One day this week (following the time change), Grant came home with his school work. In his math class, the students have 1 minute to complete a page of 25 math problems. Grant usually completes them all, but this time, he had only completed about 15 of the 25. I asked him what happened and he replied, "I don't know, the minute seemed really short. I think maybe the minute got messed up because of the time change on Sunday."
Our neighbors had a Halloween light display. Our kids loved to go look at it. One time, Claire kept walking up closer and closer to their front door. I told her to come back and she replied, "Do you think I'm a burglar or something?!"
The other day, in preparation for becoming a nurse, Jessica was shadowing at one hospital and then volunteering at Mission Arlington's medical clinic. As I was taking care of the kids, Tessa asked, "Where's mommy?" Since she was doing things preparing her to be a nurse, I said, "Mommy's at work." Tessa looked at me like I was crazy and said, "Mommy's not a boy!"
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Election Day 2009! Get Excited!
I’m sure everyone is well aware of the election in 11 days. You know, that one with eleven propositions to amend the Texas Constitution and a local school bond proposal? I know, it’s not as sexy as a presidential election, but these local elections affect our lives much more than the president ever will (unless you are in the military). So it is important to go vote Tuesday, November 3rd. If you don’t care to read about each proposition, here’s my general rule of thumb concerning propositions (amendments to the Texas Constitution): When in doubt, vote “AGAINST.” For bonds: When in doubt, vote "FOR." However, if you take the time to read up on the propositions, you can make a more informed vote. So here’s my take: I’ll list the proposition number, how I’m voting, and the reasons why.
Proposition 1 – FOR - Basically, this amendment allows local governments to purchase land adjacent to military bases, thus allowing a buffer zone from encroaching development that might hamper the training on the base. Voters would be able to hold local governments accountable for every purchase, which will restrict unnecessary expenditures while allowing for the governments to protect the economic benefits the bases provide for their communities. I could just as easily vote against this amendment, but due to the ultimate accountability to the voter, I will vote for it.
Proposition 2 – FOR – This amendment will protect homeowners from having their home values taxed at a higher "potential use" rate of the property rather than the current value of the property. While it could limit the amount of taxes local governments take in, I think it is only fair to tax people for what their property is currently worth as they are using it, not what it might be in the future if a developer owns it and the value explodes.
Proposition 3 – AGAINST – This amendment would take away local control of property appraisal and create a statewide standard instead. Local appraisers are trained by the state already, and the local appraiser may know more about the local issues affecting property values than the state. I guess I just prefer local government to handle this.
Proposition 4 – AGAINST – This amendment funnels money to seven universities in the state in an attempt to make them top-tier public research universities. I’m not opposed to having more top-tier public research universities in Texas, but to spread money between seven of them seems too broad of a stroke. Also, a big concern when universities become top-tier is that the focus shifts from the undergraduate student to the graduate student. I wouldn’t want to see undergrad education weakened in the process. Additionally, with our economy currently sputtering along, this money may be better spent elsewhere.
Proposition 5 – FOR – Small counties that struggle to find enough qualified people to sit on appraisal boards can partner with neighboring counties to share the process. It eases the challenge of small communities to find enough qualified personnel and allows them, if they choose, to join forces with others.
Proposition 6 – FOR – This would allow the Veterans’ Land Board to provide adequate services to Texas veterans dealing with home mortgages. I assume a veteran has earned a little extra help, so I’m for it.
Proposition 7 – FOR – This amendment allows a member of the Texas State Guard to hold another public office if they so choose. During times of disaster, this amendment would make it easier for civil officials to serve in the guard to respond to the needs of the community if they so choose.
Proposition 8 – FOR – Allows for more funding for Veterans’ hospitals in Texas. Provides hospitals that will perhaps be closer than the current ones for those in need. My one worry - I would like to make sure that the Veterans’ hospitals are providing for the needs of veterans though. I wouldn’t want to throw our money at something that is not adequately serving the veterans. So I am open to change my mind on this one.
Proposition 9 – AGAINST – This amendment would give the government too much authority to infringe upon local land owners near beaches.
Proposition 10 – FOR – This amendment lengthens the terms of emergency service board members from 2 years to 4, basically allowing for more continuity for the districts and reducing the amount of needed elections.
Proposition 11 – FOR – Although I think this amendment is a little unnecessary (we already have laws on this) and confusing (what does “enjoyment of the property by the State” mean?), it will strengthen the requirements for eminent domain to protect property owners, while also allowing for eminent domain to be used to eliminate “urban blight.”
AISD Bond Election – FOR – the money from this bond election will be distributed equally across the district, providing funds to meet the needs of the school district. A strong, vibrant, and economically sound city must have healthy schools in order to maintain and improve the satisfaction in a community. We need to pass this to keep Arlington schools as one of the best in the area.
If you read this, I hope you will be part of the 5% turnout in the election November 3rd. Every vote counts.
Proposition 1 – FOR - Basically, this amendment allows local governments to purchase land adjacent to military bases, thus allowing a buffer zone from encroaching development that might hamper the training on the base. Voters would be able to hold local governments accountable for every purchase, which will restrict unnecessary expenditures while allowing for the governments to protect the economic benefits the bases provide for their communities. I could just as easily vote against this amendment, but due to the ultimate accountability to the voter, I will vote for it.
Proposition 2 – FOR – This amendment will protect homeowners from having their home values taxed at a higher "potential use" rate of the property rather than the current value of the property. While it could limit the amount of taxes local governments take in, I think it is only fair to tax people for what their property is currently worth as they are using it, not what it might be in the future if a developer owns it and the value explodes.
Proposition 3 – AGAINST – This amendment would take away local control of property appraisal and create a statewide standard instead. Local appraisers are trained by the state already, and the local appraiser may know more about the local issues affecting property values than the state. I guess I just prefer local government to handle this.
Proposition 4 – AGAINST – This amendment funnels money to seven universities in the state in an attempt to make them top-tier public research universities. I’m not opposed to having more top-tier public research universities in Texas, but to spread money between seven of them seems too broad of a stroke. Also, a big concern when universities become top-tier is that the focus shifts from the undergraduate student to the graduate student. I wouldn’t want to see undergrad education weakened in the process. Additionally, with our economy currently sputtering along, this money may be better spent elsewhere.
Proposition 5 – FOR – Small counties that struggle to find enough qualified people to sit on appraisal boards can partner with neighboring counties to share the process. It eases the challenge of small communities to find enough qualified personnel and allows them, if they choose, to join forces with others.
Proposition 6 – FOR – This would allow the Veterans’ Land Board to provide adequate services to Texas veterans dealing with home mortgages. I assume a veteran has earned a little extra help, so I’m for it.
Proposition 7 – FOR – This amendment allows a member of the Texas State Guard to hold another public office if they so choose. During times of disaster, this amendment would make it easier for civil officials to serve in the guard to respond to the needs of the community if they so choose.
Proposition 8 – FOR – Allows for more funding for Veterans’ hospitals in Texas. Provides hospitals that will perhaps be closer than the current ones for those in need. My one worry - I would like to make sure that the Veterans’ hospitals are providing for the needs of veterans though. I wouldn’t want to throw our money at something that is not adequately serving the veterans. So I am open to change my mind on this one.
Proposition 9 – AGAINST – This amendment would give the government too much authority to infringe upon local land owners near beaches.
Proposition 10 – FOR – This amendment lengthens the terms of emergency service board members from 2 years to 4, basically allowing for more continuity for the districts and reducing the amount of needed elections.
Proposition 11 – FOR – Although I think this amendment is a little unnecessary (we already have laws on this) and confusing (what does “enjoyment of the property by the State” mean?), it will strengthen the requirements for eminent domain to protect property owners, while also allowing for eminent domain to be used to eliminate “urban blight.”
AISD Bond Election – FOR – the money from this bond election will be distributed equally across the district, providing funds to meet the needs of the school district. A strong, vibrant, and economically sound city must have healthy schools in order to maintain and improve the satisfaction in a community. We need to pass this to keep Arlington schools as one of the best in the area.
If you read this, I hope you will be part of the 5% turnout in the election November 3rd. Every vote counts.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Don't Stress About Those Unhealthy Details
“While there remain significant details to be ironed out…” President Obama, September 9, 2009
This speech last night was what I love and hate about politics. Here’s a speech crafted well to say one thing while actually meaning another, to praise the opposition while calling them liars, to decry scare tactics while using them (“If my plan is not passed, people will die!”), and to offer a proposal without any details. This was Obama in full campaign mode. What continues to baffle and intrigue me is how people still swoon over his rhetoric when his actions don’t match up.
The key quote of the night: “While there remain significant details to be ironed out....” The President talked about his proposal, when he has not submitted a bill to Congress. In fact, there are currently up to five different bills in Congress. So which proposal is he talking about? And what details still need to be hammered out? When the President seems intent on passing a bill now, it seems to me that all the details should be hammered out by now. And I wonder just how the cost of this plan can be truly measured when “there remain significant details to be ironed out.” Details are what caused the projected deficits to escalate from $7 trillion at the start of the summer to $9 trillion currently. Details are what made the so called Stimulus bill not very stimulating. (A lack of details always makes government run programs underestimate costs and overestimate effectiveness.) Well, unfortunately, the President offered no details last night, but rather broad campaign promises and partisan attacks.
This certainly is a contentious issue. Just before the now notorious Rep. Wilson, in the middle of the speech, shouted out “You lie,” the President had called opponents to his plan liars. He said people who question the wisdom of the government’s ability to ration health care “lie, plain and simple.” Now, certainly, Rep. Wilson was wrong to shout out when he did, but so was the President in calling honest debate “lies.” Obama’s “liar, liar” accusation was referring to those who believe the President’s plan will create “death panels” – bureaucrats who will make future decisions about who gets health care, based on the idea that if this plan is going to be deficit neutral, and if everyone will be covered, then at some point, the government will have to decide who gets what care and when. The President calls that logic a lie; however, a few minutes after the President denied that bureaucrats will do this, he said that his proposal would create a “commission” which will identify “waste” in the years ahead. And how will the details of the bill define “waste”? How will the government save money in the future? What procedures will be deemed “wasteful”? While the President is correct to say there is nothing called a death panel in the proposal, the result of a commission to identify waste could easily end up doing just that. He said as much in a town hall a few months ago, when he mentioned that it didn’t make sense for the elderly to receive certain expensive treatments, but merely a pain pill instead.
One last thing, a pattern seems to be developing in Obama’s speeches and then subsequent action. He has said, “I don’t like big government” but has increased the size and scope of the government. A few months ago, he said “I have no interest in running a car company,” and then took over GM. And last night he said, “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business…” Hmm.
According to President Obama, he will once and for all address health care. We’ll never have to deal with health care again as a society. Once the bill passes, he can finally declare, “It is finished.”
This speech last night was what I love and hate about politics. Here’s a speech crafted well to say one thing while actually meaning another, to praise the opposition while calling them liars, to decry scare tactics while using them (“If my plan is not passed, people will die!”), and to offer a proposal without any details. This was Obama in full campaign mode. What continues to baffle and intrigue me is how people still swoon over his rhetoric when his actions don’t match up.
The key quote of the night: “While there remain significant details to be ironed out....” The President talked about his proposal, when he has not submitted a bill to Congress. In fact, there are currently up to five different bills in Congress. So which proposal is he talking about? And what details still need to be hammered out? When the President seems intent on passing a bill now, it seems to me that all the details should be hammered out by now. And I wonder just how the cost of this plan can be truly measured when “there remain significant details to be ironed out.” Details are what caused the projected deficits to escalate from $7 trillion at the start of the summer to $9 trillion currently. Details are what made the so called Stimulus bill not very stimulating. (A lack of details always makes government run programs underestimate costs and overestimate effectiveness.) Well, unfortunately, the President offered no details last night, but rather broad campaign promises and partisan attacks.
This certainly is a contentious issue. Just before the now notorious Rep. Wilson, in the middle of the speech, shouted out “You lie,” the President had called opponents to his plan liars. He said people who question the wisdom of the government’s ability to ration health care “lie, plain and simple.” Now, certainly, Rep. Wilson was wrong to shout out when he did, but so was the President in calling honest debate “lies.” Obama’s “liar, liar” accusation was referring to those who believe the President’s plan will create “death panels” – bureaucrats who will make future decisions about who gets health care, based on the idea that if this plan is going to be deficit neutral, and if everyone will be covered, then at some point, the government will have to decide who gets what care and when. The President calls that logic a lie; however, a few minutes after the President denied that bureaucrats will do this, he said that his proposal would create a “commission” which will identify “waste” in the years ahead. And how will the details of the bill define “waste”? How will the government save money in the future? What procedures will be deemed “wasteful”? While the President is correct to say there is nothing called a death panel in the proposal, the result of a commission to identify waste could easily end up doing just that. He said as much in a town hall a few months ago, when he mentioned that it didn’t make sense for the elderly to receive certain expensive treatments, but merely a pain pill instead.
One last thing, a pattern seems to be developing in Obama’s speeches and then subsequent action. He has said, “I don’t like big government” but has increased the size and scope of the government. A few months ago, he said “I have no interest in running a car company,” and then took over GM. And last night he said, “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business…” Hmm.
According to President Obama, he will once and for all address health care. We’ll never have to deal with health care again as a society. Once the bill passes, he can finally declare, “It is finished.”
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A Little Civility Is Good for Our Health
I’m weary of seeing footage of angry people at town halls yelling constantly at members of Congress. However, I am not naïve enough to think that this is occurring at every town hall meeting or even a majority of town hall meetings. I imagine that most town halls have civil discussions on the issue that border on boredom. But certainly, there seems to be a frenzy at a few of these meetings that grabs all the headlines. The problem? It takes the discussion off of health care and onto the protesters. It gives members of Congress the ability to simply dismiss the dissent as irrational, thus weakening the dissenting viewpoint for those discussing it rationally. For those who are overly vocal: Your point has been made. People are upset and scared about health care reform. Everybody gets that. Thanks for bringing it to everyone’s attention. Now, though, ask your questions rationally. Allow the members of Congress to respond. Let’s have this debate on the merits of the bill and not on pure emotion. Win the argument with real discussion, not shouting. Because what will eventually happen, if this remains emotionally charged, is that more and more people will support the health care plan out of frustration with the protesters. It’s why Bill Clinton’s approval rating was highest during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. People had enough of the heated rhetoric and attacks and circled the wagons. It’s human nature. If the protesters aren’t cautious, they are going to cause a circling of the wagons around this health care reform as well and end up contributing to its passing rather than defeat. So chill out a little. Keep writing and calling your Representatives and Senators if you want. Keep talking to your friends. Keep attending town halls and asking questions. The argument against this particular bill appears to be winning. However, at this point, outrageous protesting at town halls only hurts the argument.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Who is Now the Most Trusted Person in America?
Walter Cronkite was considered the “Most Trusted Man in America” during his reign as the original anchorman. His coverage of such enormous events as JFK’s assassination and the moon landing are classic examples of how he earned this moniker. But with his passing, who now is considered the most trusted person in America? In our cynical culture, is it even possible anymore to have someone recognized as the most trusted person?
The Candidates for “Most Trusted Person in America”:
1. Oprah Winfrey. Pros: everyone knows who she is, she is often mentioned as one of the most influential people in our society. Cons: her ratings have recently gone down. I think it is directly related to her endorsement of Obama last spring. Who watches Oprah? Mainly women. She endorses Obama, the Hillary supporters get mad at her and the Republican women get mad at her. She had always stood above politics before the endorsement. While it helped Obama, I think it hurt her. She has also become even more self-obsessed in my estimation over the last few years (if that's possible). So while she is highly influential, could she be “the most trusted”?
2. Colin Powell. Pros: Thoughtful, well respected, fairly apolitical. Cons: the liberals dislike him because he helped lead us into the Iraq War; the conservatives don’t like him because he endorsed Obama. So his seemingly apolitical style has taken some political hits. Still a strong contender though, but his political life probably disqualifies him.
3. Charlie Gibson. Pros: delivers the news in a straightforward manner. Has been on television for years as both a serious newsman and a morning show guy. Cons: the news has become so politicized since Cronkite’s day that it is probably impossible for any news anchor to ever be considered “the most trusted.” Tom Brokaw perhaps might be included in this discussion as well, but he is rarely on anymore.
4. Tom Hanks. I heard someone on the radio throw out Hanks as a possibility. He is certainly a well respected actor, but the stigma of Hollywood is too much for any actor to overcome. But of all the actors, he probably would be the most trusted. He’s Forrest Gump, after all!
5. Rick Warren. Among evangelicals, he might not even be the pick, but he has had such a high profile lately, that he would be a candidate. But not enough people probably even know who he is to be considered “the most trusted.” Plus, he has not attained Billy Graham's stature yet.
6. Ryan Seacrest. Just kidding...kind of.
Do any of these come close to Cronkite? Are we too politicized, and do we have simply too many media outlets these days for anyone to amass enough credibility to be “The Most Trusted Person in America”? I think so. Of course, there's always Nolan Ryan.
The Candidates for “Most Trusted Person in America”:
1. Oprah Winfrey. Pros: everyone knows who she is, she is often mentioned as one of the most influential people in our society. Cons: her ratings have recently gone down. I think it is directly related to her endorsement of Obama last spring. Who watches Oprah? Mainly women. She endorses Obama, the Hillary supporters get mad at her and the Republican women get mad at her. She had always stood above politics before the endorsement. While it helped Obama, I think it hurt her. She has also become even more self-obsessed in my estimation over the last few years (if that's possible). So while she is highly influential, could she be “the most trusted”?
2. Colin Powell. Pros: Thoughtful, well respected, fairly apolitical. Cons: the liberals dislike him because he helped lead us into the Iraq War; the conservatives don’t like him because he endorsed Obama. So his seemingly apolitical style has taken some political hits. Still a strong contender though, but his political life probably disqualifies him.
3. Charlie Gibson. Pros: delivers the news in a straightforward manner. Has been on television for years as both a serious newsman and a morning show guy. Cons: the news has become so politicized since Cronkite’s day that it is probably impossible for any news anchor to ever be considered “the most trusted.” Tom Brokaw perhaps might be included in this discussion as well, but he is rarely on anymore.
4. Tom Hanks. I heard someone on the radio throw out Hanks as a possibility. He is certainly a well respected actor, but the stigma of Hollywood is too much for any actor to overcome. But of all the actors, he probably would be the most trusted. He’s Forrest Gump, after all!
5. Rick Warren. Among evangelicals, he might not even be the pick, but he has had such a high profile lately, that he would be a candidate. But not enough people probably even know who he is to be considered “the most trusted.” Plus, he has not attained Billy Graham's stature yet.
6. Ryan Seacrest. Just kidding...kind of.
Do any of these come close to Cronkite? Are we too politicized, and do we have simply too many media outlets these days for anyone to amass enough credibility to be “The Most Trusted Person in America”? I think so. Of course, there's always Nolan Ryan.
Friday, July 10, 2009
My Palin Admission
So I admit it. I was wrong about Sarah Palin.
I still think she has an inspiring back story. PTA-Mayor-Governor-VP nominee. It’s quite Hollywood. I still think the press demonized her: she never banned books, she never thought dinosaurs only lived 4,000 years ago, etc. I still don’t understand why so many on the left hated her so much (but I guess an equal amount on the right felt the same toward Hillary Clinton). I still think she was the best choice available for McCain – he was going to lose no matter what, at least she made it interesting.
However, since the election, the wheels have come off. Instead of studying up on the issues, she was fighting with David Letterman. Instead of building support, she acted like a diva within the party. And now, instead of enhancing her experience, she is quitting her job as governor. Why? It appears she has bought into the Hollywood story herself. She’s going to cash in now. I guess I don’t blame her. However, she is no longer the “Hockey Mom” fighting for the people, but rather the latest celebrity seeking to capitalize on her fame.
Perhaps she realized she has gone as far as she can. There’s no hope for her to capture the 2012 nomination. She’s not going to be anyone’s VP pick in 2012 either. She was about to face political challenges in Alaska. So, instead, she is set to write a book, make a load of money, and fade from the scene. It’s great for her. But she’s not the Sarah Palin I thought she was back in the summer of 2008. And it’s for the best. If she is not willing to put in the work as Governor or to sound more knowledgeable on the campaign trail and in interviews, then the Republican Party is better off without her as a serious contender in 2012. Not that she won’t have a voice in the Republican Party – she certainly does and should. But she shouldn’t be the voice of the Republican Party, which now with her latest actions, she will not be.
I still think she has an inspiring back story. PTA-Mayor-Governor-VP nominee. It’s quite Hollywood. I still think the press demonized her: she never banned books, she never thought dinosaurs only lived 4,000 years ago, etc. I still don’t understand why so many on the left hated her so much (but I guess an equal amount on the right felt the same toward Hillary Clinton). I still think she was the best choice available for McCain – he was going to lose no matter what, at least she made it interesting.
However, since the election, the wheels have come off. Instead of studying up on the issues, she was fighting with David Letterman. Instead of building support, she acted like a diva within the party. And now, instead of enhancing her experience, she is quitting her job as governor. Why? It appears she has bought into the Hollywood story herself. She’s going to cash in now. I guess I don’t blame her. However, she is no longer the “Hockey Mom” fighting for the people, but rather the latest celebrity seeking to capitalize on her fame.
Perhaps she realized she has gone as far as she can. There’s no hope for her to capture the 2012 nomination. She’s not going to be anyone’s VP pick in 2012 either. She was about to face political challenges in Alaska. So, instead, she is set to write a book, make a load of money, and fade from the scene. It’s great for her. But she’s not the Sarah Palin I thought she was back in the summer of 2008. And it’s for the best. If she is not willing to put in the work as Governor or to sound more knowledgeable on the campaign trail and in interviews, then the Republican Party is better off without her as a serious contender in 2012. Not that she won’t have a voice in the Republican Party – she certainly does and should. But she shouldn’t be the voice of the Republican Party, which now with her latest actions, she will not be.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
ABC: All Barack Channel
Tonight, ABC holds an hour long infomercial for President Obama to promote his national health plan. I can’t wait to hear all the “tough” questions Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer will ask. After seeing Diane Sawyer’s interview with Obama on GMA, I am not expecting much. She was practically massaging his feet by the end of the interview, but that’s Diane Sawyer. It’s fine for ABC to provide someone free airtime, but usually the network would have to provide the opposition equal time to respond, something which is not happening tonight. But with the current state of GOP leadership, no response might be a good thing for them right now – thanks Sen. Ensign and Gov. Sanford.
This infomercial is a great move for President Obama – why not take advantage of the fawning press? Even his press conference yesterday was full of staging – two of the reporters’ questions were pre-arranged with the President. Which is good for him, because he doesn’t handle criticism very well – after all, he is obsessed with everyone, including dictators, liking him. But imagine what would have happened had a conservative blogger and Bush pre-arranged press conference questions.
On Iran, I would have respected Obama’s position concerning Iran had he stayed the course of not “meddling.” However, his sharpening dialogue undermines his previous reason for not meddling, and according to his own rationale, puts the people of Iran at greater risk. I actually agree with him there. Meanwhile, North Korea is strengthening its nuclear program, promising to wipe America off the map if we meddle with them. It’s probably time for Obama to give a speech again, so that all these bad guys will stop being so aggressive. Maybe he should cook them hot dogs. What can’t be settled over a good hot dog?
This infomercial is a great move for President Obama – why not take advantage of the fawning press? Even his press conference yesterday was full of staging – two of the reporters’ questions were pre-arranged with the President. Which is good for him, because he doesn’t handle criticism very well – after all, he is obsessed with everyone, including dictators, liking him. But imagine what would have happened had a conservative blogger and Bush pre-arranged press conference questions.
On Iran, I would have respected Obama’s position concerning Iran had he stayed the course of not “meddling.” However, his sharpening dialogue undermines his previous reason for not meddling, and according to his own rationale, puts the people of Iran at greater risk. I actually agree with him there. Meanwhile, North Korea is strengthening its nuclear program, promising to wipe America off the map if we meddle with them. It’s probably time for Obama to give a speech again, so that all these bad guys will stop being so aggressive. Maybe he should cook them hot dogs. What can’t be settled over a good hot dog?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Is Sotomayor a "Racist"?
Why is the Republican Party so out of power these days? Oh, maybe due in part to the practice of taking a line out of context and then smearing someone as a racist. In the past week, a plethora of conservatives have accused Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor of being a racist. Why? Because in 2001, while delivering a speech at Berkeley, she said: “… I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Any intellectually honest reader should place the phrase into context. In her speech, Sotomayor discussed how a judge’s life experiences can affect his or her rulings. A few sentences earlier than the oft cited passage, Sotomayor said, “Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Throughout her speech, she wrestled with how our experiences affect the way we think. She was honestly discussing how a judge, who should aspire to have no bias, will nevertheless be influenced by his or her background. Is she claiming that because she is a Latina she will automatically make better decisions? No, I don’t perceive that. For one, she used the word “hope.” She was not making a definitive statement, but a hopeful one. If judges are affected by their pasts, then hopefully someone in her position will be able to make a better decision because of it, particularly if the issue is dealing with gender or minority issues. But she followed this statement by cautioning, “we should not be myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable… nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown [v BOE].”
Further, in the following paragraph, Sotomayor expounded a little more on what she means about life influences:
“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
But does she believe these experiences trump the law? She continued:
“I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires…I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experiences and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
When placed in context, there is simply nothing in her speech that would lead me to believe Sotomayor is a racist. For some to suggest otherwise is just furthering the wilderness experience for Republicans. I am not surprised that Rush Limbaugh made this about race, but I am disappointed that Newt Gingrich has. He should be smarter than this.
I hope during the confirmation hearing that Sotomayor will be asked how she balances empathy and the law, how she goes about processing her background and experiences in her decisions, and whether she would ever violate the Constitution in favor of empathy. These are good legal arguments. But to suggest she is a racist is repugnant. It was beneath the Senate to accuse Sam Alito of racism, it should also be so to accuse Sotomayor of the same.
On empathy, I do not mind a judge having empathy as long as the rule of law is followed. In fact, when voting for judges in a primary in Texas, I often vote for a female over a male because of empathy and perspective, so I understand what Sotomayor is saying. Additionally, in reading some of her decisions, it appears that Sotomayor is a defender of religious liberty, which was encouraging to see. So from what I have read and researched, this is not a radical leftist that many would have us believe. Do I agree with her on everything? No. Would I prefer a more conservative pick? Sure. But conservatives didn't win the election. And if we don't change our tone, we will not win many in the future either.
Any intellectually honest reader should place the phrase into context. In her speech, Sotomayor discussed how a judge’s life experiences can affect his or her rulings. A few sentences earlier than the oft cited passage, Sotomayor said, “Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Throughout her speech, she wrestled with how our experiences affect the way we think. She was honestly discussing how a judge, who should aspire to have no bias, will nevertheless be influenced by his or her background. Is she claiming that because she is a Latina she will automatically make better decisions? No, I don’t perceive that. For one, she used the word “hope.” She was not making a definitive statement, but a hopeful one. If judges are affected by their pasts, then hopefully someone in her position will be able to make a better decision because of it, particularly if the issue is dealing with gender or minority issues. But she followed this statement by cautioning, “we should not be myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable… nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown [v BOE].”
Further, in the following paragraph, Sotomayor expounded a little more on what she means about life influences:
“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
But does she believe these experiences trump the law? She continued:
“I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires…I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experiences and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
When placed in context, there is simply nothing in her speech that would lead me to believe Sotomayor is a racist. For some to suggest otherwise is just furthering the wilderness experience for Republicans. I am not surprised that Rush Limbaugh made this about race, but I am disappointed that Newt Gingrich has. He should be smarter than this.
I hope during the confirmation hearing that Sotomayor will be asked how she balances empathy and the law, how she goes about processing her background and experiences in her decisions, and whether she would ever violate the Constitution in favor of empathy. These are good legal arguments. But to suggest she is a racist is repugnant. It was beneath the Senate to accuse Sam Alito of racism, it should also be so to accuse Sotomayor of the same.
On empathy, I do not mind a judge having empathy as long as the rule of law is followed. In fact, when voting for judges in a primary in Texas, I often vote for a female over a male because of empathy and perspective, so I understand what Sotomayor is saying. Additionally, in reading some of her decisions, it appears that Sotomayor is a defender of religious liberty, which was encouraging to see. So from what I have read and researched, this is not a radical leftist that many would have us believe. Do I agree with her on everything? No. Would I prefer a more conservative pick? Sure. But conservatives didn't win the election. And if we don't change our tone, we will not win many in the future either.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
On the Nomination of Judge Sotomayor
Elections have consequences. One of the perks of the ruling party is to nominate and confirm Supreme Court Justices. George W. Bush and a Republican Senate placed Roberts and Alito on the Court. Obama and a Democrat Senate now will place Judge Sotomayor on the highest court. Obama won the election, the Democrats dominate the Senate, end of story. The Republicans can certainly question Judge Sotomayor on her rulings, leanings, etc. It is highly responsible to do so, but I hope they do not engage in character assassination or heightened attacks on minor issues. The debate should be: Is she qualified? If the answer is yes, then she should be confirmed. While from what I read leads me to believe I disagree with her political leanings, she does appear to have the credentials. I know this will upset many people on the conservative side, but this is how our system works. Opposition to Sotomayor should be based on legal rulings, not on personal politics. I know this is not how Obama voted while in the Senate, (he opposed Roberts and Alito on pure personal politics) but it is how a Senator should approach these nominations. Presidents nominate Supreme Court Justices. Senators confirm. That’s the Constitution. If people are upset at her nomination, then they should start electing like-minded people to the Presidency and Senate so it won’t happen in the future.
In the long run, this pick will do little to alter the shape of the court. Retiring Justice Souter is one of the liberal justices, so Sotomayor will not be shifting the court any direction, but just maintaining the status quo. As the first Hispanic and third woman ever to serve, she also has a very compelling life story which should be an inspiration to all, no matter one’s political viewpoint.
In the long run, this pick will do little to alter the shape of the court. Retiring Justice Souter is one of the liberal justices, so Sotomayor will not be shifting the court any direction, but just maintaining the status quo. As the first Hispanic and third woman ever to serve, she also has a very compelling life story which should be an inspiration to all, no matter one’s political viewpoint.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Abortion in America Today
From the Gallup Poll today:
"PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995."
Thursday, May 14, 2009
In Defense of the President
Last Thursday was the National Day of Prayer, an observance begun 47 years ago. Around the country groups gathered to pray for the nation, our leaders, communities, and citizens. Like his predecessors, President Obama signed the proclamation for the day but, in divergence from the Bush Administration, Obama did not attend any of the events, instead choosing to observe the day with private prayer. He has been criticized by some for failing to attend the official Washington function hosted by Shirley Dobson, wife of James Dobson and no fan of the President. And what did she say? “At this time in our country’s history, we would hope our president would recognize more fully the importance of prayer.” This is what drives me crazy about the Religious Right. Because Obama did not attend a function hosted by Dobson, he suddenly doesn’t recognize the importance of prayer? That’s ridiculous. And it makes religious people look petty. But then the kicker – Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: “For those of us who have our doubts about Obama’s faith, no, we did not expect him to have the service… But as president, he should put his own lack of faith aside and live up to the office.” His own “lack of faith”? Because he won’t attend a function where people admittedly doubt his faith? This judgmental, politically blinded attitude is essentially everything that is wrong with the marriage of the Religious Right and conservative politics. It’s just not very Christ-like. Disagree with the President on policy issues – that’s fine and appropriate and responsible. But to judge his personal faith?
I think it is fine that we have a National Day of Prayer, and I am always happy to attend an event. But, I support the President’s decision to observe the day privately and not to attend these public functions. Because then it does become a political function, no matter who the President is. Let the prayer ceremonies be about prayer, not what important person is attending. These should only be about One person anyway. And I’m sure He hears prayers well in a large group or in a private closet. He may even hear the closet prayer better.
I think it is fine that we have a National Day of Prayer, and I am always happy to attend an event. But, I support the President’s decision to observe the day privately and not to attend these public functions. Because then it does become a political function, no matter who the President is. Let the prayer ceremonies be about prayer, not what important person is attending. These should only be about One person anyway. And I’m sure He hears prayers well in a large group or in a private closet. He may even hear the closet prayer better.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
A Kempian Approach to Navigating the Wilderness
Much discussion has occurred in the news over the last weeks as to the future of the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh and Colin Powell are feuding, Michael Steele and Mitt Romney are in a spat – there is a definite leadership vacuum in the party. So where to turn? I think the party would best be represented by a candidate who held the ideals and optimism of the late Jack Kemp.
I’ve always been a Kemp fan. I admire how he always held to his conservative ideals without being snarky or mean-spirited. He always sought a big tent for the party, not by placating to others, but by convincing others of his ideas. He was never overly partisan and disdained personal attacks, but also was not afraid to point out where the other side was wrong, nor was he afraid to point out where his own party was wrong. His desired outreach to minorities was a rarity among Republican ranks, the rarity of which is costing the party dearly now. (In college, I heard Colin Powell speak and he was asked about running on a Powell/Kemp or Kemp/Powell ticket. He joked that if that were the case, Kemp would get the black vote and he would get the white vote.) I remember in 10th grade (1992) predicting and hoping that Jack Kemp would be the nominee in 1996 (I know, it’s pretty sad I was so into politics as a 10th grader). He didn’t run, but he was tapped as Bob Dole’s running mate in the losing effort. However, in honor of the late Jack Kemp, here are some excerpts from his VP acceptance speech from 1996. Unfortunately, I cannot find the video of it. But his words from this speech would be a good starting point for the Republican Party today:
“Abraham Lincoln believed, you serve your party best by serving your country first... I begin this campaign to take our message of growth, hope, leadership and cultural renewal to all Americans. We will carry the word to every man, woman and child of every color and background that…with liberty, equality and justice for all.
“I am putting our opponents on notice. We are asking for the support of every single American. Our appeal of boundless opportunity crosses every barrier of geography, race and belief. We may not get every vote, but we will speak to every heart. In word and action, we will represent our entire American family… the purpose of a great party is not to defeat the other party but to provide superior ideas, principled leadership and a compelling cause...Our goal is not just to win, but to be worthy of winning.
“This is a great nation with a great mission…And so tonight, as the party of Lincoln, Reagan… we begin our campaign to restore the adventure of the American Dream… Only democracy has shown itself true to the hopes of humanity.
“Democratic capitalism is not just the hope of wealth, but the hope of justice. When we look into the face of poverty, we see pain, despair and need. But, above all, in every face, we must see the image of God. The Creator of All has planted the seed of creativity in us all, the desire within every child of God to work and build and improve our lot in life, and that of our families and those we love…And in our work, in the act of creating that is part of all labor, we discover that part within ourselves that is divine. I believe the ultimate imperative for growth and opportunity is to advance human dignity.
“Dr. Martin Luther King believed that we must see a sleeping hero in every soul. America must establish policies that summon those heroes and call forth the boundless potential of the human spirit. But our full potential will never be achieved by following leaders who call us to timid tasks and diminished dreams.
“Every generation faces a choice: hope or despair - to plan for scarcity or to embrace possibilities. Societies throughout history believed they had reached the frontiers of human accomplishment. But in every age, those who trusted the divine spark of imagination discovered that vastly greater horizons lay ahead…Americans do not accept limits; we transcend them. We do not settle; we succeed…
“To me, faith, family and freedom are the greatest gifts of God to humanity…
“Our friends in the other party say the economy is moving forward, and it is. But it is moving like a ship dragging an anchor, the anchor of high taxes, excessive regulation and big government…They say that is the best we can hope for. But that is because they have put their entire trust in government rather than people - a government that runs our lives, our businesses, our schools. You see, they don't believe in the unlimited possibilities that freedom brings.
“The Democratic Party today is not democratic. They're elitists - they don't have faith in the people. They have faith in government. That is why they raised taxes on the middle class. That is why they tried to nationalize our health-care system… That is the problem with all elitists, they think they know better than the people - but the truth is, there is a wisdom and intelligence in ordinary women and men far superior to the greatest so-called experts…
“Our first step will be to balance the budget…balancing the budget while cutting taxes is just a matter of presidential will. If you have it, you can do it…We're going to take the side of the worker, the saver, the family and the entrepreneur. The American people can use their money more wisely than can government. It's time they had more of a chance, and we will give them that chance…
“In the middle of a technological revolution that is transforming the world in which we live - how can it be that so many families find themselves struggling just to keep even, just to get by? As long as it takes two earners to do what one earner used to do, how can we say this economy is good enough?
“Our tax cut means that parents will have more time to spend with their children - and with each other. It means that a working parent can afford to take a job that lets them be home when the kids get back from school. It means that the struggling, single mother in the inner city will find it easier to work her way off welfare.
“And we cannot forget that single mother and her children. American society as a whole can never achieve the outer-reaches of potential, so long as it tolerates the inner-cities of despair.
Recently I read the account by a reporter of his conversation with a ten-year-old child at Henry Homer public housing in Chicago. As the reporter told it in his book "I asked (the boy) what he wanted to be. `If I grow up, I'd like to be a bus driver,' he told me. If, not when. At the age of ten, (he) wasn't sure he'd even make it to adulthood."
“Think how much poorer our nation is, deprived of that child's future and those like him. Think how much richer our nation will be when every child is able to grow up to reach his or her God-given potential. Including those who come to America from other countries. My friends, we are a nation of immigrants. The former president of Notre Dame University, Father Ted Hesburgh, said the reason we must close the backdoor of illegal immigration is so that we can keep open the front door of legal immigration -and keep the light of opportunity lifted beside the golden door.
Our goal is not just a more prosperous America but a better America. An America that recognizes the infinite worth of every individual and, like the Good Shepherd, leaves the ninety-nine to find the one lost lamb.
“An America that honors - in all its institutions - the values that mothers and fathers want to pass on to her children. An America that makes the ideal of equality a daily reality - equality of opportunity, equality in human dignity, equality before the laws of man as well as in the eyes of God. An America that transcends the boundaries between races with the revolutionary power of a simple, yet profound idea - love thy neighbor as thyself.
“We must remember all that is at stake in America's cultural renewal - not just the wealth of our nation but its meaning…Today, more than ever before, American ideals and ideas grip the imaginations of women and men in every corner of the globe. Isn't it exciting to think, it's 1776 all over the world…President Reagan spoke of America as a shining city on a hill, a light unto the nations. In decades past, so many of those who looked for our light did so from behind the walls and barbed wire of tyrannical regimes. Now, because the American people stood strong, those people are free.
“But freedom is never guaranteed - and our nation and its president must be strong enough to stand up for freedom against all who would challenge it. A world of peace. A world of hope. This is what America's economic and cultural renewal means at home and around the globe.
This is what our cause is all about…
“Thank you and God bless America.”
I’ve always been a Kemp fan. I admire how he always held to his conservative ideals without being snarky or mean-spirited. He always sought a big tent for the party, not by placating to others, but by convincing others of his ideas. He was never overly partisan and disdained personal attacks, but also was not afraid to point out where the other side was wrong, nor was he afraid to point out where his own party was wrong. His desired outreach to minorities was a rarity among Republican ranks, the rarity of which is costing the party dearly now. (In college, I heard Colin Powell speak and he was asked about running on a Powell/Kemp or Kemp/Powell ticket. He joked that if that were the case, Kemp would get the black vote and he would get the white vote.) I remember in 10th grade (1992) predicting and hoping that Jack Kemp would be the nominee in 1996 (I know, it’s pretty sad I was so into politics as a 10th grader). He didn’t run, but he was tapped as Bob Dole’s running mate in the losing effort. However, in honor of the late Jack Kemp, here are some excerpts from his VP acceptance speech from 1996. Unfortunately, I cannot find the video of it. But his words from this speech would be a good starting point for the Republican Party today:
“Abraham Lincoln believed, you serve your party best by serving your country first... I begin this campaign to take our message of growth, hope, leadership and cultural renewal to all Americans. We will carry the word to every man, woman and child of every color and background that…with liberty, equality and justice for all.
“I am putting our opponents on notice. We are asking for the support of every single American. Our appeal of boundless opportunity crosses every barrier of geography, race and belief. We may not get every vote, but we will speak to every heart. In word and action, we will represent our entire American family… the purpose of a great party is not to defeat the other party but to provide superior ideas, principled leadership and a compelling cause...Our goal is not just to win, but to be worthy of winning.
“This is a great nation with a great mission…And so tonight, as the party of Lincoln, Reagan… we begin our campaign to restore the adventure of the American Dream… Only democracy has shown itself true to the hopes of humanity.
“Democratic capitalism is not just the hope of wealth, but the hope of justice. When we look into the face of poverty, we see pain, despair and need. But, above all, in every face, we must see the image of God. The Creator of All has planted the seed of creativity in us all, the desire within every child of God to work and build and improve our lot in life, and that of our families and those we love…And in our work, in the act of creating that is part of all labor, we discover that part within ourselves that is divine. I believe the ultimate imperative for growth and opportunity is to advance human dignity.
“Dr. Martin Luther King believed that we must see a sleeping hero in every soul. America must establish policies that summon those heroes and call forth the boundless potential of the human spirit. But our full potential will never be achieved by following leaders who call us to timid tasks and diminished dreams.
“Every generation faces a choice: hope or despair - to plan for scarcity or to embrace possibilities. Societies throughout history believed they had reached the frontiers of human accomplishment. But in every age, those who trusted the divine spark of imagination discovered that vastly greater horizons lay ahead…Americans do not accept limits; we transcend them. We do not settle; we succeed…
“To me, faith, family and freedom are the greatest gifts of God to humanity…
“Our friends in the other party say the economy is moving forward, and it is. But it is moving like a ship dragging an anchor, the anchor of high taxes, excessive regulation and big government…They say that is the best we can hope for. But that is because they have put their entire trust in government rather than people - a government that runs our lives, our businesses, our schools. You see, they don't believe in the unlimited possibilities that freedom brings.
“The Democratic Party today is not democratic. They're elitists - they don't have faith in the people. They have faith in government. That is why they raised taxes on the middle class. That is why they tried to nationalize our health-care system… That is the problem with all elitists, they think they know better than the people - but the truth is, there is a wisdom and intelligence in ordinary women and men far superior to the greatest so-called experts…
“Our first step will be to balance the budget…balancing the budget while cutting taxes is just a matter of presidential will. If you have it, you can do it…We're going to take the side of the worker, the saver, the family and the entrepreneur. The American people can use their money more wisely than can government. It's time they had more of a chance, and we will give them that chance…
“In the middle of a technological revolution that is transforming the world in which we live - how can it be that so many families find themselves struggling just to keep even, just to get by? As long as it takes two earners to do what one earner used to do, how can we say this economy is good enough?
“Our tax cut means that parents will have more time to spend with their children - and with each other. It means that a working parent can afford to take a job that lets them be home when the kids get back from school. It means that the struggling, single mother in the inner city will find it easier to work her way off welfare.
“And we cannot forget that single mother and her children. American society as a whole can never achieve the outer-reaches of potential, so long as it tolerates the inner-cities of despair.
Recently I read the account by a reporter of his conversation with a ten-year-old child at Henry Homer public housing in Chicago. As the reporter told it in his book "I asked (the boy) what he wanted to be. `If I grow up, I'd like to be a bus driver,' he told me. If, not when. At the age of ten, (he) wasn't sure he'd even make it to adulthood."
“Think how much poorer our nation is, deprived of that child's future and those like him. Think how much richer our nation will be when every child is able to grow up to reach his or her God-given potential. Including those who come to America from other countries. My friends, we are a nation of immigrants. The former president of Notre Dame University, Father Ted Hesburgh, said the reason we must close the backdoor of illegal immigration is so that we can keep open the front door of legal immigration -and keep the light of opportunity lifted beside the golden door.
Our goal is not just a more prosperous America but a better America. An America that recognizes the infinite worth of every individual and, like the Good Shepherd, leaves the ninety-nine to find the one lost lamb.
“An America that honors - in all its institutions - the values that mothers and fathers want to pass on to her children. An America that makes the ideal of equality a daily reality - equality of opportunity, equality in human dignity, equality before the laws of man as well as in the eyes of God. An America that transcends the boundaries between races with the revolutionary power of a simple, yet profound idea - love thy neighbor as thyself.
“We must remember all that is at stake in America's cultural renewal - not just the wealth of our nation but its meaning…Today, more than ever before, American ideals and ideas grip the imaginations of women and men in every corner of the globe. Isn't it exciting to think, it's 1776 all over the world…President Reagan spoke of America as a shining city on a hill, a light unto the nations. In decades past, so many of those who looked for our light did so from behind the walls and barbed wire of tyrannical regimes. Now, because the American people stood strong, those people are free.
“But freedom is never guaranteed - and our nation and its president must be strong enough to stand up for freedom against all who would challenge it. A world of peace. A world of hope. This is what America's economic and cultural renewal means at home and around the globe.
This is what our cause is all about…
“Thank you and God bless America.”
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
The Republican Wilderness
As the Republican Party enters the proverbial wilderness to re-brand itself, civil war is erupting within the party of Lincoln over which faction will dominate the brand. Since 1980, Republicans have basically consisted of a coalition, formed by Reagan, of fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. However, like two warring children, the leaders of these factions have always fought for ultimate control, asking “Who’s the real Republican?” Now, what’s the point of this re-branding? To win elections. The only reason the major parties exist is to accumulate and maintain power. So if the purpose of this re-brand is to win elections, then Republicans should honestly look at why President Obama won in 2008. Aside from the economy in the toilet, a never ending war, an unpopular President, and a Republican candidate who so confused his message, what qualities attracted voters to Obama in the first place?
Obama's Campaign Qualities/Issues:
1. Optimistic
2. Calm
3. Consistent
4. Tax cuts for 95%
5. Get deficits under control
6. More affordable health care
7. Create Environmentally Friendly jobs
8. Clean up corruption in Washington
9. Reduce the number of abortions
Now, one can argue whether Obama’s policies will achieve his campaign rhetoric, but these are nine major qualities/issues I associate with Obama’s campaign. Frankly, it is a fairly moderate to conservative list. A Republican or a Democrat could run on these issues and do well, one would think. But the problem facing Republicans is that many within the party want everything their way or they pout. An inability for some to compromise within reason on some issues will be the biggest test facing the future of the Republican Party. So what should the party do? I’ll try to lay out what I think would be a winning, conservative brand for the party in the next couple of posts by first turning to the words of one of my favorite politicians of all time – the late Jack Kemp.
Obama's Campaign Qualities/Issues:
1. Optimistic
2. Calm
3. Consistent
4. Tax cuts for 95%
5. Get deficits under control
6. More affordable health care
7. Create Environmentally Friendly jobs
8. Clean up corruption in Washington
9. Reduce the number of abortions
Now, one can argue whether Obama’s policies will achieve his campaign rhetoric, but these are nine major qualities/issues I associate with Obama’s campaign. Frankly, it is a fairly moderate to conservative list. A Republican or a Democrat could run on these issues and do well, one would think. But the problem facing Republicans is that many within the party want everything their way or they pout. An inability for some to compromise within reason on some issues will be the biggest test facing the future of the Republican Party. So what should the party do? I’ll try to lay out what I think would be a winning, conservative brand for the party in the next couple of posts by first turning to the words of one of my favorite politicians of all time – the late Jack Kemp.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Baseball is Back
Opening Day 2009. It took me a while to figure out where the Ranger broadcast was. Finally found it on 105.3FM. (What is this station? It seems to have been stocked with the B-team from The Ticket. It was nice to pick the game up on FM though.) Eric Nadel’s voice is like a relaxing drug for me. Even though he seemingly has a different 2nd guy every other year, it is good to always hear Nadel. During the 3rd inning, President George W. Bush joined the booth as the Rangers batted. (They scored 4 runs in the inning.) Anyway, Bush seemed so happy to no longer be president: relaxed, funny, warm. He reminisced with Nadel about his days with the Rangers, throwing out names like Kunkel, Henke, Burkett, and others. The booth chatter was great to listen to, as the President would at times interrupt his story to cheer on a hit. A couple of the exchanges:
On throwing out the first pitch: He told the story of throwing out the first pitch of the 2001 World Series in Yankee Stadium, just a month after 9/11. As he was warming up prior to the game, Derek Jeter asked him if he was going to throw from the mound or the grass. Bush asked Jeter what he thought, and Jeter replied: “Be a man and throw it from the mound… Don’t bounce it or they’ll boo.” Bush said that the adrenaline and nerves of that pitch were stronger than any other moment in his presidency. He said the ball felt like a shot put, the emotion was overwhelming, but he did throw a strike.
On meeting Elvis Andrus: Elvis Andrus is the 20 year old shortstop for the Rangers this year. Bush said he met him and was shocked to learn how young he was. Nadel mentioned that Bush may have thought he would need an interpreter with Andrus, but that he speaks really good English. Bush replied: “It’s better than mine!”
I can only imagine what it must be like to go from the President of the United States for eight years to citizen again, able to joke around in the radio booth. I was disappointed that he said he would never want to be commissioner of baseball. He loves the game, but he said he has had enough exposure in his life and wants to enjoy private life now. Anyway, a great moment in the booth to start the season. I love baseball on the radio. It works unlike any other sport.
On throwing out the first pitch: He told the story of throwing out the first pitch of the 2001 World Series in Yankee Stadium, just a month after 9/11. As he was warming up prior to the game, Derek Jeter asked him if he was going to throw from the mound or the grass. Bush asked Jeter what he thought, and Jeter replied: “Be a man and throw it from the mound… Don’t bounce it or they’ll boo.” Bush said that the adrenaline and nerves of that pitch were stronger than any other moment in his presidency. He said the ball felt like a shot put, the emotion was overwhelming, but he did throw a strike.
On meeting Elvis Andrus: Elvis Andrus is the 20 year old shortstop for the Rangers this year. Bush said he met him and was shocked to learn how young he was. Nadel mentioned that Bush may have thought he would need an interpreter with Andrus, but that he speaks really good English. Bush replied: “It’s better than mine!”
I can only imagine what it must be like to go from the President of the United States for eight years to citizen again, able to joke around in the radio booth. I was disappointed that he said he would never want to be commissioner of baseball. He loves the game, but he said he has had enough exposure in his life and wants to enjoy private life now. Anyway, a great moment in the booth to start the season. I love baseball on the radio. It works unlike any other sport.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
World Autism Awareness Day
We've got to figure this out. I pray we do. Amazing kids. In need of a key to unlock what's inside. Amazing kids. Who have to work 2, 3, 4, 100x as hard. But who never give up. Amazing people. Who have so much to offer. My life's been changed. For that I am thankful.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Nine Months to Christmas
It’s March 25th, which has led me to consider that since Christmas is nine months away, today would roughly be the day that Mary became pregnant with Jesus. To my knowledge there is no celebration of this day, but it does amaze me. At sometime around nine months prior to birth, Jesus Christ, fully God, condensed Himself into one tiny cell in the uterus of a teenager. God became embryo, implanted Himself in Mary’s womb and made His dwelling among us. How amazing and mind-boggling is that? And what was Mary’s life like over the next nine months? Due to divine intervention, Joseph believed her, but how many of her family and friends didn’t? Over the next nine months, as Mary walked down the street, did some people whisper, “Here’s Mary, the one who says she’s a virgin but is pregnant – yeah right… she needs a mental evaluation, she should get rid of the fetus, etc.” The Savior of the world – dependent on the nutrients from a placenta in the womb of an unwed teenager. How deep the Father’s love for us.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Urinal Protocol (For Guys Only)
The following is an important announcement for males only, females need not read:
There should be a class taught for guys on urinal protocol. I am amazed at the number of males who are seemingly clueless when it comes to urinal usage. In my workplace, there are three urinals on the wall, no dividers. Now, as every guy should know, if all the urinals are open, one should choose one of the urinals on the end, never the one in the middle. However, in the past week, I have lost count of the number of times I have walked into the restroom only to find one dude in the middle urinal. Of course, if this is the situation, I then have no other option but to use a stall. Which brings me to another issue: If a guy ever has to use the stall for this reason, he should lift the seat. It is so sorry of a guy to not lift the seat in this situation. And, no matter what you do in the stall, freaking flush the toilet! I don’t understand why this is so difficult. But I am about ready to post flyers offering a course on proper urinal/stall usage. Apparently, many guys do not understand this basic guy thing. Our world is in worse shape than I thought.
There should be a class taught for guys on urinal protocol. I am amazed at the number of males who are seemingly clueless when it comes to urinal usage. In my workplace, there are three urinals on the wall, no dividers. Now, as every guy should know, if all the urinals are open, one should choose one of the urinals on the end, never the one in the middle. However, in the past week, I have lost count of the number of times I have walked into the restroom only to find one dude in the middle urinal. Of course, if this is the situation, I then have no other option but to use a stall. Which brings me to another issue: If a guy ever has to use the stall for this reason, he should lift the seat. It is so sorry of a guy to not lift the seat in this situation. And, no matter what you do in the stall, freaking flush the toilet! I don’t understand why this is so difficult. But I am about ready to post flyers offering a course on proper urinal/stall usage. Apparently, many guys do not understand this basic guy thing. Our world is in worse shape than I thought.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Obama's Kind of State of the Union Speech
Without a doubt, President Obama could convince a majority of the American people that Alex Rodriguez never used steroids, that Jupiter is the smallest planet in the solar system, and that Jerry Jones is the best GM in the NFL. Obama can deliver a speech. He can deliver so well that he can slip things by a listener. While discussing how he will cut the deficit in half, Obama mentioned that the recent $800 billion spending bill is just the beginning and that another one will certainly be needed. While forcefully saying he loathes big government, Obama fires off government program after government program. He can even persuade listeners to believe that the spending bill will save millions of jobs, while only being able to mention specifically 57 policemen in Minnesota. But the best example of the special rhetorical gift Obama has is his ability to say with a straight face that the recent spending bill contained no earmarks. (I think even Nancy Pelosi had to think about that one – more on her in a bit.)
It was apparent early on that Obama had listened to Bill Clinton’s advice to at least mention something hopeful. In a line that is sure to be repeated, Obama stated “We will rebuild, we will recover, we will emerge stronger than ever before.” That was the first positive statement Obama has made in a month. He heavily defended the largest spending bill in US history, and placed Joe Biden in charge of overseeing its implementation because “Nobody messes with Joe,” and because if it fails, he can blame Biden as well. (By the way, Obama was criticized by some for his casual remark about messing with Joe, but I don’t mind that at all. We could use a little more casual talk from usually scripted politicians.) But when one gets past the rhetorical skill of Obama and begins to look at what he actually said, there is very little there as far as real direction for the country.
One topic Obama discussed was health care reform. He mentioned how the cost of health care is weighing down our economy. I would definitely agree with him; our health care costs are unwieldy. I believe we do need to address health care, and if Obama follows through and actually allows bipartisan discussion and input, then maybe something positive can be accomplished. But more than likely, Obama becomes the 20th president to mention health care reform without actually accomplishing anything worthwhile. Not to mention that addressing health care reform will not help in slashing the deficit in half, which he has promised to do.
On education, Obama spoke of the need for reform. Good, but what does he mean? He doesn’t give specifics. His best line from this portion of the speech was that students who drop out of high school are not only failing themselves, but they are failing America as well. Amen. His solution to the high school dropout rate? Have parents parent their children and make college more affordable. OK, how does the government do that? How does one legislate good parenting skills? It’s a nice line, but doesn’t really help address the issue of education reform. And are people dropping out of high school because they can’t afford college, or because they hate school?
Next, surprisingly, Obama took on a more partisan tone. Perhaps it was the manic Pelosi behind him, but about 37 minutes into the speech, Obama decided to taunt Republicans. After the Republicans cheered his line about too high a debt, Obama decided to play a little political game and mention he “inherited” the deficit. Never mind that the deficit he inherits this year is because of the spending bills, including the $700 billion bailout in the fall, passed by this Democratic controlled Congress and voted for by him. Seemingly, Nancy Pelosi even forgot she oversaw the deficit spending last year as she leapt to her feet. I’m confused, did George W Bush write, pass, and sign all the spending bills the last two years while he was a lame duck President?
Obama is a masterful speaker. It was quite a contrast, not only concerning style but substance as well. Whereas Bush would speak 70 percent of the time about foreign policy and 30 on domestic issues, Obama spent 95 percent on domestic issues and mentioned briefly the wars we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing about Iran or Israel. Also, the Obama presidency appears to be presidency of the task force. Obama is able to delay specifics to his ideas by citing a task force on the subject. It will be interesting to see if these task forces deliver.
Other observations: It was great to see Justice Ginsburg, who had surgery due to cancer a few days ago. I disagree with her constitutional viewpoint, but she is a very nice lady and a very smart person. What was Nancy Pelosi on last night? And did anyone look more miserable than Hillary Clinton? She had been traveling all over Asia all week only to catch a plane back in time for the speech. She must have been exhausted – I think the Secretary of State sounds like a miserable job. But I can only imagine that she was fighting jet-lag muttering “I should be giving this speech!” the entire night.
On Gov. Bobby Jindal’s response: I thought he did a fine job. The response is one of the most awkward political moments. After an hour of cheers and pomp and circumstance, someone from the other party has to deliver a rebuttal to an empty room. But just ask Kathleen Sebelius or Tim Kaine, it’s not an easy task. Many are ridiculing the delivery and style of Jindal last night, and he did come off as hokey in parts of his speech. But the substance of the speech was solid, no one can question Jindal’s intellect, particularly on the economy and leadership, and he is only 37, so he has a few years to improve his delivery. He is excellent in interviews as well – very articulate. Also, we should be reminded that there is more to being president than delivering a good speech. And Jindal will make a great president one day. But on the response, I think the Republicans should do a panel response. Forget the prepared speech. Instead, have a round table of sharp conservative minds that can take the speech the President just delivered and truly respond to it. It would be risky because it would not be prepared, but I think it would be much more effective than trying to match Obama’s delivery.
It was apparent early on that Obama had listened to Bill Clinton’s advice to at least mention something hopeful. In a line that is sure to be repeated, Obama stated “We will rebuild, we will recover, we will emerge stronger than ever before.” That was the first positive statement Obama has made in a month. He heavily defended the largest spending bill in US history, and placed Joe Biden in charge of overseeing its implementation because “Nobody messes with Joe,” and because if it fails, he can blame Biden as well. (By the way, Obama was criticized by some for his casual remark about messing with Joe, but I don’t mind that at all. We could use a little more casual talk from usually scripted politicians.) But when one gets past the rhetorical skill of Obama and begins to look at what he actually said, there is very little there as far as real direction for the country.
One topic Obama discussed was health care reform. He mentioned how the cost of health care is weighing down our economy. I would definitely agree with him; our health care costs are unwieldy. I believe we do need to address health care, and if Obama follows through and actually allows bipartisan discussion and input, then maybe something positive can be accomplished. But more than likely, Obama becomes the 20th president to mention health care reform without actually accomplishing anything worthwhile. Not to mention that addressing health care reform will not help in slashing the deficit in half, which he has promised to do.
On education, Obama spoke of the need for reform. Good, but what does he mean? He doesn’t give specifics. His best line from this portion of the speech was that students who drop out of high school are not only failing themselves, but they are failing America as well. Amen. His solution to the high school dropout rate? Have parents parent their children and make college more affordable. OK, how does the government do that? How does one legislate good parenting skills? It’s a nice line, but doesn’t really help address the issue of education reform. And are people dropping out of high school because they can’t afford college, or because they hate school?
Next, surprisingly, Obama took on a more partisan tone. Perhaps it was the manic Pelosi behind him, but about 37 minutes into the speech, Obama decided to taunt Republicans. After the Republicans cheered his line about too high a debt, Obama decided to play a little political game and mention he “inherited” the deficit. Never mind that the deficit he inherits this year is because of the spending bills, including the $700 billion bailout in the fall, passed by this Democratic controlled Congress and voted for by him. Seemingly, Nancy Pelosi even forgot she oversaw the deficit spending last year as she leapt to her feet. I’m confused, did George W Bush write, pass, and sign all the spending bills the last two years while he was a lame duck President?
Obama is a masterful speaker. It was quite a contrast, not only concerning style but substance as well. Whereas Bush would speak 70 percent of the time about foreign policy and 30 on domestic issues, Obama spent 95 percent on domestic issues and mentioned briefly the wars we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing about Iran or Israel. Also, the Obama presidency appears to be presidency of the task force. Obama is able to delay specifics to his ideas by citing a task force on the subject. It will be interesting to see if these task forces deliver.
Other observations: It was great to see Justice Ginsburg, who had surgery due to cancer a few days ago. I disagree with her constitutional viewpoint, but she is a very nice lady and a very smart person. What was Nancy Pelosi on last night? And did anyone look more miserable than Hillary Clinton? She had been traveling all over Asia all week only to catch a plane back in time for the speech. She must have been exhausted – I think the Secretary of State sounds like a miserable job. But I can only imagine that she was fighting jet-lag muttering “I should be giving this speech!” the entire night.
On Gov. Bobby Jindal’s response: I thought he did a fine job. The response is one of the most awkward political moments. After an hour of cheers and pomp and circumstance, someone from the other party has to deliver a rebuttal to an empty room. But just ask Kathleen Sebelius or Tim Kaine, it’s not an easy task. Many are ridiculing the delivery and style of Jindal last night, and he did come off as hokey in parts of his speech. But the substance of the speech was solid, no one can question Jindal’s intellect, particularly on the economy and leadership, and he is only 37, so he has a few years to improve his delivery. He is excellent in interviews as well – very articulate. Also, we should be reminded that there is more to being president than delivering a good speech. And Jindal will make a great president one day. But on the response, I think the Republicans should do a panel response. Forget the prepared speech. Instead, have a round table of sharp conservative minds that can take the speech the President just delivered and truly respond to it. It would be risky because it would not be prepared, but I think it would be much more effective than trying to match Obama’s delivery.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Washington Logic
So President Obama passes his $800 billion spending package last week – the largest spending package in US history – only to chide Washington today for having out of control spending. (And tomorrow Barry Bonds will lecture the players union about illegal steroids.) With his “Economic Spendulus” plan, Obama has guaranteed at least a $1 trillion deficit for this year alone. He says our yearly deficit will be cut in half by 2013. Great plan. Drive the deficit as high as you can for this year, so that anything less in the coming years will be seen as improvement. I really can’t believe Obama can say this with a straight face. This is like the Octomom saying that next year she will only have 4 additional kids on tax-payer money – wow, what improvement! But I guess no one is paying attention – no one except for the Stock Market, which has now plummeted to 1997 value – it seems like we are literally going back to the Clinton years.
Tomorrow, President Obama delivers the State of the Union Address. Will he continue fear tactics and doom and gloom? Or will he listen to Bill Clinton and be more hopeful? I’m also looking forward to Gov. Bobby Jindal’s response after the speech.
Clarification: I'm not saying that Republicans and the Bush Administration didn't have a spending problem either. They did - and that's why they're out of power. It's just ironic that the "change" candidate is doing "more of the same."
Tomorrow, President Obama delivers the State of the Union Address. Will he continue fear tactics and doom and gloom? Or will he listen to Bill Clinton and be more hopeful? I’m also looking forward to Gov. Bobby Jindal’s response after the speech.
Clarification: I'm not saying that Republicans and the Bush Administration didn't have a spending problem either. They did - and that's why they're out of power. It's just ironic that the "change" candidate is doing "more of the same."
Friday, February 20, 2009
Learning From Baby Teeth
G lost his first tooth last week. Quite a momentous occasion. Quite a wake-up call to how fast kids grow up as well. It wasn’t too long ago that we were celebrating his first tooth to pop up. Now, he’s lost his first tooth. As we were talking about it a few days ago, I told G he needed to make sure he brushes his tooth that grows in its place really well, because it will not be replaced. No more do-overs. (Grant is a good brusher, so I don’t think this will be a problem, but I thought it would be the fatherly thing to say anyway.)
That’s the great thing about baby teeth, we learn how to take care of them, before we get our permanent ones. If we haven’t learned how, then we are in trouble when the permanent ones grow in. Life doesn’t always afford the same do-overs we get with the baby teeth. We’re not starfish, regenerating a lost arm. Every decision we make affects us the rest of our lives. This can be haunting, but not overwhelming, because we can learn from our past, if we pay attention. We learn how to ride a bike by falling down a few times, we learn how to hit a baseball by striking out a few times, we learn how to be a friend by being rejected a few times, etc. Life’s struggles allow us to grow by shaping our character.
Of course, the ultimate do-over is offered to us through Christ. He gave us life, saw the mess we had made with our lives, and came to give us new life. Even though I knowingly and willingly fail to brush my life, Jesus’ love for me is such that he offers me more than just a permanent tooth or a new starfish arm; he offers me a restoration of my life, re-doing permanently His image in me that He intended from the beginning. To think about the shortcomings in my life, to realize that all those shortcomings fall on Christ on the cross – all of them! – that Christ loves me so much more than I can ever imagine, it’s amazing: “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death…And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.” (Romans 8:1, 11) And who did He come to save? “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Everyone.
So as Grant celebrates his first lost tooth and the growth of a permanent one, I pray he will discover the Maker of those teeth, the Permanence of His Love, and the Grace which He brushes us with daily.
That’s the great thing about baby teeth, we learn how to take care of them, before we get our permanent ones. If we haven’t learned how, then we are in trouble when the permanent ones grow in. Life doesn’t always afford the same do-overs we get with the baby teeth. We’re not starfish, regenerating a lost arm. Every decision we make affects us the rest of our lives. This can be haunting, but not overwhelming, because we can learn from our past, if we pay attention. We learn how to ride a bike by falling down a few times, we learn how to hit a baseball by striking out a few times, we learn how to be a friend by being rejected a few times, etc. Life’s struggles allow us to grow by shaping our character.
Of course, the ultimate do-over is offered to us through Christ. He gave us life, saw the mess we had made with our lives, and came to give us new life. Even though I knowingly and willingly fail to brush my life, Jesus’ love for me is such that he offers me more than just a permanent tooth or a new starfish arm; he offers me a restoration of my life, re-doing permanently His image in me that He intended from the beginning. To think about the shortcomings in my life, to realize that all those shortcomings fall on Christ on the cross – all of them! – that Christ loves me so much more than I can ever imagine, it’s amazing: “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death…And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.” (Romans 8:1, 11) And who did He come to save? “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Everyone.
So as Grant celebrates his first lost tooth and the growth of a permanent one, I pray he will discover the Maker of those teeth, the Permanence of His Love, and the Grace which He brushes us with daily.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Common Ground?
On January 22, 1973, Roe v Wade was decided by the Supreme Court, legalizing abortion. Now, 36 years later, one can hardly count the 48,000,000+ babies aborted in America. So how does the new administration which promises to seek common ground on abortion commemorate the day? By allowing overseas organizations to use our tax money to perform abortions. Later today, President Obama will sign an executive order allowing federal money (that’s our tax dollars) to be used to abort babies around the world. The common ground? He decided to wait until today, the 23rd, so as not to offend anyone by signing the order on the actual anniversary of Roe v Wade… that’s some common ground. (Plus, I’m sure this will pull us out of a recession as well – glad this was a top priority.) I’m not surprised, but I am saddened that we seem to place so little value on life.
A Powerful Commercial:
A Powerful Commercial:
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
43
Eight years ago, George W. Bush prepared to take the oath of office as President of the United States. Eight years is a long time. Prior to that, Bush had been Governor of Texas since 1995. Basically, since I graduated from high school, George W. Bush has been in the spotlight as my Governor (except for the two years we lived in Florida – where Jeb Bush was Governor) or President. No one could have imagined how these past eight years would play out. Our world has changed dramatically in the last eight years – particularly since 9/11.
Bush leaves office with historic lows in approval ratings. How will history treat the 43rd President of the United States? Going back to 2001, I would never have thought that Bush would become the polarizing figure that he is. So why did he become so polarizing? I think his strengths and weaknesses contributed to it.
Weaknesses: Bush was always slow to adjust to the situation. He was a very reactionary president rather than a proactive one. Take Katrina for example. Now, one can easily make the case that the mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana did nothing to help, but Bush certainly was slow in his response to the tragedy as well. He should have been on the ground immediately, ordering rescue crews into New Orleans. But he didn’t do this; he instead allowed the government to drag along with the rescue, while praising “Brownie” as doing a “heckuva job” with FEMA. (Hmm, seems a little like he may have Wade Phillips Syndrome.) On Iraq, when the initial strategy to secure Iraq was failing badly, Bush did nothing to shake it up, and again, stuck by the official in charge, Rumsfeld, saying he was doing a good job. Another weakness was his willingness to go with party politics over sound policy. In an attempt to establish a Republican hegemony in US politics, he attempted to take away Democratic campaign points by adopting them, thus growing governmental spending and enlarging the national government – No Child Left Behind for example. This strategy abandoned conservative principles and doomed the Republican Party to major losses in 2006 and 2008. The strategy gained him no Democratic support and lost him Republican support, thus plummeting his approval ratings.
Strengths: The slowness to adjust should not be mistaken for what he has accomplished in Iraq and the War on Terror. While he was initially slow in adjusting strategy and moving Rumsfeld out, his steadfastness to victory in Iraq will eventually be seen as a strength of his presidency. When all thought Iraq was lost, Bush pushed ahead with the surge. While there is still a long way to go, the situation in Iraq is now closer to victory than ever before. So much so, that Obama has adjusted his campaign rhetoric and has adopted Bush’s policy in Iraq, even keeping Bush’s Secretary of Defense as his own. The same with the War on Terror. Back to 9/11/2001. Who would have thought that seven years later, we would not have had any more terrorist attacks on US soil? Bush has to be given major praise for keeping us safe these last seven years. As he mentioned in an interview – we quickly went back to life as usual, he never did. Additionally, his commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS has been under reported. Bush has done more than any other president in the fight against AIDS. Did it win him any political support? No, but he did it because he knew it was the right thing to do.
So how will history judge Bush? Of all the presidents, he will probably fall somewhere in the middle of the pack. His legacy really depends on Iraq though. If it turns into a stable democracy that leads to the spread of democracy in the Middle East, Bush will be seen as a genius. But if it reverts back to the hands of a dictator, his stock will always remain low. I think Bush is a very good man who wanted to do right for America. Unfortunately, at times, he was too loyal to people around him and too slow to adjust, costing him political clout and damaging some of the good he wanted to do.
Welcome back to Texas, President Bush. And thank you for keeping my family safe and serving our nation. Now, would you please apply for the job you were meant for? Commissioner of Major League Baseball.
Bush leaves office with historic lows in approval ratings. How will history treat the 43rd President of the United States? Going back to 2001, I would never have thought that Bush would become the polarizing figure that he is. So why did he become so polarizing? I think his strengths and weaknesses contributed to it.
Weaknesses: Bush was always slow to adjust to the situation. He was a very reactionary president rather than a proactive one. Take Katrina for example. Now, one can easily make the case that the mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana did nothing to help, but Bush certainly was slow in his response to the tragedy as well. He should have been on the ground immediately, ordering rescue crews into New Orleans. But he didn’t do this; he instead allowed the government to drag along with the rescue, while praising “Brownie” as doing a “heckuva job” with FEMA. (Hmm, seems a little like he may have Wade Phillips Syndrome.) On Iraq, when the initial strategy to secure Iraq was failing badly, Bush did nothing to shake it up, and again, stuck by the official in charge, Rumsfeld, saying he was doing a good job. Another weakness was his willingness to go with party politics over sound policy. In an attempt to establish a Republican hegemony in US politics, he attempted to take away Democratic campaign points by adopting them, thus growing governmental spending and enlarging the national government – No Child Left Behind for example. This strategy abandoned conservative principles and doomed the Republican Party to major losses in 2006 and 2008. The strategy gained him no Democratic support and lost him Republican support, thus plummeting his approval ratings.
Strengths: The slowness to adjust should not be mistaken for what he has accomplished in Iraq and the War on Terror. While he was initially slow in adjusting strategy and moving Rumsfeld out, his steadfastness to victory in Iraq will eventually be seen as a strength of his presidency. When all thought Iraq was lost, Bush pushed ahead with the surge. While there is still a long way to go, the situation in Iraq is now closer to victory than ever before. So much so, that Obama has adjusted his campaign rhetoric and has adopted Bush’s policy in Iraq, even keeping Bush’s Secretary of Defense as his own. The same with the War on Terror. Back to 9/11/2001. Who would have thought that seven years later, we would not have had any more terrorist attacks on US soil? Bush has to be given major praise for keeping us safe these last seven years. As he mentioned in an interview – we quickly went back to life as usual, he never did. Additionally, his commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS has been under reported. Bush has done more than any other president in the fight against AIDS. Did it win him any political support? No, but he did it because he knew it was the right thing to do.
So how will history judge Bush? Of all the presidents, he will probably fall somewhere in the middle of the pack. His legacy really depends on Iraq though. If it turns into a stable democracy that leads to the spread of democracy in the Middle East, Bush will be seen as a genius. But if it reverts back to the hands of a dictator, his stock will always remain low. I think Bush is a very good man who wanted to do right for America. Unfortunately, at times, he was too loyal to people around him and too slow to adjust, costing him political clout and damaging some of the good he wanted to do.
Welcome back to Texas, President Bush. And thank you for keeping my family safe and serving our nation. Now, would you please apply for the job you were meant for? Commissioner of Major League Baseball.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Happy New Year?
"It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe." - President-Elect Barack Obama, January 8, 2009
Only government? Are we that hopeless that all our fortunes and futures depend on Washington, DC for any chance of survival? Isn't this thinking a little like the "Self-Help" section of the bookstore? You know, the books all about how self can get self out of the problems that self has caused? Or like the parents who catch their kid smoking, so as punishment they make him smoke a whole pack of cigarettes only to discover that he is now addicted to tobacco? And did the $700,000,000,000 worth of bailout that was approved by this government (Republicans and Democrats) officially not work, so now we think that $1,000,000,000,000 worth of bailout will? And we're just going to pass these deficits on to our kids? And what if this doesn't work, will we give out $2 trillion? Are we comfortable with lifelong politicians in Washington deciding what is best for everyone? Aren't JFK (a Democrat) and Ronald Reagan (a Republican) spinning in their graves if they are able to? Happy New Year?
Only government? Are we that hopeless that all our fortunes and futures depend on Washington, DC for any chance of survival? Isn't this thinking a little like the "Self-Help" section of the bookstore? You know, the books all about how self can get self out of the problems that self has caused? Or like the parents who catch their kid smoking, so as punishment they make him smoke a whole pack of cigarettes only to discover that he is now addicted to tobacco? And did the $700,000,000,000 worth of bailout that was approved by this government (Republicans and Democrats) officially not work, so now we think that $1,000,000,000,000 worth of bailout will? And we're just going to pass these deficits on to our kids? And what if this doesn't work, will we give out $2 trillion? Are we comfortable with lifelong politicians in Washington deciding what is best for everyone? Aren't JFK (a Democrat) and Ronald Reagan (a Republican) spinning in their graves if they are able to? Happy New Year?
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Dia de los Reyes
Today marks Epiphany - the day the kings (wise men, magi) finally visited Jesus. Three Kings? Well, at least two, but not necessarily kings. Rather, as the Gospel tells us, they were astrologers, who discovered Christ by looking at the stars. And they caused such a stir when they visited Herod, that there may have been quite a few people in their company. When did they see Jesus? If you had the Wise Men in the manger at Christmas, you were a little off. The Wise Men (Kings, Magi) were journeying to see Jesus on Christmas, but did not see him in the manger. Matthew records that they visited Christ in a house. And Christ is described as a child, not a baby, so clearly, this is no longer a new born. In fact, Herod orders the killing of all boys less than two years of age, so apparently, Jesus may have even been walking by the time the Magi made their visit. And what a crazy, magnificent scene that must have been to see grown men worshiping a toddler! And even more mind blowing: what was the toddler Jesus thinking while this was happening?
So if you had the Wise Men in your manger this year, that's ok, but maybe next year, you can get it right. Move the Wise Men across the living room or down the hall. I will say that the youth at my former church have taken this to heart, much to the chagrin of the church leadership. I was told that over the past month, the wise men in the church display have been relocated (more than once), depicting them as traveling to see Jesus rather than with Jesus in the manger - it makes me proud. After four years as their youth minister, it is good to know that they learned something from me. So as we celebrate Epiphany today, we are bringing a close to Christmas 2007, not 2008. The Magi from this year's pageant won't make their visit until 2010. So, for those who are sad Christmas is over, it's not - not until after we celebrate next Christmas. So really, we are always in the middle of the Christmas season! Merry Christmas 2007 today as we celebrate the arrival of the Magi. And more importantly, as we see that Jesus came for all people, and that everyone everywhere, when they seek truth, will be led to Jesus Christ.
So if you had the Wise Men in your manger this year, that's ok, but maybe next year, you can get it right. Move the Wise Men across the living room or down the hall. I will say that the youth at my former church have taken this to heart, much to the chagrin of the church leadership. I was told that over the past month, the wise men in the church display have been relocated (more than once), depicting them as traveling to see Jesus rather than with Jesus in the manger - it makes me proud. After four years as their youth minister, it is good to know that they learned something from me. So as we celebrate Epiphany today, we are bringing a close to Christmas 2007, not 2008. The Magi from this year's pageant won't make their visit until 2010. So, for those who are sad Christmas is over, it's not - not until after we celebrate next Christmas. So really, we are always in the middle of the Christmas season! Merry Christmas 2007 today as we celebrate the arrival of the Magi. And more importantly, as we see that Jesus came for all people, and that everyone everywhere, when they seek truth, will be led to Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)