Obama Administration: Forcing Americans to Serve

Be afraid. Be very afraid of what this man will force upon you.

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

Quote of the Day!

“Less than fifty years ago, African-Americans were barred from public universities, restaurants, and even drinking fountains in many parts of the country. On Tuesday we came together and transcended that shameful legacy, electing an African-American to the country’s top job — which, in fact, appears to be his first actual job. Certainly, it doesn’t mean that racism has disappeared in America, but it is an undeniable mark of progress that a majority of voters no longer consider skin color nor a dangerously gullible naivete as a barrier to the presidency.” -- Iowahawk

How the Democrats Will Govern

Will the Democrats -- the President-elect and the House and Senate -- be liberal Ted Kennedy Democrats, or moderate Bill Clinton Democrats? That, it seems to me, is the main question.

I was no fan of Bill Clinton, but I was no great detractor of his, either; I think he was a smart guy and a pretty good President, especially when his private appetites didn't interfere with his public policy. He got welfare reform through, he was good on trade, and in general was pretty good as far as his domestic policy went. (In post-9/11 retrospect, we see the flaws in his foreign policy, but we see the same with regard to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush; both parties were no great shakes as to foreign policy in the immediately pre-9/11 era.) If the Obama Administration implements Clintonesque policies, I wouldn't be that worried. If it implements Ted-Kennedy-like policies, I would be worried.

Here's why I think the Clinton option is more likely: 1994, or to be precise the Democrats' awareness of 1994. Remember that in 1992, the Democratic Presidential candidate beat the Republican by 5.5%. (I realize Perot was something of a confounding factor, but it was clear this was a solid victory for the Democrats.) After the election, the Senate was 56-44 (without the shift in the Democrats' favor, but that shift had happened just a few years before). The House was 258-176 (with a slight shift against the Democrats, I realize), and a raw percentage of 49.9% to 44.8%. The Democrats were solidly in control, more or less to the same extent they are now. And then two years later, despite a good economy and no foreign policy problems, they lost both houses.

The Democrats, if they're politically savvy -- and I'm pretty sure they are -- realize that this could happen again in 2010. And this is especially so because of the extraordinarily high turnout this election: In 2010, many of the new voters from 2008 won't vote; it will be a midterm election, the charismatic Obama won't be on the ballot, and we'll be back to normal politics.

My sense is that the Democrats will govern with an eye towards that. Obviously, this gives an extra incentive to do things that are seen as helping the country as a whole, both in domestic and foreign policy. Nothing succeeds like success. If their policies are seen by the country as working, and as compatible with the values of the center as well as of the left, the Democrats will win in 2010 -- and they'll deserve to win.

But the prospect of the 2010 election, in front of a very different-looking electorate than the one that voted in 2008, also gives Democrats an incentive to be relatively moderate, and to avoid both risky gambles and political programs that are seen as benefiting the Democratic base (either materially or symbolically) at the expense of the center.

Tips for Conservatives trying to debate Big Government GOPers

Don't wrestle with pigs; you get dirty and they like it.

Here comes January 20, 2009

Here comes January 10, 2009

Sums up Obama Supporters

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Quote of the Day!

"In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines." -- Benjamin Disraeli

Quote of the Day!

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.'

- Thomas Jefferson.

Be Afraid: The Bailout Bill

New Jersey Turning Purple?

The survey was done between September 10 and 14, so, like the New York poll that showed Obama with only a five-point lead, so it doesn't fully reflect the vicious attacks that have been launched by the media over recent days. It may turn out to be a high-water mark for McCain. Still, this can't be what Obama had in mind when he talked about running a 50-state race.

Quote of the Day!

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

- Hillary Clinton

There ain't a fuckin' thing wrong with our planet that drilling more holes in it won't fix.

This about sums it up

This is a wonderful thing

The Next Vice President of the United States

McCain and Palin!

Jermiah Wright--Best line from this video: “If you don’t want to get treated different, then don’t ask to get treated special.”

Black & White on the Grey Matters (Jermiah Wright)

Here's a black Man I would vote for

Black & White on the Grey Matters 2 (War)

To my Catholic Friends (And Wife):

Conservative Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec has endorsed Barak Obama for president in this year's election and offers a strange rationalization for voting in support of a pro-abortion candidate. I'll try to present the reasons why Kmiec's rationalization is wrong and why Catholic Doctrine should either be left out of a person's decision on who to vote or that it doesn't necessariloy point to a vote for a Democrat. Kmiec offers a formulation used often by Catholics when voting for such liberal candidates:

Douglas W. Kmiec, a conservative Catholic legal scholar at Pepperdine School of Law, said that although the formal teachings of the American Catholic bishops put primacy on the sanctity of life, including fetuses and embryos, doctrine allows for voting on other grounds, including the Iraq war, which the Vatican has opposed from the start.

Mr. Kmiec, a Republican who served in the Justice Department under President Ronald Reagan, said he was supporting Mr. Obama because his platform met the standard of justice and concern for the poor the church has always defended. This year, Mr. Kmiec was denied communion by a priest at a gathering of Catholic business people because of his support for Mr. Obama. Mr. Kmiec said, “The proper question for Catholics to ask is not ‘Can I vote for him?’ but ‘Why shouldn’t I vote for the candidate who feels more passionately and speaks more credibly about economic fairness for the average family, who will be a true steward of the environment, and who will treat the immigrant family with respect?’”

Issues of economic fairness do appear in the Catholic catechism, although only in general terms. The teachings do not prescribe a certainty of policy as Catholic or un-Catholic. Paragraphs 1938, 1941, and 1947 emphasize the need for action by Catholics to reduce sinful inequalities between the rich and the poor, but generally casts this in rather stark terms, with to the quality of life of little resemblance those deemed poor in the US:

• 43% of the poor own their homes, and the average home is a three-bedroom house with a garage and 1.5 bathrooms
• Over two-thirds of households have two rooms per occupant, which belies the notion of overcrowding
• 80% of the poor have air conditioning
• Almost 75% own one car; 31% own two or more
• The average living space for the American poor is larger than the average space for all people in Paris, Vienna, and London, among other cities in Europe

Furthermore, the catechism talks mostly about personal work to resolve sinful inequalities, not the establishment of a government mandate that operates under a redistributionist policy. It doesn’t forbid it, either, and that’s really the point. Both parties want to help Americans live well, but have different philosophies on how to get there. Voters in general should support the candidate who best represents their own approach to these issues, but that has nothing to do with Catholicism.

Neither does the Iraq war. While the Vatican disagreed with it, war itself does not violate Catholic doctrine (para 2309). The catechism does explicitly call “indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas” a violation of doctrine, but the US has not engaged in that kind of warfare in decades, and not ever without substantial provocation (para 2314). Nor is it even applicable in this context, since the war in Iraq is over, and both candidates support an expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Once again, voters have to rely on something other than Catholic teachings to cast their vote.

However, the doctrine on abortion for Catholics leaves no room for any subjective application of other values. Paragraph 2271 plainly casts “every procured abortion” as a “moral evil”, and reinforces that by stating plainly that this teaching is irrevocable. Paragraph 2272 calls “formal cooperation” in abortion a “grave offense”, meaning a mortal sin. Why? Here, science and faith intersect. Scientifically, an embryo has life at the moment when the cells divide, if not a few minutes earlier at conception. Further, the embryo is innately human, with unique DNA specific to humans — and is therefore human life, regardless of its level of convenience to the mother. Catholicism teaches that human life, especially innocent human life, is sacred and “must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.”

Anyone who formally cooperates in abortion, therefore, sins, and cannot honestly receive the Eucharist until they repent. That conclusion is inescapable from the catechism in paragraphs 2271, 2272, and 2274, and explicit in 2322:

From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

Regardless of how Catholics feel about economic “fairness” or the Iraq war, that trumps all else for observant Catholics. Formal cooperation with abortion means excommunication, which indicates just how foundational this issue is for the Church and its members.

Many Catholics maneuver around this by simply ignoring it, and they’re free to do so. Membership in the Church is voluntary, after all, and people can leave the Catholic Church if they disagree with its catechism (and strictly speaking, they should do so under those circumstances). However, it’s either a gross misrepresentation or self-delusion to argue that abortion is simply one issue among many for observant Catholics and that economic policy or foreign affairs can outweigh it.

While Catholic teaching creates separation to better to secure religious liberty (Matthew 22:21: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."), it also contemplates that practice will integrate religion with everyday life including civic duties such a voting. As such Catholic Doctrine enjoins upon life and government not separateness but interdependence, not autonomy but reciprocity. As pronounced in Ad Diognetum 5: 5, 10:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. [Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners.... They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws.... So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.

Obama Backpedaling after he played the Race Card

Well, Obama got caught using the race card and, unlike DC's Marion Barry, people actually called his highness's but on it. Now the presumptuous one is backpedaling as quick as he can. Instead of calling McCain and Republicans (i.e., white people) racist Obama is using the cynical line.

What is cynical of asking about the accomplishments of Obama? Law professor (adjunct), state senator (7 years), and U.S. senator (3 and 1/2 years) seem to be the standard line of defense. Clearly, if elected, Obama will be the least experienced president since William Henry Harrison won in 1840. This does not mean Obama will not be a good president but it should not prevent people from further questioning him. The scary part of this election is that Obama's popularity is clearing out of wack with what he has accomplished. More to the point his celebrity is greater than his deeds. Obama is a classic demagogue and people should be nervous when only a minority of voters question his worth.

The recent race card controversy gives me hope that Obama and his supporters cannot prevent a real debate from occurring. However, they will try again to paint McCain and Republicans as racist. It is what Democrats do best. Try to win by preventing their opponents from competing against them.

Advice from a one-time bacholar

Hopefully this will be an ongoing series as I remember more from those bygone days. Anyhow, here are my first two tips for single men:

1) Once you spend money willy nilly to nail a chick, you know its over.

2) If you want to get some liquor into a game one great method is to carry a pint of whiskey so that security will find it first. When you are told that you can't bring it in chugged it all right in front of security and continue walking through. What the security doesn't know is that the pint of whiskey is iced tea and the “real alcohol” in still in your pockets.

How not to write a thank you note

From: Sincere Gentleman

To: Prospective Employers

Date: Fri, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Subject: Thank You



Hey, guys,



In the spirit of yesterday’s gang-bang-style interview, I’ve opted for a group thank you email. I hate crafting these follow-ups and I’m not too hot at sincere thank you notes either, but writing one email is easier than writing four. I call it the less = more theory. Raymond Carver called it minimalism. My ex-girlfriend used to call it, “I’m just not that hungry.” Really though, skimping on thank you emails gives me more time to reply to this chick I met on Mypsace who is new to the area and posts pictures on her personal webpage.


Cheers,

________

Od'e to the Local Bar

Like a king in his castle, a gentleman’s courtly home is his local bar. He is just as regal while sitting on his bar stool, making loud, slurred chitchat with regular patrons, as he is when he feels the urge to actually make a stool and momentarily retire to the establishment’s porcelain throne. Sitting there, with his trouser around his ankles and his drink in hand as if it were a scepter, the gentleman is in his most satisfying and distinguished element.

Larry King: The Mug Shot