such a nebulous concept. What Joe from Mississippi calls fiscal responsibility isn’t necessarily going to match how Bob from Vermont defines the term. And we really don’t even want to know what Cindy from California thinks about the whole thing! (Relax Californians, I know there’s a great many of you with sound financial sense. Sadly, you never seem to elect a majority of like-minded people to state or federal office.) The real test of a party, politician, or voter’s dedication to reducing the national debt and moving toward a balanced budget is: how much pain are you willing to suffer? Are YOU willing to give up YOUR pet project?

There are items in the Federal budget- and just as many in the oft overlooked state budgets- that any reasonable person can agree do not belong. The so-called “bridge to nowhere”, funding for a Coca Cola museum, and the proposed purchase of a National Historic Park in the US Virgin Islands, are just a few examples of well publicized “pork”. There are literally hundreds of such projects in the federal budget every year and more are added into individual spending bills before they are passed by Congress.

The pain in balancing the budget, and reducing spending, comes not from elimination of such easy to spot luxuries, but in the elimination of all those pet projects and earmarks that can realistically be justified by someone, somewhere. There are things we do absolutely need in our Federal budget. There are many more things that we would very much like to have funded. Congress and the President are all too willing to play the over-indulgent parent and give in to voter’s repeated pleading for cookies. The Cato Institute’s Liberty blog recently reported on our supposedly conservative representatives and Tea Party activists who asked for stimulus funds.

Given that those responsible for managing our money are doing such a bad job of actually being responsible, the voters have to take charge and put our collective foot down. We have to be the adults in this situation and stop asking for that tantalizing piece of the pie.

We have to fund our military so that they can continue to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, patrol the world’s oceans, and secure the airways. We have to fund and support the services that aid our military families, veterans and disabled veterans. We have to provide money for border security, air marshals, federal law enforcement and immigration enforcement. We have to provide funds to maintain and protect interstate trade routes: railroads, waterways and roads.

We do NOT have to fund the following items from the President’s proposed 2011 Budget:

Build on the historic $8 billion Recovery Act down payment for high-speed rail with another $1 billion, creating jobs and sparking transportation innovation across the country. When we aren’t facing double digit unemployment and a debt to GDP ratio of 90%, then we can talk about spending billions of dollars on shiny new trains. Put this in household economic terms: You cannot go out and buy a brand new car when your old car works perfectly well and you already have $43,00 in credit card debt.

$5.1 billion for the Department of Energ's Office of Science, including $1.8 billion for basic energy sciences to discover novel ways to produce, store, and use energy. You aren’t going to go out and buy a windmill for you backyard to see if you can generate wind energy while your house is being foreclosed on- are you?

$73 million – a $14 million increase – to build agency capacity to review and permit renewable energy projects on federal lands. The Interior Department has set a goal to permit at least 9,000 megawatts of new solar, wind, and geothermal electricity generation capacity on Interior-managed lands by the end of 2011. I hate to belabor an allegory, but really: your house is facing foreclosure and you have all this land available. A cattle baron comes to you and offers to rent your land if you’ll let him raise cows on it. Would you spend money hiring people to review the plan, or, worse, say “No, no, let me pay YOU to see if my land works out for you!”?

In barely an hour’s research I found dozens more examples of spending that makes no economic sense. If you stop and think abou the politically active organizations you are a part of I’m sure you can think of projects they have asked to be funded recently, or in the future, which we just can not afford. Think about this: the national debt translates into roughly $40,000 for each person in this country. That is not each tax payer or each worker- that’s every single person from the newborn infants to those lucky few who have supassed 110 years in age. Take your household budget and add $40,000 in the debt column for each person in your house. Can you reasonably say that you will EVER be able to pay off that amount of debt?

We cannot afford new tax cuts. We cannot afford to cripple the economy with higher taxes either. We cannot afford to forgive un-paid student loans after 20 years. We cannot afford to pay for weapons systems the Pentagon says they don’t need but the owners of the local defense contractor assure us will bring jobs to our town. We cannot afford speedy new trains, shiny new windmills, billions to “help” big banks provide credit, or thousands to preserve newly added historical sites. We cannot afford to buy that big new library in our town, add that airstrip to the local field, or spend billions on“incentives” for cable companies to provide broadband internet to rural communities.

Yes we would very much like new books for the library, to preserve the birthplace of the local town founder, to hire a new park ranger, to better monitor wolf populations in Yellowstone, to put a man back on the moon. My three year old son would very much like a new train set, too, but the mortgage payment comes first.

Scarlett Says: put your foot down. Stop holding out your right hand for stimulus money while shaking your left in anger. Buckle in, hunker down, and be ready for the lean years. Cotton’l go sky high in a few years- but you won’t see a dollar if you lose Tara.


**Budget line items taken from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
National per person debt estimate taken from http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Voter Malcontent: Phenomenon or Measurable Change?

Senator Jim Bunning, a republican from Kentucky, is retiring from the Senate. The race to replace him includes two viable democratic challengers as well as, suddenly, two viable Republican challengers.

When Bowling Green eye surgeon Rand Paul, son of Congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, declared his intention to run for the seat being vacated by Senator Bunning, many Kentucky politicians rolled their eyes. Most political observers anticipated a hard-scrabble grass roots campaign fed by internet money drives and populist stump speeches. Trey Grayson, Kentucky’s current Secretary of State, had already been courted by the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee- the leading fundraising and campaign organization for Republican Senators) and has stellar credentials. The idea that Dr. Paul could organize a feasible campaign against someone with established name recognition and a head start on fundraising seemed laughable.

But, as the Brown election in Massachusetts, the burgeoning Tea Party movement, and a host of recent polls across the country have shown, voters are angry. They are not only angry at the President (a traditional, if often unfairly so, target of voter discontent) but at anyone who smacks of “establishment Washington”. The renewed call for Congressional term limits, a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, and the elimination of “pork” spending are all affectations of the electorate’s discontent. The overwhelming sentiment expressed at Tea Party rallies and on internet message boards is “kick the bastards out!” Add to this the traditionally more vocal and inspired minority of eligible voters during primary season and it looks as if every single race is a powder keg waiting to be ignited or already possessing a lit fuse.

The Paul campaign, and dozens just like it across the country should keep in mind, though, that it is February. Polling samples are small. Those who participate in polls, call in to radio shows, post on blogs, or write editorials in the newspapers (what few still exist) are a minority. They are a vocal and well informed minority, but they still represent a small segment of likely voters- even in primary season. The real “trick” is to turn that vocal minority into an actual groundswell of support. The Dean campaign of 2004 and the senior Dr. Paul’s campaign in 2008 serve as examples of how internet chatter and money-bombs do not necessarily translate into actual votes. You have to convince all your supporters to do the work of registering to vote, registering their neighbors to vote, and then going to the polling place on election day. Depressing as it is, far too many Americans find the simple act of voting to be “too much trouble”. There are still more active voters over the age of 50 than under. Those active “seniors” tend to be less vocal on the internet and far less likely to donate to primary campaigns. They do donate more towards established political action groups- but those are the very groups that Dr. Paul’s campaign have lambasted Trey Grayson’s campaign for pandering to.

Given that both Dr. Paul and Mr. Grayson have nearly identical views on government spending, abortion, national defense, immigration, and health care reform, this primary campaign will likely devolve very quickly into demonization of the opponents. I’ll keep an eye on this race and report again about platform similarities and the tone of the media campaigns.

Scarlett Says: Hold onto your hats boys, this is like to get a mite ugly.

Campaign Finance "Reform"

Like a lot of people in 2000 and 2001 I was very much in favor of campaign finance reform. But, like so many others, I was disgusted with what we got. The Congress- that I worked for - limited or eliminated donations by large corporations but increased the amount that individuals could contribute. While that might sound like a good way to avoid monopolistic mercantilism, the rich in our country got rich by making great companies. Getting $50000 from Bill Gates isn't all that different than getting it from Microsoft. He's still going to look for the candidate that best supports the interests of his golden goose.

Then there's the issue of free speech. Special interest groups are a popular boogeyman, but they are no more inherently evil, or good, than any other organization. By definition every political body, from the Congress of the United States, to the local school board, to the VFW, is a special interest group. By trying to limit add spending and donations by these groups we exacerbated the very situation we were trying to rectify. To wit: we limited the voice of the people while simultaneously providing protection for the few rich who can afford to buy full page NY Times adds and 30 second Super Bowl spots.

I have seen first hand how money affects, effects, and corrupts politics. This is not a new occurrence. As long as there have been politicians there has been greed and corruption. The Greeks and Romans were no better at finding a solution than we have been. We can try to limit this corruption and better prosecute those who fall prey to the allure of “easy money”, but we cannot hope to completely eliminate it. Not while we elect human beings to office, anyway.

Which brings us full circle: how do you limit the power of money without silencing the voice of the people? Unions were originally formed to protect the rights of workers in an industry. They were, are, special interests groups. Many large unions hold considerable sway, through their monetary and political power. Should we silence the ability of their members to “petition Congress for a redress of wrongs”? Can we, legally? If we say that only individuals can contribute then we intrinsically handicap “the little man” who cannot hope to fight the spending power of a Soros, Gates, or Buffett. If we allow the little men to group together and pool their resources then we are right back where we started, the competing maze of unions, church groups, gun owners, dog lovers, etc. all fighting to be heard and all racing to spend just one dollar more than the opposition.

Sorry but I don’t have any answers. Anyone who tells you he or she does have an easy, quick, solution is lying. And that’s about as clear and honest statement as you are going to get from any politician.

I am a conservative

I am a conservative because I believe in smaller government that is locally focused except for the matters of interstate trade and national defense. I believe that the best defense for our country is a strong, advanced, volunteer, military.

I am conservative because I believe the Constitution is the arbiter of law in this country and that God is the arbiter of morality. I believe in the rule of the majority with the protection of the minority from the whims of the enraged masses.

I am a conservative because I believe that all men and women are created equal and that we should all enjoy the same access to opportunity, without arbitrary restriction based on race, gender, or nationality.

I am a conservative because I believe that life begins at conception and that the unborn are citizens too. I believe that life is the most sacred of rights that can be given up willingly only by those who sever their ties with the greater community.

I am a conservative because I believe that there should be a separation between church and state, not an abolition of all religion.

I am a conservative because I believe that the best environment to raise a family is in the loving nurturing home of a man and women bound together by the holy sacrament of marriage. I am furthermore a conservative because I believe the government has no business interfering in the raising of my family beyond the obvious protections of life.

I am a fiscal conservative because I know that the best way to create jobs is to create businesses and the best way to create business is to remove the fetters to free enterprise. I believe that there should be protections against corruption that do not squash the ability of a man or woman to succeed. I believe that there are things our Federal tax dollars pay for that should never, ever, be funded with "public" funds.

I am a conservative because I believe that isolationism is the path to weakness and internationalism is the path to abolition of sovereignty and free will. I believe that democratic republics are America's gift to the world and the greatest boon to human rights and the freedom of mankind since the birth of Christ.

I am a conservative because I am a mother and I have held in my two hands the miracle of life and vowed with every sinew of my body that no harm shall come to my children.

I am a conservative because I was attacked on 9/11.

Finally, I am a conservative because I am educated enough to know bias when I see it and idealistic enough to hope that all men can work together for the betterment of the country and our world.

Moral Geniuses

From a comment on The Daily Kos:

...But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country?
No. I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded.
Friends, the most important moral decision a man makes in the course of a day is "Who am I going to kill today?"
That’s a decision you should agonize over, dream about, rehearse in your mind for hours, not just leave up to some hare-brained President you didn’t even vote for.
A man’s killing list is a very personal matter. It should be between him and those persistent voices in his head.
So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country.

I'd actually argue that looking down the barrel of a firearm, of any caliber, and pulling the trigger because you are under orders to do so, requires a level of moral insight greater than most of us have. Morally retarded would seem to indicate someone who is slow, or backward in his/her moral development. I haven't met a combat soldier/sailor/airman yet who would say, honestly, that warfare didn't trouble him or her. Even those who shut away the pain and don't think about the carnage once they come home, aren't morally retarded. Those are just the folks fighting for a way to deal. No, the real morally retarded are the people who criticize other's moral choices without ever having faced such a choice themselves. They are morally shallow, lacking the depth to realize that the very right which they espouse by their dissent was paid for by those they so naively disparage.

Thank God for the men and women who, throughout history, have awakened in the night screaming at the remembered horrors of warfare, but risen the next morning to go out once more and face the demons again.

The Price of History

In 1945 the NAZI government of Germany’s Third Reich surrendered, unconditionally, to the Allies. The war for Europe was over, and just beginning. Sixty-two years later we, the United States of America, still have troops stationed on German soil. We are there not as an occupying force, but as allies against a nebulous threat that may or may not arise.

In the summer of 2003 the coalition forces led by the United States overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein. His government was abolished. Hussein was later found, tried, and executed by a jury of his peers. The Iraqi people have a new, democratically - elected, government and a constitution. We still have troops on the ground, in the air, and off the coast, of Iraq. They are there not as an occupying army but as a bulwark against a threat that is clear, present, and deadly.

Would the Red Army have driven past the Rheine all the way to the French border if the Allies had not remained behind in West Germany? The answer is adamantly: yes. Would the world be a different place had that occurred? Most assuredly, yes. Today the Soviet Union is gone. The threat of insidiously spreading communism is a lesson for a history class, not a current concern of policy makers. Yet we still keep troops in allied European countries- for stability, for peace, for the hope that Europe never again descends into the nightmarish landscape of unlimited war.

So why are we, and our leaders whom we elect and who think they listen to us because they respond to polls, so insistent about leaving Iraq, now? The threat of Islamic extremism and the anti-western policies of Iran are just as clear and just as deadly as the threat that was communism in 1945. We can see the daily struggle that is waged for control of Iraq. If we leave now we abandon our allies to their fate and turn our back on history’s lessons.

Let that be said again: Iraq, the democratic government that represents the people of Iraq, is an ally. When has it ever been an American policy to abandon an ally? Do we, the descendents of those who have fought for freedom and prosperity for over 200 years, now give up on those ideals?

The easy answer is that we give up on our allies because the war is too costly. Economically that argument cannot be supported. The US economy, especially the market for private consumer goods, is still strong and flourishing. Citizens of 1944 would beg to have the economic conditions we currently enjoy. Economically the war has been a footnote, an asterisk to explain why the economy isn’t surging even more than it is now.

So, in the end, the price is too great because of the lives lost. Young men and young women die every single day in Iraq, too many of them innocents and too many of them never having a chance to confront their faceless, shirking, slinking, enemies. But in this age of instant news and sound-bite attention spans, it is not the individual loss that so horrifies and fuels the cries of “Get out now” and “No more blood for Bush”. No, it is the stark numerals of the increasing dead, the sheer weight of daily casualty counts that weigh us down with their repetitive nature and sap our resolve with the seeming futility of their incessant occurrence. We measure worth, now, not in the life of an individual but in the number of the dead.

How many is too many? At what point does the butcher’s bill become too steep and we withdraw to an ignoble, yet safe, distance? Do the 2,999 who have died before mean less than the soldier who brings the casualty count to 3,000? Or is each life a precious monument to a cause?

“Give me liberty or give me death”. Patrick Henry didn’t want the death of his fellow citizens for his liberty, but he stood up willing to sacrifice his own life for the sake of our freedom. If we withdraw now, we spit on the sacrifice of those who have already died in the hope of saving those who are fighting for the same ideals. We leave an ally to muddle through as best they can. We hope that we won’t have to return in 5, 10, or 15 years to watch more die, because of our lack of conviction now.

We fight for ourselves, for our friends, for the idea that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

If we leave now, we turn our backs on the idea that our friends are not as worthy of life and liberty as we. And that, friends, is not the attitude of a country I wish to be a part of.

He's no Ike

Let me start by saying that my first inclination was to call Sen. Reid a dumb son of a bitch. Having heard his comments from yesterday, specifically, "the war is lost", I sat dumbfounded and then cursed repeatedly.

But Sen. Reid is NOT a dumb man, whatever his pedigree. He's a very smart, very wily, very calculating, politician. His backroom deals and on-the floor parliamentary tricks have earned the respect of both sides of the aisle in the US Senate. Even in the minority, Reid often controlled floor agenda.

Reid knows he cannot get a bill past the President with a firm withdrawal date and that stalling troop funding is the current third rail of American politics. But he also knows the anti-war left, while not the majority of his party's members, control a large majority of its fundraising capabilities. So he has to look like he's doing something about the war.

As a consummate politician Reid has found a way to please the raving anti-war crowd and still maintain his political balance. He creates controversy and stirs national debate without any real action.

Unfortunately, his political maneuvering isn't executed in a vacuum. His comments have already resounded across the nation and the Middle East. He's emboldening not only domestic anti-war supporters but also terrorist insurgents and the anti-American forces in Iran, Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere.

Sen. Reid is a Senate floor mastermind and a skilled politician, but he is no general. He doesn't have the professional background, training or skills to give an accurate portrayal of US military capabilities. He needs to stick with what he does best, and leave the leadership of the most important forum for our nation at this time: the frontlines in Iraq, to the true experts.

Let It Be

On Monday night, and several times since, I sat down to write about the tragedy at Virginia Tech. I started writing about gun control laws, mental health services, political pandering, the role media plays in de-sensitizing society, and our insidious need to place blame as quickly as possible.

Every time I would lose my focus after the first few sentences. I would stare at the wordless screen and my heart would break all over again. As someone called to public service, as a writer, part-time social commentator, educated woman, mother, former RA, as a person, I should have a comment to make- right?

But the words wouldn’t come. Nothing was right. Then I heard a song playing in the background.

When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.

Let it be. Let, for this once, “Let’s Roll” be simply “let it roll on”. Let action not be the answer, not today. Let the pain do its work: give hearts time to heal, souls time to find comfort.

And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer, let it be.

There will be time to make speeches. There will be a chance to engage in a societal debate about how to prevent a repetition of this horror.

But that time is not now.

And when the night is cloudy,
There is still a light that shines on me,
Shine on until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
There will be an answer, let it be.



** Lyrics courtesy of the Beatles and this site: http://www.mp3lyrics.org/b/beatles/let-it-be/

Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung

“The lawyer and parents of John Walker Lindh, the American-born Taliban soldier serving 20 years in prison after his capture in Afghanistan, called on President Bush on Wednesday to commute his sentence and set him free.”

Dear Johnny:
As an American citizen you are entitled to all the rights, enumerated and otherwise, set forth by the US Constitution. The flip side of that coin is that you are bound by the edicts of the Constitution concerning that highest of crimes: treason.

Article III Section 3:
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

You DID get a lighter sentence, traitor. You should have been convicted of treason for making war with, aiding, and abetting, the Taliban. You are complicit in the murder of Mike Spann. Repent your sins and may God have mercy on your soul, for that’s the only pardon you deserve.

"Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
'This is my own, my native land!'
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burn'd
As home his footsteps he hath turn'd
From wandering on a foreign strand?
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung."
-Sir Walter Scott.

The Pleasure of the President

Yes, I'm back! Yes the idiocy out of DC has driven me back to posting. Mark Twain, long dead as he is, would not be able to ignore the opportunities for lambaste, bombast, and general satire presented by this Congress.

Now, let's everyone, especially you Congress-critters, repeat after me. "U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President."

For those woefully unfamiliar with that wording, it simply means "The President brung ya into this job and he can takes ya right back out- and nominate another jest like ya!"

Anyone answering Congress' questions about this matter should have replied with that simple phrase and let it go at that. But, alas, nothing is ever logical or simple on the Hill. Now a House subcommittee wants to subpoena Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify about their political influence in the firing of, *GASP*, political appointees.

Perish the thought. The President sought political advice from political and legal advisors about the status of political appointees who worked for the Justice Department. We should all really be glad he didn't just flip a coin or call up Rumsfeld and ask his opinion. (Going out on a limb here and assuming the Rummy's regard for lawyers is similar to his high regard for reporters.)

If they do finally appear before a committee hearing, Rove and Miers should respond with "U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. This committee has no jurisdiction over the matter."

And then, to keep with the atmosphere of schoolyard rivalries, stick out their tongues and flip the committee the bird.

..`bout birth'n no babies

An interesting thing happened in the news today. Actually, this "thing" happens every hour of every day in this country, but today it was reported.

(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.
...
The report highlights the three areas it says have the most influence on child well-being: female education, presence of a trained attendant at birth and use of family planning services.

Now that sounds like common sense, or it should, to most of us. Women who receive better pre-natal care are at less risk of delivering premature and/or low birth weight infants. So it is with a heavy heart that I present the other piece of news from today:

Senate Defeats Effort to Limit Medical Malpractice Awards: WASHINGTON — The Senate blocked legislation Monday that would have limited jury awards in medical malpractice cases, shunting aside one of President Bush's most sought-after domestic policy objectives.
...
The bills would have limited damages for pain and suffering to $250,000 in most instances, with an upper limit of $750,000 for cases involving multiple medical facilities. One bill would have applied to healthcare providers generally, while the other sought to shield obstetrician-gynecologists. Foes say such caps are unfair because they would fall disproportionately on people who suffer the most severe injuries.

Why is it so morbidly ironic that these two bits of news should appear within 24 hours of each other? Because appropriate prenatal and family planning care are extremely limited in this country due in part to the exorbitant costs of medical malpractice. Many ob/gyn's no longer practice obstetrics because the medical malpractice costs are prohibitive. There are areas in this country where you cannot find a practicing obstetrician to deliver your baby. Sadly, most of these areas are the same areas where mothers are predominately poor and under-educated.

Scarlett Says: We know so much about birth'n babies, so why aren't we leading the free world in pre-natal care?

A Cup of Sand

In 1995 a wonderful romantic comedy appeared on the big screen titled “The American President”. Written by Aaron Sorkin, who would later become better known as the mastermind behind the hit “West Wing”, the movie was full of poignant relationship drama and American political observations. My favorite character was not the spunky lobbyist who falls in love with the handsome President, or even the attractive and charmingly human President himself. My favorite character was the President’s harried speech writer, played by Michael J. Fox. A section of dialogue from that movie has been echoing in my head these past few weeks. (Thank you imdb.com for the quote text.)

President Andrew Shepherd: Look, if the people want to listen to-
Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.
President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

With regards to the Dubai port deal, both these fictional politicians had it right. The so called “vast majority” of Americans who oppose this deal are listening to the only people who are talking- and simultaneously drinking the sand because they do not know the difference. Ask the next person you pass in the hallway or on the street what exactly DPW will be in “control” of if this deal proceeds. The most illuminating answer you are likely to receive is “The ports.”
Unless you work on the waterfront, in government security, or have bothered to do some research- and by that I mean reading scholarly articles, visiting the ports and reading the security documents ( classified or otherwise)- about this deal, it’s doubtful you have any clue what you are or are not opposed to.

Much has been made about how security of our nation’s import and export lifelines cannot be entrusted to a government that once recognized the Taliban and even now shows sympathy, if not out-right support, for the causes of radical Islam. If the government of the UAW or the controlling partners of DPW were petitioning to take over the US Coast Guard or manage the audit trail for the Department of Homeland Security, I might be worried.

The simple fact is, our leaders in Congress and the Americans answering the pollsters phone calls have been drinking the sand so cleverly provided to them by rabble rousing politicians seeking an issue to exploit during an election year.

There are legitimate security concerns at American ports. Too much of our funding for security operations goes to paying analysts salaries in Washington and too little to the inspectors charged with opening crates and tracking shipping manifests. The turnover of operations of port terminals will not affect this gross negligence in any way. In order to be privy to the details of port security an individual needs a security clearance. People with security clearances have to be US citizens. Those US citizens, having obtained that clearance, must report any and all dealings with foreign nationals, even day-to-day business contacts.

Will controlling terminal operations make it easier for the forces of radical Islam to slip a shipping container full of WMD past customs officials? Probably not. The ability right now is staggeringly present. But, then why bother with the risk of detection of a shipping container when you can walk enough anthrax across the US-Mexico border to wipe out the entire US Congress?

Scarlett says: Stop playing into the demagoguery that assumes you are uneducated and as easily led as toddler with a lollipop. Stop drinking the sand, people.