I'm in the middle of a brief return to civilization. Our annual Christie Lake vacation is on. We had to return for Evvy to take a test and Joe's "graduation" from elementary school.
I generally don't like to be away from my office for a week, but I've been so busy lately that I welcome the rest.
There seemed to be less traffic at the border this year. I don't know if I just got there at a slack time or if the economy has caused people to cut back. The price of gas is nearing $3.00/gallon again. That could be a factor.
Actually, the price of gas has been increasing pretty steadily for weeks now. Funny how there has been virtually no news coverage of the increases this time around. The last round of increases led to constant news coverage and Congressional inquiries. I wonder what's different now?
Monday, June 22, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Sports Lessons And Thrills
I, like most Americans, really enjoy sports. This past week in sports was really a good one for me.
First, the Pittsburgh Penguins won the Stanley Cup. I'm from Pittsburgh and I have followed the Pens since they were established in the 60's. The young Pittsburgh stars overcame the talent and experience of the Detroit Red Wings in a great seven game series.
The Pittsburgh win reinforced one of the great lessons of sport for life; namely: that hard work and a will to succeed can carry you past long odds. On paper, Detroit should have handled Pittsburgh, but the Pittsburgh players did not throw in the towel.
The best thing about the series, though, was the great time I had watching the games with my son, Joe. We rooted for the Penguins, complained about the "home-town" calls that went against them, and jeered the traitorous Marian Hossa (the Arlen Spector of the NHL). We waived the "Lets Go Pens" towels our crazy aunt sent us from Pittsburgh and we tried to stay in the same seats we had when the Pens scored so as not to jinx them. It was great fun.
There was a second sports lesson for Joe and his little league team-mates from major league sports. The Yankees trailed the Mets 8-7 with two out and two on in the bottom of the ninth. A-Rod popped up to the Mets second baseman. Inexplicably, he dropped it. Jeter and Teixeira scored and the Yankees won.
The lessons? Teixeria was on first. The pop-up was "certain" to be a routine last out. Many ballplayers would have just jogged around the bases and called it a night, but Teixeira followed the rules of coaches everywhere and ran hard. Because he did, he was able to score the winning run.
There were a couple of other lessons, too. A-Rod, angry at his pop-up, did not run, instead, he smashed his bat on the plate. When the second baseman dropped the ball Alex looked foolish. And the second baseman? Well, he forgot a basic baseball rule. Use two hands to catch the ball. You never know who is watching.
First, the Pittsburgh Penguins won the Stanley Cup. I'm from Pittsburgh and I have followed the Pens since they were established in the 60's. The young Pittsburgh stars overcame the talent and experience of the Detroit Red Wings in a great seven game series.
The Pittsburgh win reinforced one of the great lessons of sport for life; namely: that hard work and a will to succeed can carry you past long odds. On paper, Detroit should have handled Pittsburgh, but the Pittsburgh players did not throw in the towel.
The best thing about the series, though, was the great time I had watching the games with my son, Joe. We rooted for the Penguins, complained about the "home-town" calls that went against them, and jeered the traitorous Marian Hossa (the Arlen Spector of the NHL). We waived the "Lets Go Pens" towels our crazy aunt sent us from Pittsburgh and we tried to stay in the same seats we had when the Pens scored so as not to jinx them. It was great fun.
There was a second sports lesson for Joe and his little league team-mates from major league sports. The Yankees trailed the Mets 8-7 with two out and two on in the bottom of the ninth. A-Rod popped up to the Mets second baseman. Inexplicably, he dropped it. Jeter and Teixeira scored and the Yankees won.
The lessons? Teixeria was on first. The pop-up was "certain" to be a routine last out. Many ballplayers would have just jogged around the bases and called it a night, but Teixeira followed the rules of coaches everywhere and ran hard. Because he did, he was able to score the winning run.
There were a couple of other lessons, too. A-Rod, angry at his pop-up, did not run, instead, he smashed his bat on the plate. When the second baseman dropped the ball Alex looked foolish. And the second baseman? Well, he forgot a basic baseball rule. Use two hands to catch the ball. You never know who is watching.
Monday, June 8, 2009
GOP "Re-Takes" Control of NY Senate
In a surprise move, two Democrat State Senators (Hiram Monseratte and Pedro Espada) gave control of the State Senate back to the GOP by voting to organize with the Republicans and elect Dean Skelos as majority leader.
"Deposed" Democrat majority leader, Malcolm Smith declared the move illegal and he vowed to fight to give New Yorkers the government they voted for. Speaker Silver also indicated that he would work to get the Democrats back into control of the State Senate so that the agenda the people of New York voted for could move forward.
I'm glad that the GOP is back in control. The "agenda" that Smith and Silver were promoting was not what the people had in mind. Still, I'm a little disheartened by the fact that that at least one of the defectors (Sen. Monseratte) has been indicted for campaign finance violations and charged with assaulting his former girlfriend.
I understand the value of GOP control of the Senate. I just wish our new allies were better people. I'd prefer to get control of the Senate back by running good people who have good ideas. These guys are opportunists at best. I would not be surprised that they go back to the Democrats if they get a better offer.
"Deposed" Democrat majority leader, Malcolm Smith declared the move illegal and he vowed to fight to give New Yorkers the government they voted for. Speaker Silver also indicated that he would work to get the Democrats back into control of the State Senate so that the agenda the people of New York voted for could move forward.
I'm glad that the GOP is back in control. The "agenda" that Smith and Silver were promoting was not what the people had in mind. Still, I'm a little disheartened by the fact that that at least one of the defectors (Sen. Monseratte) has been indicted for campaign finance violations and charged with assaulting his former girlfriend.
I understand the value of GOP control of the Senate. I just wish our new allies were better people. I'd prefer to get control of the Senate back by running good people who have good ideas. These guys are opportunists at best. I would not be surprised that they go back to the Democrats if they get a better offer.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Will Dick Cheney Be "Outed" From GOP?
Former VP Dick Cheney made news when he expressed support of gay marriage stating that gay couples should have "any kind of arrangement they wish." This position is at odds with that of most conservative Republicans, whose causes Cheney usually champions.
I wonder how long it will take for liberal pundits to ask if Cheney will be "thrown out of the GOP"? Obviously, he won't, and its because no one in the GOP expects absolute ideological purity from every single Republican on every issue of the day.
In fact, in the same remarks, Cheney noted his respect for Federalism regarding the issue saying:
"I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish," he said, adding that regulations on marriage have traditionally been handled at the state level rather than the federal level, and should remain in states' jurisdictions. "Different states will make different decisions and I don't have problem with that."
I bet some liberals may want to change their views on the issue just so they don't have to admit they agree with Cheney on something!
I wonder how long it will take for liberal pundits to ask if Cheney will be "thrown out of the GOP"? Obviously, he won't, and its because no one in the GOP expects absolute ideological purity from every single Republican on every issue of the day.
In fact, in the same remarks, Cheney noted his respect for Federalism regarding the issue saying:
"I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish," he said, adding that regulations on marriage have traditionally been handled at the state level rather than the federal level, and should remain in states' jurisdictions. "Different states will make different decisions and I don't have problem with that."
I bet some liberals may want to change their views on the issue just so they don't have to admit they agree with Cheney on something!
Sunday, May 31, 2009
More On Sotomayor
My good (albeit, liberal) friend Paula Rubin chastised me for my remarks on Judge Sotomayor made in the post below. She suggested that I took the Judge's statement about the difference between a white male judge and a Latina judge, out of context. Here's a little context:
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
The portion in italics was what I initially quoted. Judge Sotomayor made that statement in a 2001 speech that was published in the Berkeley La Raza Journal.
Now, I want to be clear. I think that elections have consequences and one of those consequences is that the President nominates Federal judges. We elected a liberal Democrat President. He is not going to nominate Robert Bork. It has always been my view that unless a nominee is clearly unqualified, the President should get his choice.
Since the time of the Bork nomination, the Democrats have not concurred with that theory. It has been deemed perfectly reasonable to vote against a nominee because he was "too conservative". That was the basis on which the majority of Democratic Senators voted against the Alito and Roberts nominations. Republicans have generally adhered to the former theory, as evidenced by their support of the Breyer and Ginsburg nominations during the Clinton Administration.
I think it is fair to question a nominee to our highest Court about her judicial philosophy. It is quite clear that if a white, male judicial nominee expressed the view that his experiences as a white male better suited him to be a judge than those of a Latina, he would be pilloried. Thus, it seems that Judge Sotomayor ought to be asked to elaborate on those remarks.
Some questions in this regard come to mind. Did the fact that she is a Latina influence her thinking in reaching her decision in Ricci v. DeStefano? Does she think a white male judge would have reached a different decision? This was an affirmative action case that is now before the Supreme Court.
While I expect Judge Sotomayor to be confirmed, no conservative should be happy about it. Souter was a reliable liberal vote but Judge Sotomayor is likely to be a more vociferous advocate of left-wing causes. And, at age 55, she will likely be there for a long time.
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
The portion in italics was what I initially quoted. Judge Sotomayor made that statement in a 2001 speech that was published in the Berkeley La Raza Journal.
Now, I want to be clear. I think that elections have consequences and one of those consequences is that the President nominates Federal judges. We elected a liberal Democrat President. He is not going to nominate Robert Bork. It has always been my view that unless a nominee is clearly unqualified, the President should get his choice.
Since the time of the Bork nomination, the Democrats have not concurred with that theory. It has been deemed perfectly reasonable to vote against a nominee because he was "too conservative". That was the basis on which the majority of Democratic Senators voted against the Alito and Roberts nominations. Republicans have generally adhered to the former theory, as evidenced by their support of the Breyer and Ginsburg nominations during the Clinton Administration.
I think it is fair to question a nominee to our highest Court about her judicial philosophy. It is quite clear that if a white, male judicial nominee expressed the view that his experiences as a white male better suited him to be a judge than those of a Latina, he would be pilloried. Thus, it seems that Judge Sotomayor ought to be asked to elaborate on those remarks.
Some questions in this regard come to mind. Did the fact that she is a Latina influence her thinking in reaching her decision in Ricci v. DeStefano? Does she think a white male judge would have reached a different decision? This was an affirmative action case that is now before the Supreme Court.
While I expect Judge Sotomayor to be confirmed, no conservative should be happy about it. Souter was a reliable liberal vote but Judge Sotomayor is likely to be a more vociferous advocate of left-wing causes. And, at age 55, she will likely be there for a long time.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sotomayor's Views Should Be Explored
As you know, the President has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter.
It is almost a certainty that she will be confirmed. I think, however, that it is amazing how many people have warned the GOP to be very cautious in criticising her. I guess I missed all those warnings to Democrats who have adamantly opposed virtually every Republican nominee from Robert Bork to Samuel Alito.
Moreover, any person being reviewed for such an important office ought to be given reasonable scrutiny. There are certainly a few legitimate issues that should be explored. For example, Judge Sotomayor is quoted as having made the following statement:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
If a white male made the opposite observation, he would be immediately rejected by almost everyone. I will be quite interested to hear what the Judge says she meant by this. It seems to be a sentiment that is at odds with the notion that color of skin and ethnic background are not supposed to be factors in public life.
It is almost a certainty that she will be confirmed. I think, however, that it is amazing how many people have warned the GOP to be very cautious in criticising her. I guess I missed all those warnings to Democrats who have adamantly opposed virtually every Republican nominee from Robert Bork to Samuel Alito.
Moreover, any person being reviewed for such an important office ought to be given reasonable scrutiny. There are certainly a few legitimate issues that should be explored. For example, Judge Sotomayor is quoted as having made the following statement:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
If a white male made the opposite observation, he would be immediately rejected by almost everyone. I will be quite interested to hear what the Judge says she meant by this. It seems to be a sentiment that is at odds with the notion that color of skin and ethnic background are not supposed to be factors in public life.
Battle For GOP Continues
I'm sure you have all been watching the battle brewing between conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney on one side and Colin Powell and Tom Ridge on the other.
Each side is claiming to represent the real GOP.
I'm no longer sure what the real GOP is. I am, however, pretty sure that Colin Powell does not represent a set of policy prerogatives of a party I'd want to be a member of. I hear that Powell and his supporters think the GOP should simply take a pass on the Sotomayor nomination. Their thinking goes "she's going to be confirmed, so opposition will just alienate women and Hispanics from the GOP".
David Broder wrote that "most intelligent Republican strategists" were alarmed by the loss of Hispanic support over the GOP's tough stance against immigration reform. He suggested that the GOP cannot afford to further alienate this group.
Well, I'm not a Republican strategist and I'm probably not that intelligent either, but, I cannot understand why supporting a law (immigration reform) which would increase the numbers of Hispanic voters, is considered intelligent. G.W. Bush did the best any Republican ever did with that group and he only got 40% of their vote.
More importantly, what kind of government leader casts votes solely on the basis of political impact?
Why could a majority of Democrats vote against Justices Roberts and Alito, solely on the grounds that their political views were too conservative, without any criticism, but a vote against Judge Sotomayor because she is too liberal is deemed partisan and wrong? President Obama voted against both Roberts and Alito despite acknowledging that both were first rate and well qualified. His no votes were based purely on political philosophy.
This brings me back to my main point. If the GOP is going to remain a serious, viable party, it has to have a discernible body of ideas and principles. The members of the party ought not be expected to subscribe to every single ideological position, but, they ought to agree to most of, if not all, of the core principles.
Colin Powell has indicated that we need a more "moderate" GOP. What does that mean? I want to know what principles and policies he thinks the GOP should advocate. Everything I've heard him say indicates that he agrees down the line with President Obama. If so, how can he deem himself a Republican. Obama's agenda is the most liberal we have ever seen.
From 1932 through 1994 the GOP rarely held a majority in either House or Senate. Everyone was cordial and they all got along. Bob Michel was a fine gentleman, Everett Dirksen a great guy. But, in the end, they were almost always in the minority. They got invited to dinner parties and played golf with the Democrats, but it was the Democrats that ran the country.
If the GOP is simply going to be a faint shadow of the Democrat party, its really not needed. I'll have to find a new party to call home. But there is a place in American politics for an active opposition party. I surely hope that the GOP does not become the Obama lapdog party that Gen. Powell seems to be advocating for.
Each side is claiming to represent the real GOP.
I'm no longer sure what the real GOP is. I am, however, pretty sure that Colin Powell does not represent a set of policy prerogatives of a party I'd want to be a member of. I hear that Powell and his supporters think the GOP should simply take a pass on the Sotomayor nomination. Their thinking goes "she's going to be confirmed, so opposition will just alienate women and Hispanics from the GOP".
David Broder wrote that "most intelligent Republican strategists" were alarmed by the loss of Hispanic support over the GOP's tough stance against immigration reform. He suggested that the GOP cannot afford to further alienate this group.
Well, I'm not a Republican strategist and I'm probably not that intelligent either, but, I cannot understand why supporting a law (immigration reform) which would increase the numbers of Hispanic voters, is considered intelligent. G.W. Bush did the best any Republican ever did with that group and he only got 40% of their vote.
More importantly, what kind of government leader casts votes solely on the basis of political impact?
Why could a majority of Democrats vote against Justices Roberts and Alito, solely on the grounds that their political views were too conservative, without any criticism, but a vote against Judge Sotomayor because she is too liberal is deemed partisan and wrong? President Obama voted against both Roberts and Alito despite acknowledging that both were first rate and well qualified. His no votes were based purely on political philosophy.
This brings me back to my main point. If the GOP is going to remain a serious, viable party, it has to have a discernible body of ideas and principles. The members of the party ought not be expected to subscribe to every single ideological position, but, they ought to agree to most of, if not all, of the core principles.
Colin Powell has indicated that we need a more "moderate" GOP. What does that mean? I want to know what principles and policies he thinks the GOP should advocate. Everything I've heard him say indicates that he agrees down the line with President Obama. If so, how can he deem himself a Republican. Obama's agenda is the most liberal we have ever seen.
From 1932 through 1994 the GOP rarely held a majority in either House or Senate. Everyone was cordial and they all got along. Bob Michel was a fine gentleman, Everett Dirksen a great guy. But, in the end, they were almost always in the minority. They got invited to dinner parties and played golf with the Democrats, but it was the Democrats that ran the country.
If the GOP is simply going to be a faint shadow of the Democrat party, its really not needed. I'll have to find a new party to call home. But there is a place in American politics for an active opposition party. I surely hope that the GOP does not become the Obama lapdog party that Gen. Powell seems to be advocating for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
