I read with interest an opinion column by Cynthia Tucker, the editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She uses the same liberal talking points concerning Judge Sotomayor's 'American success story' that we have heard from the beginning. Tucker speaks of Sotomayor's hard work, determination, sacrifice, poverty, personal tragedy, and ancestry. Apparently, Tucker is not familiar with Justice Clarence Thomas and his upbringing (if you have not read the book, My Grandfather's Son, I encourage you to read it). His story is just as (if not more) compelling. But that does nothing to qualify one to sit on the Supreme Court.
She then goes on to criticize Republicans who oppose Sotomayor's nomination because "she represents the activist-judge liberal-elite", according to Tucker. All you need to do is review the now infamous firefighter's case that the Supreme Court just overturned to see that she is an activist, liberal judge. In the past, she has also stated that law is made at the Federal Court level. I think she fits the definition of an activist judge.
Tucker states that many Republicans will oppose any judge that a Democrat President will nominate. This happened throughout the Bush Presidency with Democrats in the Senate - they opposed just about everyone, including Miguel Estrada. President Bush nominated Estrada to sit on the bench, but the Democrats filibustered his nomination any chance that they had. In fact, there were memos revealed that stated the Democrats were against him simply because he was Hispanic and nominated by Bush, and they thought a Democrat President should be the first person to nominate an Hispanic person to such a position. Racism? Yes, it is, but the Democrats actually had some Republican staffers fired for leaking the memos instead of answering for what the memos said.
Tucker then plays the race card, which is her expertise. She states that "there is a less articulated but equally intense reaction to Sotomayor on the right that has nothing to do with issues and everything to do with ethnicity." What? Is this woman serious? I have not seen anyone mention her ethnicity except for the liberal elites, whether in Congress or in the press. The Republicans have opposed this woman on ideological grounds. To them, it has been about her decisions and her judicial temperament. It has been about her legal beliefs and what her view of the role of the judiciary happens to be. It was Sotomayor who said that wise Latina women will make better decisions than men. No one made that up. She said it. It is the liberals that want race to become the issue.
Tucker then spouts off about Pat Buchanan and a column that he wrote. Buchanan, in my opinion, has some good things to say, but he is off his rocker in many things he says these days. Anyway, he compares Sotomayor and the positive treatment she gets vs. Sarah Palin, and the treatment that she has been prone to receive. This is definitely a legitimate comparison, as Sotomayor has been praised beyond belief, while Palin has been scorned and derided at every opportunity to do so. Tucker proves this point, and she did not even try to.
Tucker then closes her column with this:
"There's just one problem: That vision of America - a country run by and for God-fearing white people of smalltown heritage - is losing its appeal in a country that grows more diverse and more urban every day.
As long as the Republican Party is held hostage by a group of voters who refuse to let go of that image of America, it cannot hope to be a national party. Sonia Sotomayor, not Sarah Palin, represents the future."
This is nothing but race-bating on Tucker's part. Yes, we are more diverse, and I know no one on the conservative side of the aisle that has a problem with that. What we want is people to hold important positions who are qualified to be there. Race does not enter into the equation. One's ability to do the job correctly is what matters. It is the liberal establishment that is concerned about race and diversity, not the conservatives.
Where were the liberals when President Bush had the most diverse Cabinet in history? They were too busy saying that minorities sold out to conservatives. Where were they in supporting the Voting Rights Act and during the Civil Rights movement? They were trying to filibuster the legislation. Where were they in support of Lynn Swann? Or Ken Blackwell? Or Michael Steele? Oh, that's right, they were supporting the white guys that were running against them.
And I believe Sarah Palin has a lot of support. In the latest polls, she is only a few points behind the President in a theoretical 2012 head-to-head Presidential race. Palin is popular, and she also has a very compelling life story.
So, in summation, conservatives care about qualifications of those being appointed, not their race, not their life story. It is the liberals who are interested in diversity at the expense of qualifications and ability to do the job. Being a justice on the Supreme Court carries a lot of power and responsibility. It should only be those who have the qualifications who should serve on this most prestigious bench. All other characteristics should be cast aside.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Economics 101: Why Communism does not work
I would like to share with you an e-mail that I received today regarding a very simple approach to economics and prosperity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It really doesn't get much simpler than this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It really doesn't get much simpler than this.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
What has happened to our values? - Part 2
A couple of weeks ago, on June 25, 2009, my wife had a birthday. We then went to the Harrisburg Hospital to see my younger brother's newest child. On the way, we heard about the passing of Michael Jackson, the so-called "King of Pop." We can also note that Farrah Fawcett died that day, but that was no longer news after the report of Michael Jackson hit the airwaves.
As I saw news coverage that night, I saw throngs of people headed to the hospital where Michael Jackson died. People flocked to the Neverland Ranch to pay their last respects. People camped out around his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. We were flooded with images of people crying over his death. We were shown interviews with people who spoke of how much MJ had touched them with his music and his life, even though there was no personal contact between them. Congress is rushing to pass a resolution honoring the life of Jackson, but yet cannot pass any bill that would help out the average American.
But why are we treating him like this? His music had not been relevant to the pop music genre for at least 15 years. He had money troubles over the last few years (he was spending much more money than he had on hand). He definitely was in legal trouble. Why is their such a fuss about him?
I found it odd that 2 different ministers came out and spoke on his family's behalf: The Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. If these men were really men of God, then they would know that we should not idolize another fallible human being. Yet these two men did just that. Here they were, holding up a fallible man as if he had done no wrong throughout the course of his life, praising his accomplishments here on this earth.
Let us not forget that MJ was in all kinds of legal trouble for being a pervert, as he liked to have sleepovers with boys, even allowing them to sleep in his bed (in case you forgot, watch his interview with Martin Bashir from a few years ago). He was in trouble for molestation. Yes, he was acquitted, but who among us really believes that he is innocent of this? A lot of money changed hands in order for him to come away from these charges as not guilty.
The Staples Center held a lottery to see who would get tickets to his memorial service. From printed reports, approximately 1.4 million people registered online for 17000 available tickets. People are flying in from all over the country, from around the world, to be in L.A. for this service. Why? Do we really think that much of a singer what made a lot of money from singing songs, yet had not impact on us as people?
And then the media covers this spectacle as if nothing else is going on around us? We have war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a federal government that cannot control spending. We have a government that wants to push socialism on us. There are international issues with Korea and Honduras. The Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority. Yet, the media is diverting our attention to the MJ service and away from these other much more important issues. Because the media knows that Americans have a short attention span and can pretty much be led around and told what to think.
As many people mourn the death of Michael Jackson today, I know of one person who is more than happy that this has happened: Gov. Mark Sanford. It got his name off of the front page. But what does this say about us? What have we become, that the death of an entertainer is the most important event on the earth?
As I saw news coverage that night, I saw throngs of people headed to the hospital where Michael Jackson died. People flocked to the Neverland Ranch to pay their last respects. People camped out around his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. We were flooded with images of people crying over his death. We were shown interviews with people who spoke of how much MJ had touched them with his music and his life, even though there was no personal contact between them. Congress is rushing to pass a resolution honoring the life of Jackson, but yet cannot pass any bill that would help out the average American.
But why are we treating him like this? His music had not been relevant to the pop music genre for at least 15 years. He had money troubles over the last few years (he was spending much more money than he had on hand). He definitely was in legal trouble. Why is their such a fuss about him?
I found it odd that 2 different ministers came out and spoke on his family's behalf: The Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. If these men were really men of God, then they would know that we should not idolize another fallible human being. Yet these two men did just that. Here they were, holding up a fallible man as if he had done no wrong throughout the course of his life, praising his accomplishments here on this earth.
Let us not forget that MJ was in all kinds of legal trouble for being a pervert, as he liked to have sleepovers with boys, even allowing them to sleep in his bed (in case you forgot, watch his interview with Martin Bashir from a few years ago). He was in trouble for molestation. Yes, he was acquitted, but who among us really believes that he is innocent of this? A lot of money changed hands in order for him to come away from these charges as not guilty.
The Staples Center held a lottery to see who would get tickets to his memorial service. From printed reports, approximately 1.4 million people registered online for 17000 available tickets. People are flying in from all over the country, from around the world, to be in L.A. for this service. Why? Do we really think that much of a singer what made a lot of money from singing songs, yet had not impact on us as people?
And then the media covers this spectacle as if nothing else is going on around us? We have war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a federal government that cannot control spending. We have a government that wants to push socialism on us. There are international issues with Korea and Honduras. The Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority. Yet, the media is diverting our attention to the MJ service and away from these other much more important issues. Because the media knows that Americans have a short attention span and can pretty much be led around and told what to think.
As many people mourn the death of Michael Jackson today, I know of one person who is more than happy that this has happened: Gov. Mark Sanford. It got his name off of the front page. But what does this say about us? What have we become, that the death of an entertainer is the most important event on the earth?
What has happened to our values? - Part 1
Several weeks ago, America waited with baited breath as Jon and Kate Gosselin had an important announcement to make concerning their marriage on their "hit" reality show. We all knew what was coming. You did not need to be a MENSA member to see that they were going to separate. That information was all over the tabloids for many weeks prior to the official announcement.
I had not watched the show prior to this big announcement, but yet I found myself being drawn into this show in order to see what this big announcement was all about. During the show, the interviews with both Jon and Kate (they were interviewed separately) told the sad story of a couple that had grown apart. The rigorous existence that they lived as "reality stars" was finally getting to them.
The part that saddened me the most, though, was the fact that they would rather separate from each other and share custody of the children, rather than stop the show and work out the problems in their marriage. I guess Kate summed it up best when, answering a question regarding the continuation of the show, she said "The show must go on."
I am sorry, but I cannot believe that these people would call themselves Christians after putting on this kind of selfish display. Forget the fact that Jon was cavorting with young women at bars. Forget the rumors that Kate was having an affair with one of her bodyguards. These two people are putting fame and fortune above family. They are putting their own fame and fortune in front of their children's well-being. They are sacrificing the permanent on the altar of the immediate. They are allowing the American public to become voyeurs into their own little world.
I would hope that any group claiming to be a Christian group has dropped either one of these people from any speaking engagement that they may have previously been booked for. As Christians, we have had to put up with many people in the past who have claimed to have spoken for Christianity, but instead have brought upon us a bad name. Christians, it is time to stand up for what is right and Biblical, not what is popular and worldly/un-Biblical.
I had not watched the show prior to this big announcement, but yet I found myself being drawn into this show in order to see what this big announcement was all about. During the show, the interviews with both Jon and Kate (they were interviewed separately) told the sad story of a couple that had grown apart. The rigorous existence that they lived as "reality stars" was finally getting to them.
The part that saddened me the most, though, was the fact that they would rather separate from each other and share custody of the children, rather than stop the show and work out the problems in their marriage. I guess Kate summed it up best when, answering a question regarding the continuation of the show, she said "The show must go on."
I am sorry, but I cannot believe that these people would call themselves Christians after putting on this kind of selfish display. Forget the fact that Jon was cavorting with young women at bars. Forget the rumors that Kate was having an affair with one of her bodyguards. These two people are putting fame and fortune above family. They are putting their own fame and fortune in front of their children's well-being. They are sacrificing the permanent on the altar of the immediate. They are allowing the American public to become voyeurs into their own little world.
I would hope that any group claiming to be a Christian group has dropped either one of these people from any speaking engagement that they may have previously been booked for. As Christians, we have had to put up with many people in the past who have claimed to have spoken for Christianity, but instead have brought upon us a bad name. Christians, it is time to stand up for what is right and Biblical, not what is popular and worldly/un-Biblical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)