originally posted at: 2BucksWorth.com
There has been alot of sound a fury from the right over the nomination of federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme court. I've given it alot of thought and frankly I can't see the reason for all the fuss.
Yes, she is a liberal judge (what did you expect? President Obama is a liberal...President Bush appointed two conservatives to the court, why does this shock anyone?) No, she is not a strict constructionist (again, neither is the President, and he won the right to make the appointments). But some food for thought for my conservative brethren & sistren before they go hammer & tongs after this woman.
1. She's replacing a liberal justice, so it's not like this is tipping the balance of the court.
2. She's going to get confirmed anyway. the GOP doesn't have the votes in the Senate to do anything about it.
3. She'll be the first Hispanic justice. Now, I know that shouldn't matter, and it truly doesn't matter to me. But if you think it won't matter at the ballot box if you savage the lady in the Senate, you're nuts.
4. She's turning out to be more conservative-ish than originally thought. While she'll never put Rush Limbaugh out of work ,she has sided with the conservative member of the appellate court more often than her liberal colleague. And she has made some very strong anti-abortion statements (she's a Catholic, you know...and she'll make 6 Catholics out of 9 justices. Again, that shouldn't matter regarding her confirmation, but it can't make pro-choice activist groups very comfortable.)
So if I were running the show for the senate GOP (which I decidedly am not), I would make sure she was asked some tough questions and given a chance to explain some of her more controversial remarks; then I would not only vote for her confirmation, I would applaud it. It's a win-win for Republicans. If she turns out to be far left, we got what we expected. But if she is indeed closer to the center than originally suspected, the court shifts to the right even more.
Nolanbuck
Friday, May 29, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Obama's Gitmo Plan Falls Short
originally posted at: 2BucksWorth.com
In his first week in office, President Obama declared that the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base would be closed. He didn't say how he was going to pull it off, but you have to give him credit for trying to keep a campaign promise.
From that day to this week, his opponents have been allowed to frame the argument about the closing of the controversial prison, and his lack of details led to Congress refusing to fund the closing of the facility.
Now yesterday, the President gave a speech at the National Archives to take back control of this issue. I'm not going to break down the whole speech (which was very long) but here's some thoughts...
1. I find it tacky at best to give a political speech at a sacred place like the National Archives. Make no mistake, the plans he talked about in this speech are political calculations to endear us to other countries and please the U.S. left.
2. While I agree that "enhanced interrogation techniques" are not always the best option, they are occasionally a better option than waiting for something bad to happen. We know that water-boarding revealed a plot for a 9-11 style attack on Los Angeles. If the President thinks that our "torture" could be a recruiting tool for terrorists, what do you think successful attack on a major U.S. city will do for terrorists recruiting?
3. For a guy who says he is not interested in rehashing the past 8 years, the President spent an awful lot of time taking about the last 8 years.
4. I'm all for deporting some of the illegal combatants if other countries will take them and can assure us they will not be released or escape.
5. I'm all for reviewing these cases, as the President proposes, and getting on with prosecutions where warranted.
6. Some of these terrorists cannot be tried here in the U.S., and should not be housed here, even in federal super-max prisons. Even if they can't escape (there's a 1st time for everything), these baddest of the baddies are rock-stars in the terrorist and anti-U.S. crowd, they will preach their hate to the most willing listeners and radicalize those who will someday be released (like the home grown terrorists who were recently caught trying to blow up New York synagogues and military planes, they were radicalized while in prison).
One more point: I know that some of you think I hate President Obama, but nothing could be farther from the truth. He's a very smart man who probably really does want what he thinks is best for the country. The "he thinks" part is where I begin to disagree. Despite all of Mr. Obama's charm, he's still a politician...which means I probably won't trust him; and he's a liberal...which means I probably won't agree with him often. Trying to make that disagreement into hate, or worse: racism, only cheapens the tradition of debate that our country holds so dear.
Nolanbuck
In his first week in office, President Obama declared that the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base would be closed. He didn't say how he was going to pull it off, but you have to give him credit for trying to keep a campaign promise.
From that day to this week, his opponents have been allowed to frame the argument about the closing of the controversial prison, and his lack of details led to Congress refusing to fund the closing of the facility.
Now yesterday, the President gave a speech at the National Archives to take back control of this issue. I'm not going to break down the whole speech (which was very long) but here's some thoughts...
1. I find it tacky at best to give a political speech at a sacred place like the National Archives. Make no mistake, the plans he talked about in this speech are political calculations to endear us to other countries and please the U.S. left.
2. While I agree that "enhanced interrogation techniques" are not always the best option, they are occasionally a better option than waiting for something bad to happen. We know that water-boarding revealed a plot for a 9-11 style attack on Los Angeles. If the President thinks that our "torture" could be a recruiting tool for terrorists, what do you think successful attack on a major U.S. city will do for terrorists recruiting?
3. For a guy who says he is not interested in rehashing the past 8 years, the President spent an awful lot of time taking about the last 8 years.
4. I'm all for deporting some of the illegal combatants if other countries will take them and can assure us they will not be released or escape.
5. I'm all for reviewing these cases, as the President proposes, and getting on with prosecutions where warranted.
6. Some of these terrorists cannot be tried here in the U.S., and should not be housed here, even in federal super-max prisons. Even if they can't escape (there's a 1st time for everything), these baddest of the baddies are rock-stars in the terrorist and anti-U.S. crowd, they will preach their hate to the most willing listeners and radicalize those who will someday be released (like the home grown terrorists who were recently caught trying to blow up New York synagogues and military planes, they were radicalized while in prison).
One more point: I know that some of you think I hate President Obama, but nothing could be farther from the truth. He's a very smart man who probably really does want what he thinks is best for the country. The "he thinks" part is where I begin to disagree. Despite all of Mr. Obama's charm, he's still a politician...which means I probably won't trust him; and he's a liberal...which means I probably won't agree with him often. Trying to make that disagreement into hate, or worse: racism, only cheapens the tradition of debate that our country holds so dear.
Nolanbuck
The Prez Snubs Kindergarteners
originally posted at: 2BucksWorth.com
I thought President Obama was for the "little people", but apparently that doesn't apply if you're little because you are five years old.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Kindergarteners-Snubbed-for-Steelers.html
That's just cold. They're little kids for crying out loud (and apparently, they were...crying out loud, that is).
Best line in the story:
Ouch. Good thing he won't be running for reelection in 2022.
Nolanbuck
I thought President Obama was for the "little people", but apparently that doesn't apply if you're little because you are five years old.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Kindergarteners-Snubbed-for-Steelers.html
That's just cold. They're little kids for crying out loud (and apparently, they were...crying out loud, that is).
Best line in the story:
"Here we have President Obama and his administration saying, 'Here we are for the common, middle class people,' and here he is not letting 150 5- and 6-year-olds into the White House because he’s throwing a lunch for a bunch of grown millionaires," Stine said.
Ouch. Good thing he won't be running for reelection in 2022.
Nolanbuck
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
California Dreamin' Turns Into a Nightmare
Originally posted at: 2BucksWorth.com
The voters of California yesterday turned down a budget initiative full of tax hikes and borrowing put forth by Democrats in the state legislature and their RINO governorator. Apparently, those silly Californians didn't get the memo about people wanting bigger government from that other famous RINO, Colin Powell.
Now there's even talk of the rest of the country having to bail our most populous state, a state with an economy the size of the UK. So the rest of us will get to pay for California's irresponsibility? That sounds familiar.
Not that theses point haven't been brought up before, but some things come into my mind about this Cali mess:
1. Don't they have enough rich liberals in California to pay for all of these programs they can't afford? Why don't they do what Joe Biden calls their "patriotic duty" and pay more taxes voluntarily?
2. When people are leaving California in droves, did they really think more taxes was the answer? Hint: It's the taxpayers that are leaving, not the people you're spending it on.
There's a reason why we don't all live on what might be the most beautiful stretch of land on the planet, some of us can't afford it. Apparently now, neither can Californians.
Nolanbuck
The voters of California yesterday turned down a budget initiative full of tax hikes and borrowing put forth by Democrats in the state legislature and their RINO governorator. Apparently, those silly Californians didn't get the memo about people wanting bigger government from that other famous RINO, Colin Powell.
Now there's even talk of the rest of the country having to bail our most populous state, a state with an economy the size of the UK. So the rest of us will get to pay for California's irresponsibility? That sounds familiar.
Not that theses point haven't been brought up before, but some things come into my mind about this Cali mess:
1. Don't they have enough rich liberals in California to pay for all of these programs they can't afford? Why don't they do what Joe Biden calls their "patriotic duty" and pay more taxes voluntarily?
2. When people are leaving California in droves, did they really think more taxes was the answer? Hint: It's the taxpayers that are leaving, not the people you're spending it on.
There's a reason why we don't all live on what might be the most beautiful stretch of land on the planet, some of us can't afford it. Apparently now, neither can Californians.
Nolanbuck
Monday, May 11, 2009
Epic Failure
Originally posted at: 2BucksWorth.com
Back in January, Rush Limbaugh created apoplexy in the media, the Democratic party, and half of the Republican party by saying that he hoped Obama's presidency fails. I know that he's an entertainer and I didn't make a big deal of it...plus if you listen to the entire clip, I kind of agree with him.
You don't have to agree with his statement, but let's all agree on two things: 1) the backlash to his comments was overdone political opportunism, and 2) his ratings go up every time the left has a fit over something he says, so he doesn't care if you're offended. And again, the man is only a talk show host, even if he's right sometimes.
Fast forward to last week at the White House Correspondent's dinner when Wanda Sykes, an admittedly talented if acerbic comic, had some jokes about race, terrorism, drug addiction, and what she'd like to see happen to the President's critics.
Rather that being shocked, or at least maintain a sense of decorum, my President laughed at these crude remarks. So do you still want a President who thinks, terrorism, drug addiction, and kidney failure is funny, do you? Well I can't speak for hope, but this is a change, I'll give you that.
Nolanbuck
Back in January, Rush Limbaugh created apoplexy in the media, the Democratic party, and half of the Republican party by saying that he hoped Obama's presidency fails. I know that he's an entertainer and I didn't make a big deal of it...plus if you listen to the entire clip, I kind of agree with him.
You don't have to agree with his statement, but let's all agree on two things: 1) the backlash to his comments was overdone political opportunism, and 2) his ratings go up every time the left has a fit over something he says, so he doesn't care if you're offended. And again, the man is only a talk show host, even if he's right sometimes.
Fast forward to last week at the White House Correspondent's dinner when Wanda Sykes, an admittedly talented if acerbic comic, had some jokes about race, terrorism, drug addiction, and what she'd like to see happen to the President's critics.
Rather that being shocked, or at least maintain a sense of decorum, my President laughed at these crude remarks. So do you still want a President who thinks, terrorism, drug addiction, and kidney failure is funny, do you? Well I can't speak for hope, but this is a change, I'll give you that.
Nolanbuck
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Picture Worth 1,000 Screams
Originally posted at: 2BucksWorth.com
After scaring the crap out of lower Manhattan and costing the taxpayers over $350,000 for what $800 worth of PhotoShop could have accomplished, the White House today finally released the now infamous Air Force One-Statue of Liberty flyover pic.
You may remember the debacle that the photo op caused, a panic in downtown New York as people evacuated buildings and ran through the streets thinking it was another 9-11 attack, only later to find it was just the President's plane buzzing their office buildings.
The photo came out, after the White House had originally said they weren't going to release it. Apparently someone in the administration realized that this was not in keeping with Mr. Obama's campaign promises of a "more open government", and furthermore that not releasing these embarrassing shots, while at the same time releasing CIA "torture" photos that will probably get some government employees killed, was hypocritical at the very least.
So, enjoy your $350,000 photo, America. And look to the skies, your town might be the next one to hold a Presidential photo-op/disaster drill. Or it could be real terrorists; apparently you never know with this bunch.
Nolanbuck
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Britian Bans 16 "Least Wanted"
Originally posted at: 2BucksWorth.com
I have always been a Britophile. Not merely our mother country, the UK has also been the US's closest ally and best friend for a century. I am loathe to be critical of such a normally outstanding nation, but sometimes they do things that make me scratch my head.
This week, the British Home Office released the names of 16 very bad people that it doesn't want to come to their fair isles. Ever. Some of them are no-brainers...
Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky (Russian skin-head racist murderers)
A gaggle of various and sundry Muslim extremists and terrorists
Mike Guzovsky (a Kahanist/Jewish fundamentalist)
Erich Gliebe (neo-nazi)
Stephen Donald Black (former grand wizard of the KKK)
American Baptist pastor Fred Waldron Phelps Snr and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper (nutballs who protest soldiers' funerals because they were supposedly fighting for gay rights)
and Michael Savage (conservative talk-show host)
What? Michael Savage? WTH did he do? When is saying things you don't agree with the same as killing people or rasing money for terrorist front organizations? I don't agree with some of the things Savage says, but I'd never censor him or bar him from the country for speaking his mind.
Even the Phelps, who are twisted, disrespectful and generally disreputable, are only expressing their right to free speech. Yes they are annoying and embarrasing, but enemies of the state? Hardly.
IMHO, any country that starts banning spewers of vitriol and leaves Janeane Garafalo off the list calls their own good judgement into question at the very least.
This is starting to remind me of certain liberal groups in this country, those who will say that if you don't agree with them you are evil. If you don't support President Obama's policies you are a racist (per Garafalo), if you are pro-life you are a misogynist (or a religious zealot), if you support traditional marriage you are a homophobe (or a religious zealot). Or maybe, maybe we just disagree, in a country where that is still allowed. Nah, can't be that.
Yes, a few people are incurably violent or hateful. But for the rest of us, trying to win an argument by labeling someone as a hater is the coward's way to debate a point you can't defend otherwise. Debate and disagreement never hurt anyone, it's when debate is no longer tolerated that things get dicey.
Nolanbuck
I have always been a Britophile. Not merely our mother country, the UK has also been the US's closest ally and best friend for a century. I am loathe to be critical of such a normally outstanding nation, but sometimes they do things that make me scratch my head.
This week, the British Home Office released the names of 16 very bad people that it doesn't want to come to their fair isles. Ever. Some of them are no-brainers...
Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky (Russian skin-head racist murderers)
A gaggle of various and sundry Muslim extremists and terrorists
Mike Guzovsky (a Kahanist/Jewish fundamentalist)
Erich Gliebe (neo-nazi)
Stephen Donald Black (former grand wizard of the KKK)
American Baptist pastor Fred Waldron Phelps Snr and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper (nutballs who protest soldiers' funerals because they were supposedly fighting for gay rights)
and Michael Savage (conservative talk-show host)
What? Michael Savage? WTH did he do? When is saying things you don't agree with the same as killing people or rasing money for terrorist front organizations? I don't agree with some of the things Savage says, but I'd never censor him or bar him from the country for speaking his mind.
Even the Phelps, who are twisted, disrespectful and generally disreputable, are only expressing their right to free speech. Yes they are annoying and embarrasing, but enemies of the state? Hardly.
IMHO, any country that starts banning spewers of vitriol and leaves Janeane Garafalo off the list calls their own good judgement into question at the very least.
This is starting to remind me of certain liberal groups in this country, those who will say that if you don't agree with them you are evil. If you don't support President Obama's policies you are a racist (per Garafalo), if you are pro-life you are a misogynist (or a religious zealot), if you support traditional marriage you are a homophobe (or a religious zealot). Or maybe, maybe we just disagree, in a country where that is still allowed. Nah, can't be that.
Yes, a few people are incurably violent or hateful. But for the rest of us, trying to win an argument by labeling someone as a hater is the coward's way to debate a point you can't defend otherwise. Debate and disagreement never hurt anyone, it's when debate is no longer tolerated that things get dicey.
Nolanbuck
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Things That Make Me Go WTHeck?
Originally posted at: 2BucksWorth.com
Riddle me this: why did the media and congressional Democrats have a hissy fit over the the supposed outing of supposedly covert agent Valerie Plame, and why did we need a special prosecutor to charge Scooter Libby (although we later found out it was Democrat Richard Armitage who blabbed); when the Obama Administration and ABC News outed the two CIA contractors who oversaw the waterboarding program?
Valerie Plame hadn't done anything more covert than mowing the lawn for two years before she made herself news by sending her husband to Niger (who was not a spy) when then wrote a column about it, yet the mere mention of her name (which was widely known in Washington) was a breach of national security. Where's the outrage now that the White House has signed these two men's death warrants?
You can argue the merits of waterboarding as an interrogation technique all you want, but how has putting these two men's name, picture, and life's story in the public eye making us any safer? If fact, I would posit that doing so makes the two contractors much less safe, open to the attacks of nutball activists or worse, jihadis bent on revenge.
Remember, when the Democrats gained majorities in congress in 2006, the Valerie Plame incident was examined as possible grounds for impeachment of President Bush. I suppose now they'll be looking into giving President Obama the same treatment. I won't be holding my breath.
Nolanbuck
Riddle me this: why did the media and congressional Democrats have a hissy fit over the the supposed outing of supposedly covert agent Valerie Plame, and why did we need a special prosecutor to charge Scooter Libby (although we later found out it was Democrat Richard Armitage who blabbed); when the Obama Administration and ABC News outed the two CIA contractors who oversaw the waterboarding program?
Valerie Plame hadn't done anything more covert than mowing the lawn for two years before she made herself news by sending her husband to Niger (who was not a spy) when then wrote a column about it, yet the mere mention of her name (which was widely known in Washington) was a breach of national security. Where's the outrage now that the White House has signed these two men's death warrants?
You can argue the merits of waterboarding as an interrogation technique all you want, but how has putting these two men's name, picture, and life's story in the public eye making us any safer? If fact, I would posit that doing so makes the two contractors much less safe, open to the attacks of nutball activists or worse, jihadis bent on revenge.
Remember, when the Democrats gained majorities in congress in 2006, the Valerie Plame incident was examined as possible grounds for impeachment of President Bush. I suppose now they'll be looking into giving President Obama the same treatment. I won't be holding my breath.
Nolanbuck
Friday, May 1, 2009
Swine Flu Redux
originally posted at 2BucksWorth.com
Science being my livelihood and history being my favorite hobby, I always find it interesting when the two intersect. The current flu pandemic, admittedly, has been over-hyped by the media (what isn't these days?) but also I think that based on history and our knowledge of the virus, the public response has so far been mostly appropriate.
First of all, every health official lives in fear of a repeat the 1918 flu pandemic, the so-called "Spanish Flu", which lasted for over two years and killed somewhere between 20 and 100 million people worldwide. Adding to the horror of the sheer numbers was the pathology of the disease, frightening effects like the cytokine storm that made it so deadly. That's why health officials err on the side of caution.
But they have overrated in the past too. For those to young to remember the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak (I was 6 years old), it was a study in too much, too soon. The U.S. government rushed a vaccine into production, and the resulting immunizations killed far more people than the flu did. They even used TV spots to push the vaccinations:
Ultimately, only one person died of the 1976 Swine Flu, the vaccine killed 25.
Even the recent Bird Flu scare had it's usefulness, the plans put in place for the Bird Flu outbreak that never came our way left us more ready to quickly react to this new flu. This time, a rapid but reasonable response seems to be working, and may have saved countless lives.
Apparently, we do learn from history. Sometimes.
Nolanbuck
Science being my livelihood and history being my favorite hobby, I always find it interesting when the two intersect. The current flu pandemic, admittedly, has been over-hyped by the media (what isn't these days?) but also I think that based on history and our knowledge of the virus, the public response has so far been mostly appropriate.
First of all, every health official lives in fear of a repeat the 1918 flu pandemic, the so-called "Spanish Flu", which lasted for over two years and killed somewhere between 20 and 100 million people worldwide. Adding to the horror of the sheer numbers was the pathology of the disease, frightening effects like the cytokine storm that made it so deadly. That's why health officials err on the side of caution.
But they have overrated in the past too. For those to young to remember the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak (I was 6 years old), it was a study in too much, too soon. The U.S. government rushed a vaccine into production, and the resulting immunizations killed far more people than the flu did. They even used TV spots to push the vaccinations:
Ultimately, only one person died of the 1976 Swine Flu, the vaccine killed 25.
Even the recent Bird Flu scare had it's usefulness, the plans put in place for the Bird Flu outbreak that never came our way left us more ready to quickly react to this new flu. This time, a rapid but reasonable response seems to be working, and may have saved countless lives.
Apparently, we do learn from history. Sometimes.
Nolanbuck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
