The bride as usual has been busy in the yard all spring and early summer planting in her garden. Every year it seems to be more beautiful than the last. For some reason more so than in the past, varmints have beset us and like to treat her garden like the dessert table. Just the other day I happened to look out the window and see a chipmunk sitting on the top of a lily with half the flower in his little hands as he was chomping away. We are acquainted with this little fellow primarily by finally concluding that the hundreds of little holes dug in the flowerbeds and the rest of the yard are as a result of his industriousness. Although annoying, the holes don’t seem to be doing much damage.
The real appetite resides in a rather handsome and pudgy woodchuck that lives down behind our house or more likely behind Tim’s house next door. We see him now and then cautiously poking his nose out of the high weeds and then carefully setting up shop in the grass. Although I have never actually seen this fellow poach the garden we can deduce by the height at which he has tasted things that he is our perpetrator.
What to do? Carole had taken matters into her own hands and borrowed a tender trap from a co-worker. It was decided over the weekend that I would bait and set the trap and capture this renegade. I couldn’t do it. The central question becomes what to do with our little neighbor once we have him in custody? On reflection it seemed illegal or at least cruel to relocate our friend to a new address. The other alternative of perhaps doing away with him once he was caught was not even broached.
The subject s was thrown open for further discussion the other night and as I guessed the planters were all on the same page. Our Saturday night dinner companions who have been vexed with the same problem voiced their preference. Apparently the Department of Agriculture somewhere makes available cyanide pellets that can be dropped into woodchuck holes to gas them. Another alternative was the oily smoky rag in the hole followed by a trash barrel cover pressed tightly over it.
The radio gardener said lead was the only solution. I was wondering what lead would do when he finished the sentence by saying lead “right between the eyes”. Yikes! Frontier justice for a little friend? Carole was a little surprised at my reluctance and reminded me of the expense and the reason for gardening. She even went so far as to remind me “I might have a different opinion if he was dining on the girls”. A reference to the name I had given a large planting of Impatiens I have under taken this year. This set me back a bit but so far has not spurred me to action.
I certainly might think differently were I a 17th century inhabitant of this property and he was poaching vegetables, which might be used for a meal during the darkness of February. Indeed if that were the case he might have been caught long ago and ended up in a tasty Saturday night stew!
Living in our yard is not quite the suburban paradise one might think. Sure its heaven on earth when you consider the cuisine available to an herbivore but that’s when you consider the cuisine only. He has a bit of a gauntlet to run before he dines. So far he has eluded the neighborhood fox, coyote and any number of very large red tail hawks that constantly fly overhead. It would seem that it would be unfair to complicate the little guy’s life by adding me to his worries. So back in the box that damn trap went. Maybe I will start throwing a little food closer to his hide out to cut down some of his risk.
Yes, the reason for a garden is the beauty that it provides but there is also beauty in the other elements in nature of which he is one.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Turning cheeks and cutting off heads
Can there be any doubt that the real threat that is facing us is an extremist Islamic Supremacy movement? After each attack against us we have a period of soul searching in which some seek to understand the underlying reasons for bombing attacks. Poverty, oppression and our unbridled support of Israel are frequently referred to as the reason for the continued campaign against us. Occupation of the holy land, foreign troops and women having been in proximity to the holy cities in Saudi Arabia and any other grievances real or imagined are conjured up to explain the situation. None of these things really have anything to do with this.
The American people are woefully under educated as to the reasons for this conflict and it is the American press who is to blame. Were we to spend as many column inches in the national print media on Osama Bin Laden’s resume and writings as we have to the Karl Rove/Valery Plame non story we would all be far better off. Put Osama Bin Laden’s Fatwa in a Google search and compare it to Karl Rove leak and by the results you would think that the American media thinks Karl is a bigger threat to the country’s well being.
Instead of devoting all that space to a media invented crisis why not take a few minutes and have a translated version of one of the Al Qaeda recruiting videos that are making their way around Europe and the Middle East play on the evening news or run in the New York Times. Or perhaps we might hear more of the comments made by Mohammed Bouyeri who is on trial for the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Perhaps a spine chilling "prayer time" sermon from one of the more fiery British clerics might be in order. Maybe then the American people would get a real understanding of just what is going on here. In our culture we are taught to turn the other cheek, while are foes are learning the cutting off of our heads.
Bin Laden’s brand of supremacy is the focal point of a movement that is finding adherents in Islamic life. It is a clarion call of sorts that an individual with real or imagined grievances can identify with. In the course of human history, the Muslim world in Bin Laden’s eyes has seen itself become abused and corrupted by both the infidels as well as its own corrupt and decadent leadership. Bin Laden seeks to end all of that by imposing his brand of Islamic supremacy on the re-united Islamic nation and eventually the world all for the benefit of and as a servant to Allah. Anybody who doesn’t see it that way is subject to destruction.
The success of the mujahideen against the Soviets in the Afgham War has been a key element in Bin Laden’s recruitment efforts. Bin Laden proved that the Soviets were less than a super power and if one pretender to greatness could be humiliated in battle why then couldn’t the “soft, decadent and cowardly Americans” be next. America’s less than aggressive response to attacks against us prior to 9/11 buttressed his point and emboldened him and his supporters.
In this picture there is no room for multiculturalism, pluralism, polytheism, democracy or anything else that does not mesh with Bin Laden’s and his followers interpretation of the Quran. In fact there is no room for any interpretation of the Quran except the Sunni Wahabbi brand of Islam. This perhaps explains why Bin Laden did not conduct any “operations” against the biggest killer of Muslims in contemporary times. Saddam Hussein was killing and maiming Shiite Muslims for decades. The Sunni’s, although a minority controlled Iraq and that was just fine with Bin Laden since the Shia brand of Islam is not to his liking.
We are no strangers to supremacists in world history. Those who exploit a religion or race or color have a long, sordid and murderous history.
We should have learned long ago not to apologize for it but to confront it with all our might and crush it.
The American people are woefully under educated as to the reasons for this conflict and it is the American press who is to blame. Were we to spend as many column inches in the national print media on Osama Bin Laden’s resume and writings as we have to the Karl Rove/Valery Plame non story we would all be far better off. Put Osama Bin Laden’s Fatwa in a Google search and compare it to Karl Rove leak and by the results you would think that the American media thinks Karl is a bigger threat to the country’s well being.
Instead of devoting all that space to a media invented crisis why not take a few minutes and have a translated version of one of the Al Qaeda recruiting videos that are making their way around Europe and the Middle East play on the evening news or run in the New York Times. Or perhaps we might hear more of the comments made by Mohammed Bouyeri who is on trial for the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Perhaps a spine chilling "prayer time" sermon from one of the more fiery British clerics might be in order. Maybe then the American people would get a real understanding of just what is going on here. In our culture we are taught to turn the other cheek, while are foes are learning the cutting off of our heads.
Bin Laden’s brand of supremacy is the focal point of a movement that is finding adherents in Islamic life. It is a clarion call of sorts that an individual with real or imagined grievances can identify with. In the course of human history, the Muslim world in Bin Laden’s eyes has seen itself become abused and corrupted by both the infidels as well as its own corrupt and decadent leadership. Bin Laden seeks to end all of that by imposing his brand of Islamic supremacy on the re-united Islamic nation and eventually the world all for the benefit of and as a servant to Allah. Anybody who doesn’t see it that way is subject to destruction.
The success of the mujahideen against the Soviets in the Afgham War has been a key element in Bin Laden’s recruitment efforts. Bin Laden proved that the Soviets were less than a super power and if one pretender to greatness could be humiliated in battle why then couldn’t the “soft, decadent and cowardly Americans” be next. America’s less than aggressive response to attacks against us prior to 9/11 buttressed his point and emboldened him and his supporters.
In this picture there is no room for multiculturalism, pluralism, polytheism, democracy or anything else that does not mesh with Bin Laden’s and his followers interpretation of the Quran. In fact there is no room for any interpretation of the Quran except the Sunni Wahabbi brand of Islam. This perhaps explains why Bin Laden did not conduct any “operations” against the biggest killer of Muslims in contemporary times. Saddam Hussein was killing and maiming Shiite Muslims for decades. The Sunni’s, although a minority controlled Iraq and that was just fine with Bin Laden since the Shia brand of Islam is not to his liking.
We are no strangers to supremacists in world history. Those who exploit a religion or race or color have a long, sordid and murderous history.
We should have learned long ago not to apologize for it but to confront it with all our might and crush it.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Social Security and the sports book
In 1933, Dr. Francis Townsend, a then 66 year old retired assistant city health director in Long Beach, California, introduced a national pension plan called “the Townsend Plan.” The idea for his plan struck him as result of his witnessing elderly women scavenging for food in garbage cans.
Within a year Townsend had prepared a formal version of his national pension plan and began to actively promote the idea. Within 2 years Dr. Townsend had 5 million members in his Townsend Club, and shortly thereafter he presented President Franklin D. Roosevelt with a petition signed by over 20 million Americans. If we were to seek an example in our entire history of an idea whose time had come, Dr. Townsend’s plan might be it.
The bulk of Dr. Townsend’s plan was adopted and became known as the Social Security Act of 1935. The one element of the plan however that was not adopted is highly significant, though. Had it been adopted at the time, we wouldn’t be in the fix we are today.
Dr. Townsend understood two things very clearly about a pension plan. One was the need for a steady method of funding it; and secondly, that inflation would have a hand in increasing its costs. His remedy was as follows:
“Have the national government create the revolving fund by levying a general sales tax; have the rate just high enough to produce the amount necessary to keep the Old Age Revolving Pensions Fund adequate to pay the monthly pensions. Have the act so drawn that such sales tax can only be used for the Old Age Revolving Pension Fund.”
Townsend’s rationale for the sales tax as the funding vehicle was simple. He argued that it was fair because no one was compelled to pay the tax (though “we must buy or die”); and secondly that it was predicated on our ability to pay, since if we could afford to buy more then we could afford to pay more tax “thus we will pay in accordance with our ability to spend.”
Congress did not live up to Dr. Townsend's vision in two respects. In the passage of the legislation created as a result of Townsend’s plan, Congress failed to adopt his funding mechanism. But Congress also failed - miserably - in choosing the investment vehicle that the surplus funds would be placed in.
Instead of a market-driven return oriented investment strategy, Congress chose government debt obligations. This was sure to encourage overspending since we had our own ready market to sell our debt to: ourselves! Imagine the result if we had taken the surplus of the 1950’s and invested say $3000 in a CD and rolled it over for 65 years for every baby boomer that was born.
So here we are today with a great plan that has served the country well, yet we know it is going to face some great stress in the next 40 years or so as we baby boomers age and finally pass on. Some have disputed the idea that Social Security is in trouble. If you are in that camp I invite you to do two simple things. Visit the Census Bureau and look at the number of people who are turning 65 over the next 20 years and also read the 2005 report of the Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. They have been producing an annual report for the past 65 years and it is in a format easily understood by us average Joes. The essence of this year’s conclusion is that something has to been done and the sooner we do it the less painful it will be.
The least painful way to protect this cornerstone of American life is to fix the two mistakes that congress made from the beginning. Add a source of funding that grows and invest the surplus in something that grows.
I am no Francis Townsend, but for what it’s worth my solution to the funding would be the creation of a national sports book. Sport betting is a national pastime in the United States, and for the most part is dominated by the underground economy or by offshore operations that contribute nothing to the country's tax revenues.
Sports betting is a huge untapped source of revenue that could be easily exploited and regulated. The infrastructure for sports betting has been in place and functioning for a long time. This is not a moral issue of government encouraging gambling, since no matter what the government, religion or anyone else has to say about it, bettors won’t change their practices one bit. It will not have any impact on state lottery income since lotteries have prospered while the bookies have as well. In order to put the bookie out of business the sports book need only have lower vigorish (commission on the value of the lost bet) than 10%.
Finally, we come to the issue of investment of the funds. The separate account is a valid concept. However, entrusting each individual retiree to accept the responsibility to properly allocate his or her funds to an acceptable level of risk with personal retirement funds of last resort is not a prudent course. The separate account concept could be applied by the trust funds themselves. The new revenues could be invested in financial markets other than government securities. The benefits would be greater long term rates of return, weaning the government off the trust funds and spreading American capital through out the world in efficient market oriented way.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4664
Within a year Townsend had prepared a formal version of his national pension plan and began to actively promote the idea. Within 2 years Dr. Townsend had 5 million members in his Townsend Club, and shortly thereafter he presented President Franklin D. Roosevelt with a petition signed by over 20 million Americans. If we were to seek an example in our entire history of an idea whose time had come, Dr. Townsend’s plan might be it.
The bulk of Dr. Townsend’s plan was adopted and became known as the Social Security Act of 1935. The one element of the plan however that was not adopted is highly significant, though. Had it been adopted at the time, we wouldn’t be in the fix we are today.
Dr. Townsend understood two things very clearly about a pension plan. One was the need for a steady method of funding it; and secondly, that inflation would have a hand in increasing its costs. His remedy was as follows:
“Have the national government create the revolving fund by levying a general sales tax; have the rate just high enough to produce the amount necessary to keep the Old Age Revolving Pensions Fund adequate to pay the monthly pensions. Have the act so drawn that such sales tax can only be used for the Old Age Revolving Pension Fund.”
Townsend’s rationale for the sales tax as the funding vehicle was simple. He argued that it was fair because no one was compelled to pay the tax (though “we must buy or die”); and secondly that it was predicated on our ability to pay, since if we could afford to buy more then we could afford to pay more tax “thus we will pay in accordance with our ability to spend.”
Congress did not live up to Dr. Townsend's vision in two respects. In the passage of the legislation created as a result of Townsend’s plan, Congress failed to adopt his funding mechanism. But Congress also failed - miserably - in choosing the investment vehicle that the surplus funds would be placed in.
Instead of a market-driven return oriented investment strategy, Congress chose government debt obligations. This was sure to encourage overspending since we had our own ready market to sell our debt to: ourselves! Imagine the result if we had taken the surplus of the 1950’s and invested say $3000 in a CD and rolled it over for 65 years for every baby boomer that was born.
So here we are today with a great plan that has served the country well, yet we know it is going to face some great stress in the next 40 years or so as we baby boomers age and finally pass on. Some have disputed the idea that Social Security is in trouble. If you are in that camp I invite you to do two simple things. Visit the Census Bureau and look at the number of people who are turning 65 over the next 20 years and also read the 2005 report of the Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. They have been producing an annual report for the past 65 years and it is in a format easily understood by us average Joes. The essence of this year’s conclusion is that something has to been done and the sooner we do it the less painful it will be.
The least painful way to protect this cornerstone of American life is to fix the two mistakes that congress made from the beginning. Add a source of funding that grows and invest the surplus in something that grows.
I am no Francis Townsend, but for what it’s worth my solution to the funding would be the creation of a national sports book. Sport betting is a national pastime in the United States, and for the most part is dominated by the underground economy or by offshore operations that contribute nothing to the country's tax revenues.
Sports betting is a huge untapped source of revenue that could be easily exploited and regulated. The infrastructure for sports betting has been in place and functioning for a long time. This is not a moral issue of government encouraging gambling, since no matter what the government, religion or anyone else has to say about it, bettors won’t change their practices one bit. It will not have any impact on state lottery income since lotteries have prospered while the bookies have as well. In order to put the bookie out of business the sports book need only have lower vigorish (commission on the value of the lost bet) than 10%.
Finally, we come to the issue of investment of the funds. The separate account is a valid concept. However, entrusting each individual retiree to accept the responsibility to properly allocate his or her funds to an acceptable level of risk with personal retirement funds of last resort is not a prudent course. The separate account concept could be applied by the trust funds themselves. The new revenues could be invested in financial markets other than government securities. The benefits would be greater long term rates of return, weaning the government off the trust funds and spreading American capital through out the world in efficient market oriented way.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4664
Monday, July 18, 2005
Avalanche of Hillary
How many more Hillary for President stories will be touted by the media between now and when the campaign actually starts? It seems as though the moment after John Kerry's defeat there has been a steady diet of articles and polls all promoting the idea that Hillary is a lock for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 run. I guess one of two things is at work here. She is either the best organized, media friendly and media savvy of the wannabe’s or she has already been ordained by the left wing press as the candidate of choice for the party.
It is interesting to note that almost none of these articles mention anything at all as to why, how or what would qualify a first term senator from New York to become the President of the United States.
Paste the following address into your browser and let's take a look at her White House biography.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/hc42.html
She certainly has fine educational credentials but other than 8 years as first lady and serving on some boards in Arkansas what more has she done than serve in a small law practice? Is there anything to indicate that she has managed anything larger than the White House domestic staff?
How does hosting a state dinner party equate to having foreign policy credentials? Her lack of foreign policy experience is surpassed only by her complete lack of exposure to the military. Could anybody call Hillary Clinton commander in chief with a straight face?
The most troubling aspect of all this media time and speculation devoted to Senator Clinton is that it prevents serious discussion and speculation on candidates who might actually be qualified and have a greater chance at restoring the Democratic party to a higher level of national elective achievement.
By soaking up all of this press attention, Democrats with a resume suited for leading the nation are denied the public vetting process and excluded from “buzz” generated by the press. I mean suited by this definition, non-congressional politicians since it is a rare event indeed for a senator or congressperson to be elected president. Governors represent the most common pool of seriously considered candidates for president.
If actual government experience counts for anything then why isn’t Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico on all the lips of the pundits? Richardson’s resume is chock full of reasons why he might lead the country. He has been a congressman, our ambassador to the UN and Secretary of Energy in the Clinton administration. Add to that a couple of nominations for the Nobel Peace prize and you end up with a candidate with some substance.
In addition there are two other Democratic governors with credentials worth taking a look at as possible contenders. Iowa favorite son and Governor Thomas Vilsack and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle should both get early attention in the presidential sweepstakes if there is any room left.
These are just three examples off of a roster of Democrats who could be far more qualified and potentially elect able than the most polarizing figure that Hillary Clinton is. It will be interesting to see whether the media allows any of them to be examined as presidential timber in a serious way that would enable them to be viable entries in the primaries.
Yes, Mrs. Clinton gives a good speech and she is a very good fund raiser but by any objective measure she is not qualified to be the President of the United States. If Hillary Clinton is serious about restoring the Democratic Party to its former prominence she should use her skills to advance Democrats nationwide instead of advancing Hillary. Perhaps her run at the presidency will come when she has earned it.
It is interesting to note that almost none of these articles mention anything at all as to why, how or what would qualify a first term senator from New York to become the President of the United States.
Paste the following address into your browser and let's take a look at her White House biography.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/hc42.html
She certainly has fine educational credentials but other than 8 years as first lady and serving on some boards in Arkansas what more has she done than serve in a small law practice? Is there anything to indicate that she has managed anything larger than the White House domestic staff?
How does hosting a state dinner party equate to having foreign policy credentials? Her lack of foreign policy experience is surpassed only by her complete lack of exposure to the military. Could anybody call Hillary Clinton commander in chief with a straight face?
The most troubling aspect of all this media time and speculation devoted to Senator Clinton is that it prevents serious discussion and speculation on candidates who might actually be qualified and have a greater chance at restoring the Democratic party to a higher level of national elective achievement.
By soaking up all of this press attention, Democrats with a resume suited for leading the nation are denied the public vetting process and excluded from “buzz” generated by the press. I mean suited by this definition, non-congressional politicians since it is a rare event indeed for a senator or congressperson to be elected president. Governors represent the most common pool of seriously considered candidates for president.
If actual government experience counts for anything then why isn’t Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico on all the lips of the pundits? Richardson’s resume is chock full of reasons why he might lead the country. He has been a congressman, our ambassador to the UN and Secretary of Energy in the Clinton administration. Add to that a couple of nominations for the Nobel Peace prize and you end up with a candidate with some substance.
In addition there are two other Democratic governors with credentials worth taking a look at as possible contenders. Iowa favorite son and Governor Thomas Vilsack and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle should both get early attention in the presidential sweepstakes if there is any room left.
These are just three examples off of a roster of Democrats who could be far more qualified and potentially elect able than the most polarizing figure that Hillary Clinton is. It will be interesting to see whether the media allows any of them to be examined as presidential timber in a serious way that would enable them to be viable entries in the primaries.
Yes, Mrs. Clinton gives a good speech and she is a very good fund raiser but by any objective measure she is not qualified to be the President of the United States. If Hillary Clinton is serious about restoring the Democratic Party to its former prominence she should use her skills to advance Democrats nationwide instead of advancing Hillary. Perhaps her run at the presidency will come when she has earned it.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Justice Gonzales?
Democrats have been delighted at the controversy ignited among conservatives at the so far entirely hypothetical prospect of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales being appointed to the Supreme Court. News of the retirement of Justice O’Connor hit the headlines and almost immediately dire warnings were issued by religious conservatives against the possibility of such an appointment.
In response, the President warned his supporters to tone down their rhetoric attacking his friend and adviser. Whatever his thoughts on appointing Gonzales to the Supreme Court (and he has given no indication at all that the Attorney General might be appointed), the President is well known to value personal loyalty.
As a result of the kerfuffle on the right, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has cautiously offered words of support for a possible Gonzales nomination, and other Democrats are following on the theory that if the religious right hates him, he must be OK. Past controversy over his role in Justice Department guidelines on the questioning of prisoners has fallen by the wayside.
Following the resignation of John Ashcroft on November 9th 2004 as Attorney General, President Bush acted with lightning speed to name Alberto Gonzales as his replacement. Mr. Gonzales is recognized as a confidante of the President having served under him in as his chief counsel as well as Secretary of State of Texas and subsequently as a Texas Supreme Court justice. Although he was acquainted with Mr. Bush at the time, he was hardly considered a Bush crony. In fact, according to Mr. Gonzales he only came to be known to President Bush 43 because he had rejected a job offer by President Bush 41. Upon his election as Governor of Texas, Mr. Bush contacted Gonzales and offered him the position of chief counsel.
The fact that Mr. Bush would offer a complete but qualified stranger the very sensitive job of chief counsel in his first Texas administration speaks volumes about Bush's management style. It also indicates that early on in his public elected life Bush was serious about elevating minorities to positions of authority in his administrations. Just as Gonzales was the first Hispanic chief counsel, Texas Secretary of State, Texas Supreme Court Justice, he then moved to Washington as the chief counsel to the white house and he now becomes the first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General.
Gonzales is an interesting and admirable American up-by-the-bootstraps story. Born to migrant farm workers, he grew up in Houston with 4 brothers and three sisters in a 2 bedroom house. In a C-SPAN interview given several years ago, he alluded to the fact that as a child he grew up in a happy childhood and although poor, “like most kids” was unaware of his family's economic condition. He didn't have much but hopes and dreams, and he pursued them.
Upon graduation from high school, college seemed a difficult economic hurdle so he enlisted in the Air Force, and from there launched his effort to get a higher education. Serving in an isolated location in Alaska, he managed to qualify for an appointment to the Air Force Academy and attended the Academy for two years before deciding that a life in the law was his calling instead of flying fighter jets. He subsequently fulfilled a childhood dream by being accepted to Rice University, a highly selective school.
Gonzales is a Catholic and has a number of personal views on controversial issues of the day. He is careful, however, to make a distinction between what his personal views are and what the law of the land is. He is careful to articulate his devotion to the separation of powers of the three parts of government, yet acknowledges that the judiciary should “defer to the legislative branch in the formulation of law.” Legislating from the bench is not something Gonzales views as a responsibility, although he acknowledges the temptation of some judges to do so.
Pro-life forces are most concerned about Gonzales’s fairly brief tenure on the Supreme Court of Texas, when he ruled on four cases testing the parental notification law passed in the year 2000, which allowed a so-called judicial bypass (no reporting of the abortion to the parents when a judge so rules) when certain criteria were met. Federal courts have repeatedly struck down parental notification laws in various states when they have judged them to place an “undue burden” on the rights of the abortion-seeker.
Far from being a permissive justice, granting abortions in all cases, Justice Gonzales ruled both for and against abortions in the four cases he reviewed on the Texas Supreme Court. The most controversial decision came in the Jane Doe case, where Gonzales allowed a young woman to have an abortion, ruling that the lower courts who denied her the operation were too strict. The lower court had claimed that the exception to parental notification should be rare and require a high standard of proof. Gonzales wrote that that strict an interpretation was going beyond the plain meaning of the law and “subordinated the public will to personal ideology.” He said that even if he didn’t approve of the girl’s decision, he needed to, follow the law. Of note, Justice Priscilla Owen disagreed, stating that an appeals court should not overturn the trial court’s “finding of fact” that the girl was immature.
In other words, Gonzales based his opinion on his dedication to the principal that judges should not impose their own views but simply interpret the law as written, even if they do not agree with it. This is an entirely defensible, indeed desirable position, from the standpoint of most conservative activists.
No one can know the President’s intentions with regard to the pending appointment to replace Justice O’Connor. However, he has committed himself to appointing justices who will interpret the law as written, not create law from the bench, and has mentioned Justices Scalia and Thomas as models of the type of Constitutional jurisprudence he favors.
The strongest factor weighing against an appointment of Alberto Gonzales to the Court would be the necessity of recusing himself from cases involving actions taken while he was Attorney General. Such cases could involve critical issues related to the USA Patriot Act, for example. With the former seat of Justice O’Connor regarded as a swing vote on many issues, a recusal by her successor could lead to unfortunate outcomes from the President’s perspective.
But the President is also a man who knows how to hold his cards and wait for the proper time to take an action he desires. He is a long-term thinker, who does not hesitate to adopt visionary goals [the political transformation of the Middle East, for example] , if he thinks they are right for the country and for the world.
There may well be several Court vacancies during the remainder of the President’s term in office. Justices Rehnquist, Stevens, and Ginsburg have all been mentioned as possible candidates for retirement. If, at a later date, a seat held by one of the more liberal Justices should become available, Attorney General Gonzales, the recent recipient of encomiums from the likes of Senator Reid, may be a logical candidate for a seat on the Court.
Particularly if such an appointment holds the prospect of ensconcing a conservative majority on the Court, a Justice Gonzales may seem to the Left to be the best Bush appointment they could hope for. They would fight any Bush appointment in the circumstances, of course, but holding out for a Ginsburg-like ACLU adherent would not win them much support from the public. In the end, they would have to capitulate, especially if prominent leftists are already on record finding Gonzales a suitable candidate to replace O’Connor.
We would all do well to get to know Mr. Gonzales well and to watch him very closely. President Bush has made clear the confidence he has in this man, and he has made it clear that he will continue to elevate him into ever more responsible roles. Unlike David Souter, who was unknown the President Bush 41, Gonzales is very much a known quantity to the President, if not to the pro-life advocacy groups.
Given what we know about President Bush he is unlikely to be swayed by the shrill voices on either side of the political equation. In addition to being supported by a mentor with spine, Gonzales has a number of other things going for him. He is from an under represented and growing minority group, the far left and the far right are suspicious of him, and he has an impressive resume of service in a number of critical positions.
On the political side of the equation, a Gonzales appointment would put the Democrats in a delicate position. The Hispanic community is growing rapidly and is being fought for aggressively by both parties. A Gonzales appointment would be met with an extraordinary expression of pride throughout the national Hispanic community. How would a "Borking" by the Democrats of Gonzales be met by Hispanic voters?
The Attorney General is man of integrity, capability, and faith and conscience. Conservatives should get to know him better.
Thomas Lifson and Phillip A. Gallagher
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4645
In response, the President warned his supporters to tone down their rhetoric attacking his friend and adviser. Whatever his thoughts on appointing Gonzales to the Supreme Court (and he has given no indication at all that the Attorney General might be appointed), the President is well known to value personal loyalty.
As a result of the kerfuffle on the right, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has cautiously offered words of support for a possible Gonzales nomination, and other Democrats are following on the theory that if the religious right hates him, he must be OK. Past controversy over his role in Justice Department guidelines on the questioning of prisoners has fallen by the wayside.
Following the resignation of John Ashcroft on November 9th 2004 as Attorney General, President Bush acted with lightning speed to name Alberto Gonzales as his replacement. Mr. Gonzales is recognized as a confidante of the President having served under him in as his chief counsel as well as Secretary of State of Texas and subsequently as a Texas Supreme Court justice. Although he was acquainted with Mr. Bush at the time, he was hardly considered a Bush crony. In fact, according to Mr. Gonzales he only came to be known to President Bush 43 because he had rejected a job offer by President Bush 41. Upon his election as Governor of Texas, Mr. Bush contacted Gonzales and offered him the position of chief counsel.
The fact that Mr. Bush would offer a complete but qualified stranger the very sensitive job of chief counsel in his first Texas administration speaks volumes about Bush's management style. It also indicates that early on in his public elected life Bush was serious about elevating minorities to positions of authority in his administrations. Just as Gonzales was the first Hispanic chief counsel, Texas Secretary of State, Texas Supreme Court Justice, he then moved to Washington as the chief counsel to the white house and he now becomes the first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General.
Gonzales is an interesting and admirable American up-by-the-bootstraps story. Born to migrant farm workers, he grew up in Houston with 4 brothers and three sisters in a 2 bedroom house. In a C-SPAN interview given several years ago, he alluded to the fact that as a child he grew up in a happy childhood and although poor, “like most kids” was unaware of his family's economic condition. He didn't have much but hopes and dreams, and he pursued them.
Upon graduation from high school, college seemed a difficult economic hurdle so he enlisted in the Air Force, and from there launched his effort to get a higher education. Serving in an isolated location in Alaska, he managed to qualify for an appointment to the Air Force Academy and attended the Academy for two years before deciding that a life in the law was his calling instead of flying fighter jets. He subsequently fulfilled a childhood dream by being accepted to Rice University, a highly selective school.
Gonzales is a Catholic and has a number of personal views on controversial issues of the day. He is careful, however, to make a distinction between what his personal views are and what the law of the land is. He is careful to articulate his devotion to the separation of powers of the three parts of government, yet acknowledges that the judiciary should “defer to the legislative branch in the formulation of law.” Legislating from the bench is not something Gonzales views as a responsibility, although he acknowledges the temptation of some judges to do so.
Pro-life forces are most concerned about Gonzales’s fairly brief tenure on the Supreme Court of Texas, when he ruled on four cases testing the parental notification law passed in the year 2000, which allowed a so-called judicial bypass (no reporting of the abortion to the parents when a judge so rules) when certain criteria were met. Federal courts have repeatedly struck down parental notification laws in various states when they have judged them to place an “undue burden” on the rights of the abortion-seeker.
Far from being a permissive justice, granting abortions in all cases, Justice Gonzales ruled both for and against abortions in the four cases he reviewed on the Texas Supreme Court. The most controversial decision came in the Jane Doe case, where Gonzales allowed a young woman to have an abortion, ruling that the lower courts who denied her the operation were too strict. The lower court had claimed that the exception to parental notification should be rare and require a high standard of proof. Gonzales wrote that that strict an interpretation was going beyond the plain meaning of the law and “subordinated the public will to personal ideology.” He said that even if he didn’t approve of the girl’s decision, he needed to, follow the law. Of note, Justice Priscilla Owen disagreed, stating that an appeals court should not overturn the trial court’s “finding of fact” that the girl was immature.
In other words, Gonzales based his opinion on his dedication to the principal that judges should not impose their own views but simply interpret the law as written, even if they do not agree with it. This is an entirely defensible, indeed desirable position, from the standpoint of most conservative activists.
No one can know the President’s intentions with regard to the pending appointment to replace Justice O’Connor. However, he has committed himself to appointing justices who will interpret the law as written, not create law from the bench, and has mentioned Justices Scalia and Thomas as models of the type of Constitutional jurisprudence he favors.
The strongest factor weighing against an appointment of Alberto Gonzales to the Court would be the necessity of recusing himself from cases involving actions taken while he was Attorney General. Such cases could involve critical issues related to the USA Patriot Act, for example. With the former seat of Justice O’Connor regarded as a swing vote on many issues, a recusal by her successor could lead to unfortunate outcomes from the President’s perspective.
But the President is also a man who knows how to hold his cards and wait for the proper time to take an action he desires. He is a long-term thinker, who does not hesitate to adopt visionary goals [the political transformation of the Middle East, for example] , if he thinks they are right for the country and for the world.
There may well be several Court vacancies during the remainder of the President’s term in office. Justices Rehnquist, Stevens, and Ginsburg have all been mentioned as possible candidates for retirement. If, at a later date, a seat held by one of the more liberal Justices should become available, Attorney General Gonzales, the recent recipient of encomiums from the likes of Senator Reid, may be a logical candidate for a seat on the Court.
Particularly if such an appointment holds the prospect of ensconcing a conservative majority on the Court, a Justice Gonzales may seem to the Left to be the best Bush appointment they could hope for. They would fight any Bush appointment in the circumstances, of course, but holding out for a Ginsburg-like ACLU adherent would not win them much support from the public. In the end, they would have to capitulate, especially if prominent leftists are already on record finding Gonzales a suitable candidate to replace O’Connor.
We would all do well to get to know Mr. Gonzales well and to watch him very closely. President Bush has made clear the confidence he has in this man, and he has made it clear that he will continue to elevate him into ever more responsible roles. Unlike David Souter, who was unknown the President Bush 41, Gonzales is very much a known quantity to the President, if not to the pro-life advocacy groups.
Given what we know about President Bush he is unlikely to be swayed by the shrill voices on either side of the political equation. In addition to being supported by a mentor with spine, Gonzales has a number of other things going for him. He is from an under represented and growing minority group, the far left and the far right are suspicious of him, and he has an impressive resume of service in a number of critical positions.
On the political side of the equation, a Gonzales appointment would put the Democrats in a delicate position. The Hispanic community is growing rapidly and is being fought for aggressively by both parties. A Gonzales appointment would be met with an extraordinary expression of pride throughout the national Hispanic community. How would a "Borking" by the Democrats of Gonzales be met by Hispanic voters?
The Attorney General is man of integrity, capability, and faith and conscience. Conservatives should get to know him better.
Thomas Lifson and Phillip A. Gallagher
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4645
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Demographics and the Democrats
Demographics is the "statistical characteristics of human populations". The term is used quite frequently in the sales business to identify particular markets. We baby boomers are no strangers to the term since our very first arrivals in the maternity wards have skewed the demographics of the country with every passing phase of our maturity. From baby carriages, disposable diapers, school buildings, colleges and now coming up to Social security have all felt the impact of an enormous bulge in a particular aspect of society as we make our way from cradle to grave.
All along the way there has been some sort of social upheaval as a result of the impact this group has on American society. None of that impact may be more apparent than what is happening in the world of American politics. The country had been gradually swinging to a more conservative orientation and that swing is likely to accelerate over the next two decades. During that period of time according the the U.S. Census Bureau the number of Americans over 65 years of age will swell from 33 million to nearly 54 million.
There are two elements of this transition that the Democrat's will have to address from the stand point of marketing party philosophy. As we grow older and have passed through life there are two defining moments for adults. Both involve children, the first is having your own and the second is your children having their own. These two events invariably make the grand parents wary of life's challenges. That experience leads to a more cautious approach to every aspect of life and hence a more personal conservatism.
The second element of the transition of the baby boomers is that again according the U.S. Census Bureau, older Americans vote in large numbers. The statistics point out an enormous differential in voting age groups. Of the over 65 population, 78% are registered to vote and of that percentage more than 65% reported having cast a ballot. Contrast this to the 25 to 34 age group which 58% are reported registered and only 31% report having voted.
An argument can be made that it is apparent that the country has already swung right by virtue of the election results in recent years. The presidency , both houses of congress and the governors seat in a majority of states are now held by Republicans. This was once unthinkable when we were kids.
Not only are the boomers changing the political landscape of the country but so to has the aging of the greatest generation of Americans accelerated the change. After age 75, statistics show a drop off of voter participation. In addition, with each passing day more and more Rooseveltian era Democrats are passing on to their heavenly reward.
These changes are inexorable and unless the Democratic Party finds ways in which to fit the party message to the needs of the new market realities for political ideas then the party is going to continue it's inevitable downward slide.
All along the way there has been some sort of social upheaval as a result of the impact this group has on American society. None of that impact may be more apparent than what is happening in the world of American politics. The country had been gradually swinging to a more conservative orientation and that swing is likely to accelerate over the next two decades. During that period of time according the the U.S. Census Bureau the number of Americans over 65 years of age will swell from 33 million to nearly 54 million.
There are two elements of this transition that the Democrat's will have to address from the stand point of marketing party philosophy. As we grow older and have passed through life there are two defining moments for adults. Both involve children, the first is having your own and the second is your children having their own. These two events invariably make the grand parents wary of life's challenges. That experience leads to a more cautious approach to every aspect of life and hence a more personal conservatism.
The second element of the transition of the baby boomers is that again according the U.S. Census Bureau, older Americans vote in large numbers. The statistics point out an enormous differential in voting age groups. Of the over 65 population, 78% are registered to vote and of that percentage more than 65% reported having cast a ballot. Contrast this to the 25 to 34 age group which 58% are reported registered and only 31% report having voted.
An argument can be made that it is apparent that the country has already swung right by virtue of the election results in recent years. The presidency , both houses of congress and the governors seat in a majority of states are now held by Republicans. This was once unthinkable when we were kids.
Not only are the boomers changing the political landscape of the country but so to has the aging of the greatest generation of Americans accelerated the change. After age 75, statistics show a drop off of voter participation. In addition, with each passing day more and more Rooseveltian era Democrats are passing on to their heavenly reward.
These changes are inexorable and unless the Democratic Party finds ways in which to fit the party message to the needs of the new market realities for political ideas then the party is going to continue it's inevitable downward slide.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Advantage Bush
If you take a few minutes and examine the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Kelo vs. New London case you will find that by a 5-4 decision, the court found that a public entity could allow the power of eminent domain to be used to benefit a private party. The decision was made upholding the actions of New London because the taking would be made pursuant to a "carefully considered development plan". Even though the taken land will not be open to public use "the court long ago rejected any literal requirement that the condemned property be put into use for the public".
This decision is fortuitous for the Bush administration for this simple reason. At a time when Supreme Court nominations are seemingly going to come in a bunch, the court has handed the administration a simple bread and butter issue that every American can understand. The essence of this decision is that any private entity under the guise of a better use for your property can have government take your property and give it to someone else more powerful than you. How long will it be before familial government connections, big campaign contributors, and other favored groups utilize this very broad interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to their benefit and our disadvantage? Taking private property for the benefit of the public by a public entity is one thing, taking it for private gain is altogether another.
A skilled politician like Bush should be able to exploit this outrage in appointing a new justice to the court along with a few other levers available to him in the coming days. Those other items might be a woman, African American, or Hispanic nominee and strangely enough the filibuster.
The gang of fourteen moderate senate compromisers have put into place an agreement that prevents the use of the filibuster and defines cooperation on Bush nominees to anyone other than "extraordinary" cases. In the senate one person's main streamer can be another's extremist however in this case the agreement has identified the people who will be determining the definition. Theoretically, if the appointment meets with the approval of the 7 Democratic compromisers then cloture could be invoked and debate stopped in any filibuster attempt.
Although Senator Kennedy and Senator Schumer have been making threats on the subject it is very unlikely that President Bush will do much consulting with either one since anyone short of the re-incarnation of Thurgood Marshall or Earl Warren will be unacceptable to them.
Selecting a conservative woman or minority or indeed a female minority appointment is likely to put a lot of pressure on the Democrats and the special interest groups who are likely to be in the vanguard of opposition to a Bush appointment. Can't you just envision the hypocrisy of the NAACP and NOW organizing to prevent the appointment of an African American woman to the court?
One thing is for sure is that President Bush recognizes the importance of this appointment and you can be sure he is not going to allow this nominee to be "Borked". Stay tuned; it will be interesting to see how this issue affects the comity of the senate clubhouse.
This decision is fortuitous for the Bush administration for this simple reason. At a time when Supreme Court nominations are seemingly going to come in a bunch, the court has handed the administration a simple bread and butter issue that every American can understand. The essence of this decision is that any private entity under the guise of a better use for your property can have government take your property and give it to someone else more powerful than you. How long will it be before familial government connections, big campaign contributors, and other favored groups utilize this very broad interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to their benefit and our disadvantage? Taking private property for the benefit of the public by a public entity is one thing, taking it for private gain is altogether another.
A skilled politician like Bush should be able to exploit this outrage in appointing a new justice to the court along with a few other levers available to him in the coming days. Those other items might be a woman, African American, or Hispanic nominee and strangely enough the filibuster.
The gang of fourteen moderate senate compromisers have put into place an agreement that prevents the use of the filibuster and defines cooperation on Bush nominees to anyone other than "extraordinary" cases. In the senate one person's main streamer can be another's extremist however in this case the agreement has identified the people who will be determining the definition. Theoretically, if the appointment meets with the approval of the 7 Democratic compromisers then cloture could be invoked and debate stopped in any filibuster attempt.
Although Senator Kennedy and Senator Schumer have been making threats on the subject it is very unlikely that President Bush will do much consulting with either one since anyone short of the re-incarnation of Thurgood Marshall or Earl Warren will be unacceptable to them.
Selecting a conservative woman or minority or indeed a female minority appointment is likely to put a lot of pressure on the Democrats and the special interest groups who are likely to be in the vanguard of opposition to a Bush appointment. Can't you just envision the hypocrisy of the NAACP and NOW organizing to prevent the appointment of an African American woman to the court?
One thing is for sure is that President Bush recognizes the importance of this appointment and you can be sure he is not going to allow this nominee to be "Borked". Stay tuned; it will be interesting to see how this issue affects the comity of the senate clubhouse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)