Wendy takes on...

...the blopic of the day and wins! (or just muses)

Sunday, May 04, 2008

 
Wow. He finally admitted that "she goes out whorin' so people will throw money at her."
Wendy 9:59 PM

Friday, August 22, 2003

 
...the Stop Bush protesters

I don't think that President Bush is doing an A+ job. I was appalled by the steel tariffs. I am continually appalled that he signs bills like the Patriot Act sent him by his 535 colleagues on Capitol Hill. And his Department of Justice is beyond appalling.

Our Attorney General is soooo proving me wrong. Back when he'd just been nominated and I was being inundated with "pro-choice" e-mails opposing him based on (as I saw it) his religious beliefs, I defended his nomination. I told the Stop Ashcrofters that Senator Ashcroft knew the difference between upholding the law as Attorney General and shaping it as a Senator. He would take his role as the nation's chief law enforcement officer seriously, I said. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Today's Department of Justice is almost as ridiculous as the Crusades. Just another "Christian" mission/destructive rampage.

What if our Attorney General read the Constitution again? What if he used the notions of states' rights and individual liberty to guide his decisions and policies?

I'm glad he's well-versed in the Scriptures. Our founders were, too. To understand what they wrote, it helps to understand what the many authors of the Bible wrote. Our founders also relied heavily upon Aristotle's writings. He's that guy who said we must be neither cowardly nor rash, but courageous. The Patriot Act is cowardly and rash. It is not courageous. I vote for courageous.

Remember Patrick Henry? He was one of the founders who was truly on fire for God and His Holy Word. Remember what he said? Does 'give me liberty or give me death' ring any bells?

Let's be courageous. Let's choose Aristotle's LOGIC and REASON to fight the beast of anti-Americanism and terrorism.

Law enforcement officers don't need more power. They need to learn to use their power wisely.

For example, let's teach the FBI how to budget and, I don't know, GATHER INTELLIGENCE. Why is it that agents spend so little time actually investigating? Let's investigate that.

In any case, I've been wondering for two weeks what the Stop Bush rally is all about. I kept seeing the little flyers and I wondered "stop Bush from what?" Stop him, period? Like, stop him from living? I figured it was just another giant collective of negative thinkers opposed to one particular individual. Sure President Bush has his shortcomings. He's mortal. Sure we'd like to see some things done differently, but is our problem really with this one individual?

So Stop Bushies, we all know what and whom you don't want. What is it that you want? What creative, productive solution do you offer to this problem you've identified?

What did you do to prevent this "evil man" from taking the highest office in the land? Did you (Washington residents) go to your district caucus meetings? Did you vote in the Republican primary? As active citizens who care passionately about public policy, surely you're aware that whether you're registered Democract, Socialist or GDI*, you can weigh in TWICE on the candidate your state supports for the Republican Nominee for the US Presidency.

It's not like the Bush candidacy snuck up on us. As I was getting ready to leave the country for eastern Europe in 1998 I hesitated to go because I wanted to work with Ari Fleischer on Elizabeth Dole's campaign. However, it was crystal clear way back then that Bush was the GOP* favorite. Don't you remember how many members of Congress had already signed on to back him? Don't you remember how well his gubernatorial website was going to transition to a run for the presidency? What exactly were you doing back then to prevent this great evil that you so despise?

Myself, I did nothing. I found out that it was Secretary Dole* who came up with the brilliant idea of forcing states to raise the drinking age to 21 by threatening to withhold Department of Transportation money for Interstates. Not quite what President Eisenhower* had in mind, I'm sure. I realized I couldn't devote my energy to Dole's campaign for the GOP nomination, because she clearly didn't care about states' rights. That left Bush. I figured that if we were going to have a President who was bred to take over his father's political seat, better Bush (raised on a ranch) than Gore (raised on Capitol Hill).

So, Stop Bushies, what do you want? What do you offer?

I know you don't like dams. I know you don't like anyone harvesting any trees in the forest. I know you don't like Bush. I know you don't like Ashcroft. I know you don't like civil rights violations if they don't serve your special interests.

Other than using Bush and Ashcroft's visits to our region to get a bigger audience for your latest tantrum, what are you doing to make the world a better place?

If you don't like dams in the Pacific Northwest, don't use electricity!

If you don't like forest management, immolate yourself in the next forest fire and try hard to come back as pretty wildflowers or yummy mushrooms.

If you didn't like the war in Iraq, STOP BREEDING HATRED AND NEGATIVITY! That is exactly where war comes from.

How many of you took off work today to protest? How many miles did you drive? How much time did you spend making your poster? How many of you were there? Had you gotten together to put all that time and energy into something POSITIVE, just think what you might have accomplished!

What if you'd spent that time and energy volunteering for the Washington Trails Association to clean up a piece of forest somewhere in the state?

What if you'd spent that time and energy educating people about individual liberty and the Constitution? What if you'd been writing letters to your representatives asking them to undo what they did when they voted to pass the Patriot Act?

What if you'd combined that time and energy with logic and reason?

Maybe we'd be a little closer to that nebulous thing you want but can't quite articulate. Maybe we'd live in something more like peace and harmony. Maybe we wouldn't all be so frustrated.



Notes:
* GDI = God Damned Independent
* GOP = Grand Ol' Party = the Republican Party
* Elizabeth Dole served as Secretary of Transportation AND Secretary of Labor.
* Drinking age laws are established state by state -- powers not enumerated in the Constitution shall be reserved to the states kinda thing -- but they don't get their tax dollars back for interstate maintenance if they don't make legal adults wait three years to drink beer.
* President Eisenhower led the drive for funding and development of the Interstate Highway program.

** Don't look to me for lessons. I obviously get so frustrated by your negativity, that I wallow in my own. Never fear, however, you'll soon have driven me away with your collectivist politics. You'll be rid of this angry imp before you can say Universal Healthcare.
Wendy 5:58 PM

Wednesday, July 30, 2003

 
...unions

If you've ever read one word of anything I've written, you've probably already assumed (or would've, had you given it any thought), that I do not like unions.

Because I'm an elitist, disdainful of the worker? Yeah, right!

Because I'm an individual who abhors bullies.

Had I any doubts that unions were no different from gangs in the schoolyard who bully little kids into giving up their lunch money, they certainly would have been alleviated by this article about the Bullies of Beaver County, PA, who are demanding that their neighbors pay them (via the County) for the volunteer efforts of the local high school! At least unions are finally beginning to show their true colors.

How totally appropriate! After writing all of the above, I decided to get some background information. In looking for this article in the local newspaper about the cleanup, I came across this article about bully-prevention education at an elementary school in Beaver County.

Everybody knows what bullying is, the presenter, Doc Dixon, said: when you hit or threaten to hit someone, when you're pushy, bossy or call somebody names.

"If you're doing it, you need to stop," he told the kids.

Unions aren't gangs of bullies, you say? Hmm, threatening someone? Give us what we want or we will shut down your factory! Calling somebody names? Scabs?

You may deny that unions are gangs of bullies, and I will respect your opinion. I am hard-pressed to accept anything other than the fact that unions are opposed to individual rights and responsibilities.

If more people were willing to donate their time and energy to making their communities a better place to live and work, I think the world would be a much better place. I want a world with greener parks and happier, more productive people and kids who feel important. I want a world where people are guaranteed the right to volunteer and cooperate with one another.

Unions, obviously, want a different kind of world.
Wendy 1:09 PM

Wednesday, July 16, 2003

 
...an argument for a flat tax rate

Wasn't one of the rallying cries in the forging of our great nation "no taxation without representation"?

That's called taxation without representation, and it's not fair!
And when the colonies complained, the king said 'I don't care!'

Rockin' and a rollin', slippin' and a slidin'
Over the horizon, what can it be?
Looks like it's going to be a free country

So, if you think it's FAIR that a rich man pays MORE for the "common good" than a poor man pays, I'm wondering, do you also think it's fair that a rich man have MORE of a voice in determining what the "common good" is than a poor man has?

What if we extended equal protection under the law to equal protection, taxation and representation?

If we insist on an income tax (which, I believe, Jefferson would've labeled as government taking from the mouths of labor the bread it has earned), then let's just say that if one man, one vote applies across the board, then ten dollars earned, one dollar purloined should also apply across the board.

In "liberal" speak, I guess what I'm saying is that I just want to end this disgusting policy and get back on the road to a classless society. Let's eliminate these class distinctions sanctioned by law! Why should the wealthy be able to "buy" more than their fair share of our government? My dollars are just as good as theirs, by golly! Tax mine equally!
Wendy 9:56 PM

Thursday, June 26, 2003

 
The US Supreme Court ruling on Lawrence v. Texas

Okay, the outcome is favorable. In short, they ruled for more liberty -- of thee we sing, remember?

They repeated the refrain that the Supreme Court's "obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”

The thing is they delved so deep into the moral history of homosexuality and sodomy, that it seems as if they are ruling on Texan moral code. AND they relied HEAVILY on the whole construct of a Constitutionally guaranteed privacy, which has yet to be firmly established. It's understandable, I rely on it mighty heavily myself.

Too bad the US Congress has seen fit to do away completely with amendments to the Constitution (you can't get one ratified within a two-year election cycle, after all). If the process for Constitutional Amendments still existed (in practice, I mean), we could just take care of that right now.

Pause to shed a tear for the death of the amendment process (which was the closest thing to a true democracy the forefathers allowed for).

I am glad they saw fit to argue that the Texas statute was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

I'm just wondering why there was no refuting the State's compelling interest in the personal, private relationships of consenting adults. Did I fail to download the compelling interest language? Or did they fail to include it? I guess that's our problem.

Resolved: Going forward, we need to focus more on the State's compelling interest and less on privacy.

Is the general thinking really that the State has a compelling interest to involve itself in every aspect of my life? Because I find that, quite frankly, deplorable.

My sexual behavior in no way infringes upon the rights of others, ergo the state has no compelling interest to regulate my sexual behavior in any way. The Equal Protection clause extends that rationale to each of my fellow Americans (uh, and my Czech boyfriend).
Wendy 10:22 PM

Monday, June 23, 2003

 
...the U.S. Supreme Court

Great. The Supreme Court ruled that the government has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity on campus.

What compelling interest? Why should any thinking, rational person care what color his classmates' skin is? Right, I see where this is headed. I must eliminate the thinking, rational part of my equation, because we're dealing with the government and the institution of higher education in the United States of America.

No one would argue with this part of O'Connor's argument:

...the diffusion of knowledge and opportunity through public institutions of higher education must be accessible to all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity. Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our nation is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized.

What I'm arguing is that higher education is accessible to all and it should not be more accessible to people of some specific skin colors than it is to people of other skin colors. Racial preferences completely and totally violate the Equal Protection clause.

It's not a foreign concept: two wrongs don't make a right.

After a few decades of entitlements, which if you listen to affirmative-action supporters, have not worked, wouldn't it make sense to try something new and different?

And why should my black neighbor, whose family has lived here for several generations, be granted admission before my Belorussian neighbor, whose family moved here seven years ago to escape a brutal dictatorship and is still learning English? If the born-American candidate and the Belorussian-naturalized-American candidate have the same grades and test scores and wrote equally good essays, shouldn't we give the edge to the Belorussian-American who has worked harder by having to learn English and navigate the waters of testing and admissions alone (because his parents aren't familiar with the process and don't speak English)? Wouldn't it be safer to assume that the Belorussian-American would bring more diversity of thought and opinion to the classroom, having been raised under another form of government, in another country, on another continent, speaking another language?

Oh, there I go again, it's not about diversity of thought and opinion, because the "reason" people aren't happy with the "progress" that affirmative action has made, is that there are still people who disagree with them. Here is where I could delve into political correctness and how it is an evil attempt at thought control, but I will resist my usual urge to get too tangential on my readers.

In any case, there are a thousand other factors to be taken into consideration: income, high school, hours worked outside the home, language spoken at home, etc. I see absolutely no reason to include skin color as a deciding factor for college admissions. For a beauty pageant, maybe, where we're thinking about what the candidate looks like, but not for school, where we should be thinking about how well the person retains and processes information.

And on the semantic tangent: honest people will not use the word "diverse" when they should be using the word "multicolored". At least the Supreme Court took the honest route, using the phrase "racial diversity."
Wendy 11:18 AM

Wednesday, June 18, 2003

 
...Robert Hunter and Jerry Garcia

I've always thought that those Merry Prankster types were almost there with their notions of an individual's right to choose. Somehow though, (through the drug-induced haze, perhaps?) they got all mixed up and forgot about the importance of owning your labor and the fruits of it, so you could buy all that mind-altering Kool-Aid.

Their fans struck me as pretty much the same. Despite their supposed socialist, pacifist beliefs, Deadheads took part in the purest form of capitalism I have ever experienced. Everything was available for sale outside Grateful Dead shows and people were really good at informing the public of their demands and their marketable goods.

"Cash for your extras."
"Who's got my pharmaceuticals?"
"Kind, veggie burritos!"

So, I thought I'd make my first foray into socio-political commentary on song lyrics with one of my favorite Dead songs.

Deconstructing Ripple

If my words did glow with the gold of sunshine
And my tunes were played on the harp unstrung,
Would you hear my voice come through the music,
Would you hold it near as it were your own?

The Pied Piper? John Lennon? Richard Bach? Noam Chomsky? Wormtongue? If we like the way they say it so much that we don't care what they say, will we allow them to weave their thoughts into our heads?

Those old-and-in-the-way fellas understand the power of charm that acts like an instant on-switch for popular delusions. Ain't no message like the one we've got.

It's a hand-me-down, the thoughts are broken,
Perhaps they're better left unsung.

As Friedrich Hayek said of intellectuals, "we have no better name by which to describe what we have called the second-hand dealers in ideas."

They also recognize that while they have an extraordinary gift to convey ideas to the masses, they're not saying anything all that new. How many truly original ideas have you heard lately? They're just sampled and mixed into radio-friendly songs with slightly different beats. Of course, we've learned more from our three-minute records than we ever learned in school.

I don't know, don't really care
Let there be songs to fill the air.

We choose ignorance. We choose whomever will allow us to remain blissfully childlike and dependent, as long as we are fed and happy. This is the logic that leads us to believe economic sanctions will bring down brutal dictatorships. This is what makes commercial radio painful to hear if you listen to music and don't just skim through it.

Ripple in still water,
When there is no pebble tossed,
Nor wind to blow.

No one needs to do anything. It's the hundredth-monkey theory, ya know? Like, if we all just believe the same thing, we'll achieve this utopian greater good and everything will be, like, way mellow.

Or are they saying "please don't you rock my boat?"

I like to interpret this as a reminder that lazily floating along and riding the current isn't enough. You've always got to keep paddling, or you'll get washed out to sea and drown.

There is a road, no simple highway,
Between the dawn and the dark of night,
And if you go no one may follow,
That path is for your steps alone.

Are we flirting with the notion of free will? Are we acknowledging the fact that we do determine our own destinies?

But if you fall, you fall alone,
If you should stand, then who's to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home.

I knew they could do it! I knew I loved the Dead for a reason!

We must live our lives according to our own principles. We cannot lower our standards to those of others. We must decide for ourselves. We must allow others to decide for themselves.
Wendy 10:12 PM