The Original Musings

Be aware! The definition of racism is changing!

Admit it … almost had you going there, didn’t it?

Everything you need to know about some things …

American Idol season 9 — Paula Abdul left, her spot was taken by Ellen Degeneres whose qualifications for judging were debatable at best.  She’s quickly become known for stupid commentary (“you’re like a banana”) mixed in with some surprisingly accurate observations from time to time.  Simon Cowell announced this would be his final season.  No major scandals erupted with the Top 24 (a few mediocre ones, but really, it was a ho-hum group this year).  The final performance show was May 25 (Tuesday) and the final two are Lee DeWyze and Crystal Bowersox.   Crystal (a single mom from Ohio) has been a strong, and steady contender all season long.  Lee (a former paint salesman from Illinois) has been the one who exhibited the most growth over the course of the season and though he is not a “showman” his voice is quite good.  Throughout the season, Crystal has had many “moments” while Lee has only had a couple (his biggest and best was last week’s performance of Hallelujah, which was chosen for him by Simon).  My prediction for this season’s idol:  Crystal Bowersox.  Honestly, though, I’ll be happy no matter which one wins, because I’ve liked them both from the start. 

Cutest (recent) Quip – ”DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARRAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN”

How dare you! — When they were voting on which things to include and strike from the latest edition of textbooks to be used by Texas students (which influences what will be printed in *all* textbooks across the US), state Board of Education officials had a heated debate about whether or not to include Barack Obama’s middle name in the information being added about him.

Lawrence Allen, a black former high school principal from Houston offered a motion to enter President Barack Obama’s name in a section of the curriculum that recognized significant dates in U.S. History.

David Bradley, a white businessman from Beaumont, motioned that the president’s legal name should be used, Barack Hussein Obama. “I think we should give him the full honor and privilege of his full name.”

“I am getting pretty fed up with this,” said Democrat Mary Helen Berlanger. “You don’t have to be derogatory. We don’t always put in Jefferson in William Jefferson Clinton.”

“This is our first black president,” said board member Mavis Knight, who is black. “You are making it sound humiliating.”

“I ask the member to withdraw the motion and move forward in a dignified manner,” said Democrat Rick Agusto.

Bradley did, but said under his breath, he did so, “to put an end to the whining.”

Knight shot back, “I don’t consider it whining.”

His middle name is humiliating?  Mentioning his middle name is derogatory?  Other things being excluded from the books include mention of Joseph Smith and Nathan Hale in elementary school history books — the latter because reading about his hanging “upsets” children.

Biden’s Latest Faux Pas — Brussels, Belgium is more deserving of the title “Capital of the Free World” than is Washington, DC.

[Biden] suggested that Washington, D.C., his home, is undeserving of that title — notwithstanding its wealth of global organizations and the countless international summits that take place there.

“As you probably know, some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington, D.C. as the ‘capital of the free world,’” Biden said. “But it seems to me that in this great city, which boasts 1,000 years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union, and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title.”

Biden’s Latest Faux Pas, Part Deux — At that same May 6th assembly referenced just above, our esteemed Veep also remarked that he was “particularly honored” to address the body, “as a lawmaker for more than 36 years in our parliament.”

Oh, those crazy Democrats, Part I — Remember Rod Blagojevich?  Rod thought there was nothing wrong with selling off Barack Obama’s (then-newly-vacated) senate seat to the highest bidder.  He was impeached in January of 2009 and is scheduled to go to trial June 3.

Oh, those crazy Democrats, Part II — In February, Joe Sestak alleged that the White House last summer offered him a high-ranking position in the administration if he would sit out the Pennsylvania primary against Arlen Specter — Specter was formerly a Republican before became a Democrat last year in the belief that his re-election would be secure if he jumped ship.   Sestak refused to step aside, and handily won the primary against Specter.  Now Sestak is facing Republican Pat Toomey in the election this November and is being asked to explain in detail about this job offer and the conditions for accepting it.  An investigation is being sought and the White House is promising to comment “soon.”

Well, if the Democrats can do it, why can’t I? — Sarah Ferguson, the Dutchess of York, was caught on (hidden) camera offering to sell a “wealthy businessman” (played by a reporter) access to her ex-husband, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, for the paltry sum of £500,000 (about $725,000). Fergie is also on camera receiving $40,000 as a down payment from the businessman (reporter) and making arrangements for the balance to be wired to a bank account of her choosing later on but prior to the meeting.  Sarah has since issued an apology and stated emphatically that the Duke knew nothing at all of her activities; Buckingham Palace has also released a statement insisting the Duke was unaware and above reproach.

“I don’t know why you’d care, but just so you know …” — Victoria Beckham says her marriage is legitimate and not just a sham put on to preserve the family image for their children or a business arrangement to protect their business empire.

“I don’t know why you’d want to, but you can’t” — take your iPad into Yankee Stadium, that is.  Nor can you take a laptop computer.  You know, though, conversely, why can’t you take your iPad or your laptop if you’re paying the price of the ticket and not disturbing or disrupting anyone?  I’d rather see someone on their laptop (which I can ignore) than be forced to listen to some dumbass on their cell phone.

Her voice is toxic and so’s her jewelry — WalMart has pulled Miley Cyrus’ line of jewelry out of their stores because it was found to have dangerously high levels of cadmium.  Cadmium is toxic if ingested (imagine your little girl putting the edge of her bracelet in her mouth to fasten the clasp, or idly putting her pendant in her mouth, for instance) and the levels in the jewelry were high enough to be potentially lethal.

You would think the President of these United States would be aware of what he is presiding over.

I suppose the reason three different people forwarded an AP article to me is because they’ve been subjected at one time or another to my ranting about misuse of the term “Democracy” to define our system of government.  It irritates me to no end to listen to some dumbass wax lyrical about our “Democratic” government and how other countries should adopt “Democracy” so that they too can enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Despite my ire, I usually do not bother to correct imbeciles, primarily because I generally go out of my way to avoid controversy or conflict. If it’s irritating enough, I typically come home and rant about it on my blog rather than engage in frustrating and often futile attempts to educate idiots.

Given sufficient provocation, however, there can come a point when (regardless of what the subject may be) the person(s) doing the speaking have managed to invoke my input. Sometimes it’s because they include me in the conversation despite my attempts to politely demure. Other times it’s because the person(s) they’re talking to may not be beyond salvation and for whatever reason I have decided I give a damn about their being misled. Occasionally it comes about because I decide to Stir Shit Up™, which (depending on my mood) can be either cathartic or entertaining.

I can embark upon a rant of epic proportion to explain that while our government relies on some aspects of “Representative Democracy” we are actually — by both definition and design — a “Constitutional Republic.”  I like to begin by mentioning the Pledge of Allegiance: “… and to the republic, for which it stands …” And I point out that in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, it clearly states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” And then, after I’m all warmed up, I really get going.

In this case, though, I can’t actually take it up with the person who said it, so I’ll have to do it here.

In a blunt caution to political friend and foe, President Barack Obama said Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate discourse pose a serious danger to America’s democracy, and may incite “extreme elements” to violence.

The comments, in a graduation speech at the University of Michigan’s huge football stadium, were Obama’s most direct take about the angry politics that have engulfed his young presidency after long clashes over health care, taxes and the role of government.

… [In his 31-minute speech, Obama] … took direct aim at the anti-government language so prevalent today.

“What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws degree. “When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.”  ^{(emphasis mine)}

In our “democracy?”   Exactly what “democracy” is that, Barry?

In the most common contemporary usage of the word and what (in my experience, anyhow) 95% of people mean when they use the term, Democracy refers to a system of government (either direct or representative) chosen by the people. Inevitably when this comes up, someone will trot out “of the people, by the people and for the people” in an attempt to demonstrate that our form of government is a Democracy just exactly as the Founding Fathers intended. Democracy, they proclaim, is when the people call all the shots, and that’s what we do when we elect our leaders.

Accurately defined, a direct Democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly — through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums, etc. To reduce it to its barest essentials, in a direct Democracy the people are making the decisions and the government is enforcing them. A representative Democracy is one in which the people elect the leadership. These leaders are then entrusted to make the decisions (theoretically subject to the will of the people), and to enforce them. On all but a small scale neither form of this will actually work and the Founding Fathers knew as much.

The fact of the matter is that Democracy was very much opposed and criticized by the Founding Fathers.

Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives (those which originate with the people) or referendums (those which originate with the state). You’ll notice that the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums. The reason, bluntly, is they were not confident that the people had the wisdom to make complex decisions for the benefit of all rather than based on self-interest and/or to not allow themselves to be persuaded by artful argument.

In Federalist No. 63, James Madison wrote that “There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind.”

In Federalist No. 10, Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a Democracy and a Republic is “the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest.” The primary benefit of this, Madison wrote, was to “refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose.”

Not only were they worried about the wisdom of the people, they saw great dangers in majorities forcing their will on minorities. Madison worried about the “leveling impulse” of Democracy. In Federalist No. 10, he advocated a Constitutional Republic over Democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He said, in part, “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

John Adams defined our Constitutional Republic as “a government of laws, and not of men.” He insisted that our government must be “bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend.” The power of government officials is thus checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers; these powers are instead separated into three distinct branches that serve as a check and balance against each other. Our Constitutional Republic is specifically designed so that no person or group can rise to absolute power; further, the power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate within the limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify.

In summary and simply put, classifying our government as a “Democracy” is wholly inaccurate.  Our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to protect us from a pure Democracy. It bothers me that our President isn’t aware of this fact.

I’ve quoted some more of the article under the fold, or you can go read the entire thing here.  Do at least read the bit under the fold — you’ll enjoy ol’ Barry’s advice on citizenship and listening to opposing viewpoints. 
Read the rest of this entry »

In picture format

Found it here:  Draw For Truth

And they stole the *idea* out of my and David’s brains …

David and I were sitting in the family room late one night (early one morning, more accurately) engaged in solving problems. Our insightful observations led to such conclusions as:

Read the rest of this entry »

In answer to a comment …

Earlier today, “Kievan Rus” left this comment on a thread about global warming:

OFF TOPIC NOTE TO BLOGGIST:

I notice you don’t bother to mention anything about the gun toting wingnut that went off at the Pentagon the other day.

If it had been a liberal who did the shooting you would be all over it, though.

I’m surprised. Not.

This is my response to “Kievan Rus” which is far too long for a comment window.

Read the rest of this entry »

I rank him up there with Charles Krauthammer

Here’s an example of why:

Suppose that your child is being held in a secret location by kidnappers who threaten to kill her within two hours unless they’re paid a ransom of $100,000 that you can’t raise. Suppose further that the FBI has just captured one of the kidnappers.

Would you want the agents to say this? “You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be obtained for you before police questioning.”

And would you want them to stop asking questions the second the suspect asks for a lawyer?

Neither the Fifth Amendment nor Miranda forbids aggressive interrogation to protect public safety.

Now imagine a more realistic scenario, along the lines of Al Qaeda’s aborted 1995 “Bojinka” plot: After learning that Qaeda terrorists with virtually undetectable bombs are planning to blow up 12 airliners carrying almost 4,000 passengers very soon, the FBI captures one of them. Would you want him Mirandized?

The questions answer themselves.

Reasonable people disagree about how much coercion interrogators should use to extract potentially lifesaving information from terrorists. (None at all, President Obama unwisely ordered soon after taking office.)

But no reasonable person could doubt that starting out with “you have the right to remain silent” is not the way to save lives.

Yet this is essentially the policy into which the Obama administration has locked itself by insisting that it did the right thing when it read Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas Day bomber, his Miranda rights after only 50 minutes of questioning and a hospital visit.

Go read the rest of it on National Journal Magazine.  I found this article, incidentally, on Fred Thompson’s twitter. I rather like ol’ Fred, personally. I’d like to see him run for president again. Only this time, I’d like to see him really put some effort into it. If he really tried, I think he might just win.

Just sayin’.

Tell it like it is

… and don’t hold back!

Sue originally sent this one along about two weeks ago. I just kept forgetting to post it so you could enjoy it too!

Found it in my drafts folder today

This is a few days old now — it’s from January 26 and 27 — but still worth publishing IMHO.  Found it over on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism site:

Fact Check: Reich Claims Non-Existent Fox News Led Conservative Charge in 1994

Former Obama economic advisor, Clinton Secretary of Labor, and Berkely Prof. Robert Reich claimed yesterday in his column at Salon.com that Fox News played a role in the conservative resurgence of 1994:

In December 1994, Bill Clinton proposed a so-called middle-class bill of rights including more tax credits for families with children, expanded retirement accounts, and tax-deductible college tuition. Clinton had lost his battle for healthcare reform. Even worse, by that time the Dems had lost the House and Senate. Washington was riding a huge anti-incumbent wave. Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge. Bill Clinton thought it desperately important to assure Americans he was on their side.

But Prof. Reich overlooked one minor detail: Fox News Channel’s first broadcast wasn’t until October 7, 1996.

The plan for FNC wasn’t even outlined until January of 1996, so what could explain such a patently false claim?  Is the professor suggesting that even in 1994, Fox News’ imminence did in fact play a role in the political upheaval of that year?  Or is this a moment where Fox Derangement Syndrome enters the realm of full-blown paranoia?

Either way, where was Salon on this one to save Reich from himself?  And would Prof. Reich tolerate fact-checking this poor from his college students?

This man is a professor of public policy at UC Berkeley.  And we wonder why California turns out so many nutjob LLLs?

Incidentally, as noted on Big Journalism –

Update 1/27 4:47pm PST: Salon corrected the mistake.  Reich’s article was cross-posted at Huffington Post (yet to be corrected) and at RobertReich.org, where the professor took out the error and replaced it with a dig at Fox News.

I’ll update that to note that Huffington Post corrected it as well — they removed “and Fox News” after the mention of Newt Gingrich.

Big Journalism