Friday, July 30, 2010

A Mosque or a Mosquerade? Let's Dig Deeper

My far right friends are going to have a fit. Maybe even a few of the right of center moderates will “tsk, tsk”. But for me, the U.S. Constitution comes first.

The new proposed Mosque-Islamic Cultural Center seems to be on the fast track for approval in New York City. Just two blocks from “Ground Zero”, it has raised an absolute firestorm among those who feel it is a slap in the face to the 9/11 heroes. Apparently it is the location, location, location that creates the uproar although if it were 10 blocks away, or 1.75 miles, or wherever in Manhattan, I think the issue would remain.

However, considering only the issue of whether a religious group has the right to buy a building for sale, demolish it and rebuild a new building according to local building codes, and have a place to practice their religion, there can be no argument. We cannot let fear- and other mongering to allow us to curb anyone’s legitimate rights under the Constitution.

But now the BIG “however”. If it is found beyond a reasonable doubt that the money being raised to build this edifice comes from radical Islamic terrorist supporters, or if there is found to be any kind of radical tie to any Mosque supporters or the Imam, then all bets are off.

Anyone with even the most oblique ties to those considered radical, or anyone who has declared or supported a jihad against the U.S. and its citizens, should not be allowed to build a monument to the most radical and twisted form of Islam. We have been acculturated since 9/11 to look askance at anything related to the Islamic beliefs, forgetting that Islam has always been one of the three major religions of the world. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all descended from Abraham.

People have perverted Christianity and Judaism before as well; we need to watch for the radicals of any faith. Nevertheless, if this Islamic cultural center is what it is purported to be, who knows, we might all learn something about tolerance. I’ll be watching.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

The Government Wants To Be Our Nanny

Check this out. Wisconsin is debating how to combat obesity, a right honorable goal. They are getting serious about changing zoning laws to limit the number of fast-food businesses in certain areas, ESPECIALLY in poor areas.

Do they think that poor people are dumb; that they cannot make their own choices? Do we have to legislate where they can buy the food they might like? Will KFC now be miles away causing the poor to waste more gas to get what they want. Where is the freedom of choice? And why pick on
poor folks. If it is so good for them, how about the rest of us fatties? I too have a problem seeing a McDonald's across from a Burger King, next to a Pizza Hut, kitty-corner from a Wendy's. But for me it is problem of choice. Not which food, but which restaurant has the best deals that day. Can't beat that dollar menu. Oh, I'll bet they want to do away with that too so the poor people can't take the few dollars they have a get a whole meal.

This is government regulation gone awry. I have a right to my Angus burgers, and so do the poor. This is blatant discrimination. Eaters of the world, unite!

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Immigration Needs An Answer, and Soon

The immigration issue needs to be addressed by Congress soon. While a federal judge may still derail the new Arizona law, it still leaves the bigger issue for someone to solve. Arizonans and others are sick of our sovereign nation being invaded by illegals. No matter that they may be coming to better their lives, get jobs, send money home, or other good reasons. There must be some organization to immigration, some comprehensive plan to deal with the continuing influx.

Ironically Mexican authorities would not allow it if non-Mexicans moved into their country illegally. Their solutions are even more harsh than the harshest proposal of anyone in the U.S. considered “anti-illegal.”

Mention anything close to amnesty, allowing those already here, to be “excused” and given the right to stay, and many will lapse into apoplexy. Yet is it reasonable to think that we can somehow roundup the estimated 12 million illegals in the country and put them on the bus back to Mexico? Do we really think they would stay put if there were no better deterrent than a broken down wall on the border?
While not everyone will agree with these solutions, we have to take some steps to get handle on this quickly. Here are my (hardly original) suggestions:

• Create a way to citizenship requiring registration with the government
• Have a criminal background check
• Pay a substantial fine for violating the laws of the U.S.
• Learn English before the citizenship test
• Get in the back of the line behind all the legal applicants for entrance to our great country.

Once they have registered and made the commitment to do the above in a defined amount of time, they could then obtain a “chartreuse card” allowing them to remain in the country and work. In fact, there must be a time limit on when they must find a way to support themselves and not be a burden of our social system. If they miss any of the requirements, they must agree to return to their home countries.

This, with a few more modifications, would be far better than the haphazard and sometimes cruel system we have now. We can still be a nation of immigrants, but it must be structured so that no one is harmed, especially those citizens who were born here. Anyone disagree?

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Afghanistan - At What Cost?

I read today about the U.S. efforts to help Afghanistan get electric power to the 90% who do not have it. I first read with pride that we have financed and built a generation plant that would ease the suffering of this stone-age country.

I read further that the plant had huge cost overruns, along with shoddy workmanship and the requisite corruption. That plant, built at a cost of about $305 million dollars (and who knows if this is the real cost), is now mostly idle because the Diesel fuel required to run the turbines is too expensive. So the Afghans are importing cheaper electricity from other sources. They say, "thanks, but no thanks" to our now completed power plant. We have spent over $60 b-b-billion for this war in Afghanistan. We are fighting an essentially unseen enemy, who looks like every other civilian in the area. Our troops are required to hold fire to avoid killing civilians. They have to be shot at first (with that method's concomitant troop losses), before they can engage. Then when they do engage in a firefight and a "civilian" is killed while they were having lunch with a Taliban fighter, the U.S. gets raked over the international coals for its actions.

I probably am not for a precipitous withdrawal allowing the Taliban and their pals in al-Qaeda to have free rein, but we'd better develop new Rules of Engagement that allow us a chance to win this war. $60 billion could have bought us about 20 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers - not that we need them...yet.

Friday, July 16, 2010

The Bigger They Are, the Harder They Fall - Obama's Future?

No one is more surprised than I am at the precipitous fall in the President's approval rating (well, there might be a few others). From those heady post-election days when even some Democrats were secretly hoping for some positive change they could believe in.

Today, even Mr. Obama's base is blaming him for spilled oil, Wall Street greed, unemployment, lack of oysters, and maybe even the widespread flooding. Gosh, GOD he is not, despite what those people say.
I, too, was hopeful when Mr. Obama promised to end the rancor and bickering in Washington in the hopes of getting things done. Now even he bashes the Republicans for everything from tax policy to government regulation. He offers no more olive branches to the other side, probably because they just take the olives for their martinis, and return the charred branch. You can only get burned so much before you back off a little.

But I still cringe when Mr. Obama makes light of a ranking conservative using some of the same hyperbole and innuendo he sought to bury. Maybe he has the adopted the age-old philosophy, that "if you can't beat 'em. join 'em." No, not take their side. Oh no, join 'em down in the gutter where playing dirty is now part of the game. The audacity.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

My Pet Peeve is Wrong - Use Both Lanes

How many times have you dutifully obeyed the sign to "merge right" when the upcoming left lane was closed? And how many times have you cursed at the drivers who continue in the left lane and then finagle their way into the right lane much further up the road than you? It has been a pet peeve on mine for years, and law abider that I am, I still merge early to I don't have to be one of those "entitled" people who zoom up on the left and then with puppy dog eyes, beg to be let in. Or worse, just keep moving right until your choice is to let them in or bash your left fender.

Come to find out that we are doing this all wrong. Marilyn vos Savant, the high-IQ genius in the weekly Parade magazine, has determined that merging right only slows traffic. By using both lanes right up to the point of merge actually makes the traffic move much faster.

But how do we convey that message so that road rage does not escalate to fist fights between families on the median?

Signage! Instead of the stupid "merge right" signs, motorists can be warned of a lane closure ahead, but then be encouraged to "Use Both Lanes". "Aha," you say, but at the merge choke point, won't the fists still fly?
Signage again! How about a large sign at the bottleneck that says simply, "Alternate with Your Neighbor." Calling them a neighbor lowers the temperature right away and even most aggressive Americans can live with "Take Your Turn" that they should remember from Kindergarten. Then traffic will flow more smoothly, the left lane will not be wasted and empty (save for those miscreants trying to cut in), and all can move along feeling good that they waved their neighbor through before they took their turn. Don't you feel better already?

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Financial Reform Bill - Help from Both Sides?

I don’t know whether the upcoming financial reform bill is exactly what is needed to “fix” the system, or not. My hope is that it is a start that a majority can support and then tweak the “unforeseen consequences” or the other gritty issues that were left out.

I am most surprised, pleasantly I think, that three Republicans plan to join the Dems in supporting this reform legislation. They are taking great risks, maybe not as great as the signers of the Declaration of Independence who risked their very lives, but who still could face a political death from those on the right who see any bipartisanship as treason.

Even John McCain, at this time in his re-election fight, could not mount another McCain-Feingold type of bill, joining with the “enemy” to actually move some things forward. He could not risk the wrath of right-wingers who might convince even the moderates that he is selling out to liberals. Good thing McCain-Feingold passed a long time ago, despite its “milquetoast” effect on real campaign finance reform.

Now I wish some Democrats, who feel that they are statesmen and stateswomen, could see their way clear to back some moderate Republican proposals. I doubt it will happen, but that would be a change I could believe in.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Who's to Blame for Lindsay's Messes?

I really could not care less about Lindsay Lohan and her infamous escapades. Yet I still write this blog about her. My irritation today is less about Lindsey than it is about her parents, particularly her father.

Now that their Golden Goose is in real trouble, they are side-stepping the real issue with their daughter -- their lack of parenting of a willful child when they had the chance.

Mr. Lohan most recently appeared on camera after his daughter's 90 day jail sentence condemning the penalty and then went on to say that the "system" has failed his daughter. While he is an apologist for Lindsey's behavior, he deflects and blame from himself by blaming the "system" for not doing something.

Whoa, who raised this kid and let her run with her celebrity pretty much unbridled? The time for control was when she was a minor. It is so much harder to "help" an adult child, but they missed their opportunity many years ago. They could have taken away from the fast-paced
Hollywood world, kept her from making films until she matured a little more. But then, how could they do that with their meal ticket? The whole affair is sickening. It is clear from Lindsey's croc tears and astonished look when she was held to account for her actions, that she doesn't believe the rules should apply to her.

"Moi, going to jail...moi?" She really wondered how that could be. She TRIED to make her court-ordered meetings, but somehow could not. Not my fault she thinks. It is the "system" who is at fault. Wonder where she learned that, Michael?

Friday, July 9, 2010

"Saint James" Blesses Miami

I only peripherally follow NBA bball, but the LeBron James Story (capital S) was mildly intriguing, especially after the choice was made.

And it was a choice, wasn't it? Isn't that what Free Agency is about. The choice to stay or move on -whatever works out best for you?

I am not surprised by the Miami choice for lots of reasons, not the least of which is winning! And then their are his best buds there as well to help scope out the bars and beaches of South Beach.

But in this SPORT where one expects a scintilla of SPORTSMANSHIP, especially from management (fans are fickle, fair-weather, at best). The condemnation from the Cavs owner Dan Gilbert, along with the unnecessary and mean name calling ("cowardly") for someone you embraced just minutes earlier, is shameful and ludicrous at the same time. Had James chosen Cleveland, they would have been best buds as well, with lots of nice things to say. So that one decision made LeBron a coward and many other unspeakable things apparently.
Disappointment would be understandable, maybe even a little anger and sense of loss, but the unsportsmanlike conduct of so many who didn't get chosen is really appalling. "You pays
your money, and you takes your chances" to paraphrase "Punch".

When you lose, you should still act like a winner or at least a good loser. Clearly Cleveland doesn't get that. Too bad.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Patriotism Still Lives

Down with a very bad cold over the 4th of July weekend, I had the chance to watch the national Independence Day celebrations on TV. Yes, that was plural. I watched the shows from New York, Boston, and Washington, D.C. I TIVOed them actually, but managed to get them all watched by the morning of the 5th.
It was a bit much, but not too much. I enjoyed the music, contemporary as well as patriotic, and was stirred as always by Sousa's Stars and Stripes Forever. That, and the National Anthem and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's rendition of the Battle Hymn of the Republic still brings me to shed a tear or two.

During these very tough times for our country, it might seem hard to rally the "rah rah" patriotic spirit of past years. Across the U.S. many fireworks displays were cancelled for lack of funds. Yet, as I watched all three shows, I made a point to watch the people attending. Many were adults, but the majority in my estimation were under 30. And while you might say that every one loves a party for whatever reason, I watched as people, old and young, sang along to "Yankee Doodle", or "It's a Grand Old Flag", and more than a few had tears after hearing and singing the "Star-Spangled Banner". That was a good sign that, "our flag was still there".

The many tributes to our Armed Forces, serving now and in the past, might seem a little worn after eight years of war, but what American cannot be moved by the sight of our wounded warriors, many still wanting to return to their units after losing an arm or leg.
Besides the obvious fun of a holiday, and the oft-heard complaint that most do not appreciate the real reason for celebration, I must disagree.

Despite some who have understandably given up because of the continued, unbelievable assaults on the Gulf states, or because they cannot find a job to support their families, there are exponentially more who still feel that the U.S.A. is the very best place to live, despite what we hope are soluable problems.

In fact, we cannot give up even if we have few or no real statesmen in Washington anymore. We cannot let those who signed that Declaration in July 1776 have all their work and real sacrifice be for naught after a relatively short 234 years.

There is lots to do, lots to think about, and much more hard work, and maybe even higher taxes to get us out of the current pickle, but I am sure that we will do it. The Stars and Stripes. Forever.