Random Thoughts

Just a whole lot of things on my mind but don't feel like writing a whole blog on any of them. So I'm just going to give it the old shotgun approach.

Last week the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a $5 million verdict against the Phelps cult. A federal jury in Maryland had awarded the father of a slain Marine $5 million for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Phelps cult, as is their practice, protested outside the funeral of the plaintiff's son. Having witnessed first hand the vile, despicable things the Phelps have on their signs and what they say to people at their protests, I have lots of sympathy for the plaintiff. The Phelps cult has regularly picketed outside my church for years. Additionally I've been to funerals where they've protested. For those that haven't had the misfortune of crossing paths with these nut jobs, their pickets are repulsive and contemptible. However, I think it sets an extremely dangerous precedent to use the civil courts and something as slippery as the torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy to try to silence free speech. The first amendment protects speech of even despicable people like the Phelpses. The 4th Circuit got it right, the First Amendment protects even distasteful and repugnant speech. That said, I also think that there are some reasonable "time and place" restrictions that are in place and could be passed elsewhere that limit how close to a funeral and time restrictions that can be used to prevent these bozos from interfering with other funerals.

I truly don't understand all the hubbub over the President going to Copenhagen to support the Chicago bid for the 2016 Olympics. I have plenty of beefs with "The One", as anyone who reads my blog or my facebook page could attest. The other heads of states from the countries of the finalist cities are also going to be there. I think it is totally appropriate for him to go. I think making such a big deal out of it only serves to provide ammunition to marginalize Obama's critics. When they look foolish on issues like this, it is easier to contend that all of their legitimate concerns are just as foolish.

Isn't the silence of the left deafening? During the campaign Obama promised the most transparent administration in history. However, today it was announced that the Obama administration was limiting access to Guantanamo Bay. Previously under the Bush Administration,the reporters who covered the military beat were invited trips to the detention camps when they were covering the hearings. They could write about, film and photograph the camp and the conditions there. Those side trips have been halted under Obama. The left would be screaming bloody murder if that had happened under Bush, but I've hardly heard a whimper. Aren't double standards wonderful?

Got my flu shot on Sunday. The health ministries committee of the board of deacons at church offers the shots every year at cost. My arm is still aching. There have been stories recently about health care workers and the military being "required" to take the H1N1 vaccine. I don't have a problem with flu shots in general. I do have a problem with the government mandating certain people have to have the shot. That problem exists even ordering military personnel who are trained to take orders, that they have to take a flu shot. I don't know that even if I fell into the "high risk" category, I would get the swine flu shot. It seems that this was so rushed, I'm not sure I trust the safety of the shot. And having a government "require" personnel to take a shot goes against every fiber of my being.

The city council in Topeka passed a no-smoking ordinance last night. This is another example of a situation where I am extremely conflicted. On the one hand, I am very anti-smoking. I grew up in a house where my dad smoked for years and I think the second hand smoke I was around made my sore throat/sinus issues I had as a kid much worse. I avoid being around smoke as often as I can. As much as I hate being around smoke, I'm not sure a municipal government passing an anti-smoking is appropriate. If the majority of the population really were against smoking in public, let their pocketbooks do the talking for them. There are certainly restaurants and bars that already don't allow smoking. If the people truly support non-smoking public places, they should frequent those bars and restaurants, and let the owners know why. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is a much better regulator of conduct than any government regulation.

The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel

English writer Samuel Johnson once famously said that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." The context of the quote was primarily directed at the British Prime Minister and aimed at what Johnson felt was false patriotism. Fast forward 230 years or so and I think the current version of this quote should be, "racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". And just as in Johnson's day, it isn't actual racism that the quote is targeted at, it is the false racism used by many of today's politicians. Jimmy Carter (you know the ex-president who penned an anti-Semitic book) lectured us that the strong opposition to the Obama healthcare proposal was based on racism. Several Congressmen and women and liberal columnists have raised the issue that the opposition to the Obama health care plan is based on race. What do these people think? That the American people didn't know Barack Obama was black when they voted for him? We suddenly woke up 9 months into his administration and realized he was black so we have to oppose him?

I believe that the major reason why we are hearing this charge now is that the liberals through the years have found crying racism is an effective political tool. It neutralizes opposition. It attacks presumed motives not actual actions or words. The idea they are attempting to propagate is since the "speaker" is operating from "hate" every possible criticism by that "speaker" is racist, and thus they don't even have to answer any criticism. It is easier to demonize the opposition with a bogus charge of racism than it is to argue the facts of the proposal that the majority of people don't want. The left is attempting to "shame" the white moderates who supported Obama in 2008 into supporting his healthcare plan or risk being labeled as a racist.

The numbers however, just don't add up. Like I wrote above, a large portion of the 69 million American people who voted for him last November just didn't wake up and realize Obama was black. In fact, Obama got 41% of the white male vote, the largest percentage of white males to vote for a democrat presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Race wasn't a major factor in the election, why is it suddenly the factor now? The latest polls show 53% of the country approve of the job Obama is doing as President while 44% disapprove. That doesn't strike me as racism. If racism truly was behind the opposition to the Obama healthcare plan, wouldn't those numbers be significantly worse?

An even more telling story of numbers is the comparison at comparable times in the process of Obamacare now and Hillarycare some 18 years ago. At about the same time in 1991, 44% of the population supported the massive federal takeover of healthcare. The latest poll I saw shows that 41% of the population support Obamacare. Those similar numbers show that the issue isn't race. The issue is, that despite being the holy grail of the left wing in this country for over 30 years, a federal takeover of healthcare is not something the majority of Americans support. It is that policy, not whatever race the proponent happens to be, that is the cause of the strong opposition.

Despite the ease which charges of racism seem to flow from the left in this country,they are actually doing more harm than good. By glibly charging racism on legitimate policy differences, the left is diluting the impact that any legitimate charge would carry. It is a sad day in this country when we can't criticize our president on policy issues without a bogus charge of racism being bandied about. It really has become that racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

The Shell Game

There is an old saying, that laws are like sausage, it is better not to see either being made. This whole health care fiasco is a case in point. However, we are all fortunate that there are lots of people watching it being made. For some unknown reason, on his "signature" issue, "The One" chose not to propose anything specific, but just leave it up to Congress. Virtually every president I can think of "proposed" legislation and had someone or a committee in Congress introduce it. In this instance, Obama just left it up to Pelosi, Reid and their minions to come up with legislation for "his" plan. In typical fashion, Congress responded and we have 5 different health care bills working their way through the process. If I had better feelings for the motivation of Obama, Emanuel, Axelrod and company, I might chalk it up to politcal naivete. However, these are seasoned veterans of Chicago machine politics. It appears to me that something else is in play. It basically reminds me of the old shell game.

Case in point, the Joe Wilson, "you lie" comment. President Obama during his umpteenth speech on healthcare (even though he hasn't proposed a single plan yet) said it was a lie that illegal aliens were covered. That prompted the heckling by a sitting member of Congress. (The first time in memory that has occurred!) The Democrats proudly point to a provision in one of the 5 bills that excludes illegal aliens, saying that proves this idiot Republican doesn't know what he is talking about. However according the the Congessional Research Service, none of the other 4 bills contain that provision. In fact a headline on an article I read today stated, "Rep Wilson Outburst Leads Senate Dems to Close Loophole." So the Senate version now contains that language. But to take it one step further, during the committee hearing on the 1 house bill that does contain the prohibition, there were a number of votes to add enforcement language to that provision. They were all defeated on a party line vote.

Similar to that story is the one about the "death panels". Whether one agrees or disagrees with the interpretation that there were "death panels", within a couple of days of that story breaking, there was great hoopla that the Senate version of the bill had stricken that language that led people to that conclusion.

All of this basically reminds me of the old shell game. Obama is the shell man. He is peddling a great story. Pelosi, Reid and their allies are the shills, crowding around us to prevent us from leaving or seeing for sure what is going on. If someone objects to something...not in this bill, you don't know what you're talking about. On another objection they point to another bill. Oops, you missed. The American people are the mark. We're getting taken if we let it happen. We've all seen too many stories too many times where a single Congressman or Senator inserts provisions in bills at 2 am behind closed doors during "conferences" and then that being passed into law to feel comfortable with the assurances of what is and isn't in this bill. When you see the games being played around what is or isn't in the bills that makes me even more leery.

I only see one way around this. Obama on Wednesday "promised" he wouldn't sign anything into law that added one dollar to the deficit. According the the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, none of the 5 bills that are being considered meet that requirement. So, President Obama, propose a new piece of legislation that carries out your objectives and won't add to the deficit. Let's have a debate about the merits of YOUR proposal. Let there be enough time that those that are interested can provide their input. Let Congress vote that up or down. In my opinion, that is the only way for you to regain credibility on this issue.

Mixed emotions

All the furor over President Obama's "Back to School" speech has really left me with mixed emotions. A president making a speech to school children about studying hard, taking responsibility for your actions and behaving is something that we should embrace wholeheartedly. That is basically what the speech is, at least the version that has been released. No one will know whether the furor caused a change in the text or not. What was disturbing to me was the Department of Education's "proposed" lesson plans that talked about having kids write letters to be collected by the teachers of how they were going to "help" President Obama. As I've blogged before, I feel there is a "cult of personality" that is being developed around the president. With the mainstream media adulation of Obama, the fact that candidate Obama, who promised to change the way Washington does business, has as President Obama, made the partisan divides even sharper in the last six months has fed into that. I obviously am not the only one that is feeling that sentiment. In that context, I understand the furor.

The flip side of the coin bothers me as bad. The people who are pulling their kids out school or opting out of having their kids listen to the speech are to put it bluntly, scary. It always strikes me that someone is very insecure in their own beliefs that they can't even dare to hear an opposing view. I know over the years, that my opinions on issues have changed and nuanced because of listening to the "opposite" side. While I always thought I had a normal childhood, I sometimes now wonder. I can remember vividly a number of times where as a family we "talked" about stuff that had occurred at school. My sisters or I would talk about what our teacher had said, and my parents would certainly share their views. There were certainly times that my parents didn't agree with what the teacher had said. On the ones where they disagreed, I remember I believed my parents over my teachers, but I still remember those discussions. Even if the parents disagree with the message, not allowing their kids to hear it isn't the answer. If parents are that concerned it needs to be a topic of conversation around the supper table. Keeping them from hearing the message isn't a reasonable or responsible answer.

The final concern that I have over this whole issue again goes back to the partisan divide that we are seeing in this country. For 8 years I watched the left view George Bush as the devil incarnate. Nothing he could do or say was correct. Unfortunately I am seeing the same thing from the right as they view Barack Obama. Part of the blame can be placed on the doorstep of Barack Obama. During the campaign, he promised to govern from the center and to change the way things happen in Washington. His far left policies and appointments have made things even worse. A significant amount of the furor over the "Back to School" speech is simply based on that, which is absolutely idiotic. As much as I may disagree with this or that policy he is the president. Even if the left didn't treat Dubya with the respect that the office deserves, the right should treat "The One" with that respect.

What kind of service is it going to be?

Serving one's community is a great thing. I try to do that through my church involvement and involvement with various civic groups. I say this not to brag, because I'm sure even with that, I don't do enough. I like and participate in community service. I just don't want anyone to construe what I say here as being opposed to community service. However I am concerned about the "National Day of Service and Remembrance" on September 11. It is now federal law and we have federal money going to various groups to "promote" service. Good "upstanding" groups like ACORN are involved, but that is really a subject for another blog. I extremely concerned about the emphasis I'm seeing on service and the de-emphasis on the remembrance part. According to many planners their goal is to turn 9/11 into something "positive", "forward-leaning" and "productive". I think that focus is entirely wrong. 9/11 should be a time to focus on patriotism, national security and terrorism. We are in a war with Islamofacist terrorists. These religious fundamentalists want to destroy us and our way of life. 9/11 was a seminal event in that war. We have an administration that seems to think nice language and "talking" to these monsters is the best way to handle the war on terror. They won't even call it a war on terror. Is this day of service just one more attempt to sweep the monstrosities of what has occurred under the rug? We don't want to offend someone by pointing out that in the name of their religion these crazies killed thousands of innocent people on that day.

We already have too many holidays where the meaning of the holiday has been lost. Memorial Day is a perfect example where pitifully small crowds show up at events designed to commemorate those fallen in defense of this country which it was designed for. Instead we as a society have let Memorial Day become a time to open swimming pools, have "great" sales, celebrate the beginning of summer. It took years for that change to occur in our society. Now we are less than 8 years from the event which we are commemorating and we seem to have a government that is actively pursuing the task of trying to wipe out the true meaning of 9/11.

I'm sure it's not what the Obama people had in mind, but I'm tempted to find a tea party to volunteer for on September 11. That might be the best kind of community service I could provide.