Dems and economic politics over economic progress

This is an interesting discussion (Robert Barro: The Folly of Subsidizing Unemployment - WSJ.com) of how Democrats are wont to choose political gain over economic gain. First, Democrats are probably angling for the low tax policies of the Bush administration for political reasons more than economic ones. ("Democrats can't agree over killing or saving the Bush-era tax cuts - The Hill's On The Money). That's old news. BTW, that title should probably be "Democrats can't DECIDE about killing or saving the Bush-era tax cuts."

But second, the conversion of unemployment insurance to a welfare program--even though it has likely hurt Obama's resume on job creation, will still be a useful weapon for claiming that Republicans aren't as compassionate toward Americans.

8/28 Rally: Sharpton and Libs can't help themselves

This article manifests how Al Sharpton and Liberals/Progressives can't help their partisan selves. Perhaps it manifests their ignorance . . . I don't know. ("Beck rally: Glenn Beck rally underway" - latimes.com) From the article:

Attendees were encouraged not to bring political signs and flyers. Skeptical Democrats have countered that the event is "blatantly political." Many in the crowd wore shirts and hats in the colors of the American flag.

So does wearing red, white and blue evince "blatant[] politic[s]"? I'd say that claiming it does evinces an ugly view of America. And then there's Sharpton's comments:

"In '63, they went to Washington for a strong national government to protect civil rights," Sharpton said in an interview earlier this week. "He and Palin are going there for a weak national government and to advocate state rights."

I can hardly believe that Sharpton would be so stupid as to advocate on behalf of Big Government. Whether or not MLK was appealing to THE GOV'T by marching to DC--the Democrats in power sure seemed to need some arm-twisting to get on board with the Civil Rights movement--he was definitely appealing to the conscience of individual Americans. I hate to make the event "political," but since Sharpton brought it up, does he seriously believe that our problems in America at this juncture stem from a need for a bigger, more powerful Federal government?

On Mehlman: What he said . . .

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : ("Ken Mehlman and the "Anti-Gay" Bush-Era GOP"):

Yesterday former Republican National Committee Chairman and Bush campaign chief Ken Mehlman publicly announced he was gay. That doesn't particularly interest me -- it's his business and it wasn't the world's most closely guarded secret -- but it has occasioned some commentary on the Republican Party and conservative movement that is interesting.

Please read on . . .

Antle is right about how plainly responsive electoral opposition to homosexual activism has been.

Harvesting embryos: "Promise" is subjective . . .

Judge Roils Stem-Cell Research - WSJ.com:

WASHINGTON—A U.S. judge blocked the federal government from funding research involving human embryonic stem cells, a surprise blow to one of the most promising yet controversial areas of current scientific research.
. . . .
Stem cells are the building blocks of the body's tissues and organs. Those derived from embryos can develop into any type of tissue and are considered especially promising for research into diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.
. . . .

Many scientists (not to mention ethicists) disagree. And of there's private funding and California's funding. And adult stem cells are well worth the investment. Sorry to deny you this largely symbolic prize . . .

Blahblahblah -- sensitivity for thee

Dr. Laura's N-word Rant, Jennifer Aniston's R-Word Slip: Five Words that Need a Rest - ABC News:

"We have some words we'd like to ban, particularly among members not in the LGBT community, such as 'fag/faggot,' 'tranny' and 'he-she,'" David Hauslaib, editorial director of Queerty.com told ABCNews.com.

Like the N-word, these words are often used by the people most offended by them, but Hauslaib said that doesn't give others a free pass to use them.

"There's a reasonable argument that anyone using these words is doing harm, but it's unrealistic to think members of the LGBT community will stop saying 'fag' in jest, and that's an individual's right," Hauslaib said. "Words that are derogatory to any community generally get a pass when used by those who belong; anyone outside that culture, however, doesn't have permission because they are not directly impacted by such language."

Though I don't use any of these words, it's kind of hard to take seriously the complaints from someone like Mr. Hauslaib.

Confused about O's religion? Why not?

This muddled apologia article from ABC News illustrates why some Americans are confused about the President's religious beliefs ("Franklin Graham Says President Obama was 'Born a Muslim.' As Pew Poll Shows, More Americans Confused About President's Religion." - ABC News).

Obama has favored a more private faith since he took office in January 2009, attending formal church services just a handful of times, including Easter of this year.

Like his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama has said he prefers worshiping at the chapel at Camp David. But the president rarely goes to the presidential retreat, and instead spends Sundays at the White House. Weekend activities often include basketball or golf.

Still, the president has said his Christian faith is part of his daily life. Last year, Obama told ABC's Terry Moran on 'Nightline' that he relied on his BlackBerry as one tool to keep the faith.

"My faith and neighborhood initiatives director, Joshua DuBois, he has a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day," Obama said. "That's how I start my morning. You know, he's got a passage, scripture, in some cases, quotes from other faiths to reflect on."

His worship practices are just like W's!! (except that actions speak louder than words). And while I, too, use my Blackberry for daily devotions (www.youversion.com is the bomb), I think Obama seems uncomfortable with the idea that his devotions might possibly exclude "quotes from other faiths."

Gee MSM, can you blame people for being a little confused or even cynical?

Rev. Graham's teachable moment . . .

It's interesting to read these stories about polling data that reflects a significant portion of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim. Like this one: ("Franklin Graham Says President Obama was 'Born a Muslim.' As Pew Poll Shows, More Americans Confused About President's Religion." - ABC News) The interjections "correctly" :

At the same time, the number of Americans who said they believed, correctly, that Obama is Christian has declined from 48 percent in March 2009 to 34 percent today. But 43 percent of Americans now say they don't know what Obama's religion is at all.

And this article in Time: One Fifth (Wrongly) Think Obama’s Muslim - Newsweek And this ABC online article: ("The Rev. Franklin Graham Says President Obama was 'Born a Muslim' -- Comments Come As Poll Shows One in Five Americans Wrongly Believes Obama Is Muslim" - ABC News) From inside the article:

The poll found that 18 percent of those surveyed wrongly identified Obama as Muslim, up from 11 percent in March 2009. At the same time, the number of Americans who said they believed, correctly, that Obama is Christian has declined from 48 percent in March 2009 to 34 percent today.

They seem to be falling all over themselves to remind Americans of what they SHOULD believe.

Personally, I think (a) that Franklin Graham's statement (as opposed to the MSM's characterization of it) is accurate, (b) that the MSM is dying to find a way to impugn and demonize Franklin Graham (how's that for "outreach"?!), (c) that Obama is probably less devout (about anything) than he wants voters to believe he is, and (d) that this op/ed, kind of like a stopped clock that is right twice a day, is worth reading (except for the last sentence which reflects a confusion between one's culture and one's practiced faith). According to the red letters in the Bible, a person is not born a Christian . . . it is an individual choice which is typically confirmed by "fruit."

UPDATE:
Aha! The MSM must be reading Michael Kinsley:Change of Subject: Still more depressing poll results: "Michael Kinsley has an on-point observation:

I blame pollsters themselves. They have created a world where everything is an opinion, nothing is a fact, everybody is entitled to an opinion, and every opinion is equally valid. The Pew press release about this latest poll is scrupulously neutral. It talks about 'the view that Obama is a Muslim,' as if it is just like any other view about the president's religion. Not a word in it hints that there might be a right answer and a wrong one . . ."

This is stupid. I guess Kinsley thinks that "push polls" are a more accurate view of what people think than plain ol' polls?

And the Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn appears to share my skepticism about Obama's "faith."

Lastly, it's somewhat entertaining to watch Lefty journalists who are beside themselves that a segment of the public is skeptical of their guy. "The nerve of these morons!! these idiots!! They're in a full-court press on this, which is only going to backfire on them.

Harry Reid on being a Mormon and a Democrat

This morning Glenn Beck was pondering the intersection of Harry Reid's religion (LDS or Mormon) and his political party (the Democratic Party). I found this 2007 speech at BYU which is directly on point. I haven't had the chance to read it, but one highlight is Reid's statement that,

My faith and political beliefs are deeply intertwined. I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it.

UPDATE: After reading the speech, I think one fallacy in Reid's thinking is that a collection of policy positions constitute an over-arching principle for governing. I perceive that Reid, by ticking off this laundry list of Democratic policy positions, starts first with a policy position that sounds right and then attempts to support that position with his religious views rather than starting with principles and working toward his positions. And Big Government proposals always sound more generous than they actually are.

It appears to me that Reid uses a profession of worldview as window dressing.

Bredesen or McWherter over Sundquist?

The Haslam for Governor campaign is in the news for leaving former Republican Governor Don Sundquist out of his most recent ad "For all of Tennessee" while including Democratic state leaders Phil Bredesen and Ned McWherter. I have to say that, from what I know, neither McWherter nor Bredesen ever betrayed his supporters, and with such disdain, as did Don Sundquist by supporting a state income tax within weeks of having been elected by pledging opposition to same. Sundquist further sullied even the sordid stereotype of politicians.

Propping up spendthrift unions

This is getting aggravating.

First Democrats propped up GM, which was bankrupt due to spendthrift union spending/obligations.

Then Democrats propped up the spendthrift school unions in certain areas of the country.

And now the Teamsters are demanding a bailout. Give me a break.

There ought to be a major string attached to all this deficit spending on behalf of these special interests . . . no campaign contributions (in-kind or other) for 10 years. It's too obviously a pay-off for political support from these groups. Wow.

Come on Mr. President

I can understand a person's support for a Ground Zero mega-mosque to be built by apolojihadist Imam Rauf, but I am disappointed that Obama is waffling on his support of it. Finger to the wind and all that.

He'd be right at home in our Democratic Party . . .

While reading this article about the sinking of the South Korean military vessel, I couldn't help but think back to the irresponsible, contrived attacks on George W. Bush's GWOT policy:

In South Korea, where attitudes toward the North go to the core of the country's politics, opposition politicians have expressed deep skepticism with the official line that Pyongyang was at fault. Choi Moon Soon of the opposition Democratic Party, a member of the National assembly, is typical. He told TIME on August 13 that he believes the ship simply ran aground, and that the government concocted the whole North Korea attack story as a way to influence local elections that were held on June 2. (Elections which President Lee's ruling party actually lost.) He says he doesn 't believe the government will ever publish the report, and questions even whether it actually exists.

As TIME magazine reports, Choi Moon Soon (lyrical, huh?) is wrong. He would make a great "truther."

Update: Will SC Dems pull a Lautenberg?

The Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in SC has been indicted (as forecast), but I'm wondering if anti-democratic (and moral relativist) Democrats will try to pull a Lautenburg to get a candidate they like on the ballot. I don't know what SC law is, but that didn't matter in NJ.

Aside: ol' Jim McGreevey makes an appearance in this story!

UPDATE: I like how CNN "Wire Staff" continue to look askance at Greene's candidacy (in particular, whether or not he is a stooge who didn't even pay his own filing fee):

The obscenity issue is one of several controversies swirling around Greene's long shot candidacy. Observers have also questioned how the 32-year-old nominee, who is believed to have very little personal wealth, was able to afford the $10,440 filing fee required to get his name on the Democratic Senate primary ballot.
South Carolina's top law enforcement agency said it determined that Greene used his own money to pay the fee, though the state attorney general's office said it did not receive a request from the agency to subpoena Greene's bank records.

Well, it appears (here) that a pretty thorough (and transparent) investigation disproves CNN's thesis. Great reporting CNN!!

A couple things about those Boo Scouts . . .

I skimmed this story last week and wanted to comment on it, but forgot until now. In case you missed it, here's the video:


Not cool. Not consistent with what the Scouts teach (esp. "Boy Scout Law"). Not good that this group of Scouts are getting this much attention. They're "kids," sure, but they should not be heralded. It's much more important that young people learn self-control, respect for authority and discretion than . . . whatever character quality defenders of these boys claim was being demonstrated.

For your consideration . . .

From Jonah Goldberg's lengthy, insightful article, What Kind of Socialist is Barack Obama?:

Surely if fans of President Obama’s program feel free to call it socialist, critics may be permitted to do likewise.

disingenuous or "gaylesbianbitransphobic"?

Obama is such a fake. (Obama Still Against Same-Sex Marriage). Yeah, sure.

Trust the Democratic Party Executive Committee

("Two provisional ballots will decide Henry-Yarbro race" | Nashville City Paper):

Yarbro could also challenge the result — essentially suggesting something went wrong in the voting. A challenge would go before the state Democratic Party's executive committee.

Yikes.

Voting on judges in the TN primary

I think many Tennessee voters will be mildly surprised to see the names of two judges on the ballot when they step into the polling booth tomorrow. That's part of the "beauty" of Tennessee's current (and contra-constitutional) system for filling appellate court and Supreme Court seats. Noone really knows anything of substance about the "candidates," and few faithful primary voters are likely to simply vote for "nobody."

That being said, if you agree that this system is wrong, you'll be able to register your opinion about that by voting "no" for these "candidates." Here's an excerpt from an article by Family Action Council of Tennessee's David Fowler. Judicial Elections - Judging the Judges: ("What Will Your Vote Communicate?"):

So, if you want to make a “negative” statement about things like judicial activism, Tennessee’s method of electing Supreme Court judges, etc, then the best way to make that statement is to vote “no.”

If you approve of the current system and current judicial philosophy that prevails in this country (and state), then the best way to communicate that is to vote “yes.” It would be my opinion that not to vote would leave the Judges, Governor and legislature in a position of not knowing why there were fewer people voting in the judicial elections compared to gubernatorial, congressional or state legislative races. Not to vote will leave them wondering if the low vote totals signify voter apathy or an unwillingness to vote for someone you don’t know anything about.

While I can't really say whether these two judges--Sharon Lee and John McLarty, are "judicial activists," I do think your "no" vote will signify that you disagree with them avoiding contested elections, which are plainly required by our Constitution. Go ahead, they won't take it personally. ;)



Visit the Judicial Reform Coalition Blog for more information on judicial selection in Tennessee.

Who says Big Gov't isn't "Pro-family"?

Interesting point in this NYTimes article about a purported increase in American couples who are indefinitely, and rather amicably, separated but not divorced. ("Why Divorce? Just Stay Separated" - NYTimes.com):

Divorce lawyers and marriage therapists say that for most couples, the motivation to remain married is financial. According to federal law, an ex qualifies for a share of a spouse’s Social Security payment if the marriage lasts a decade. In the case of more amicable divorces, financial advisers and lawyers may urge a couple who have been married eight years to wait until the dependent spouse qualifies.

For others, a separation agreement may be negotiated so that a spouse keeps the other’s insurance until he or she is old enough for Medicare. If one person has an existing condition, obtaining affordable health care coverage is often difficult or impossible. The recession, with its real estate lows and health care expense highs, adds incentives to separate indefinitely.

. . . .

What [Family Therapist, and obvious cultural stick-in-the-mud Toni] Coleman finds surprising is that the primary consideration is practical and financial, not familial. The effect of endless separations on the children rarely seems a priority.

“People split up and have these God-awful joint custody arrangements, so you would think that they stay separated for the kids’ sake, but I’m not seeing that,” she said. “It usually comes down to money.”

Wow.

More for the science-denying Left to ignore . . .

("Adult Stem Cell Research Far Ahead of Embryonic" - NYTimes.com):

For all the emotional debate that began about a decade ago on allowing the use of embryonic stem cells, it's adult stem cells that are in human testing today. An extensive review of stem cell projects and interviews with two dozen experts reveal a wide range of potential treatments.

Ken Whitehouse: THIS time re-districting might be a problem . . .

I agree that the impact of this election is greater than the last four bi-ennial elections, but it sure sounds like Ken Whitehouse is concerned and sounding the alarm . . .
("Election holds key to redrawing the state’s political map" | Nashville City Paper: Nashville's Online Source for Daily News):

Start thinking. This time around, those voted into office could have long-lasting legacies.

That being said, I think some reform to the process of drawing districts--at the least to increase transparency, would be good. Tanner's bill would merely make proposed districts available online for a certain period of time prior to a vote; thus, given the public's apathy and official unresponsiveness Tanner's bill would do little to remedy this problem. I think requiring some measure of "compactness" will take much of the gamesmanship out of the process Here's a fascinating website/game on the subject of redistricting.