In the issue of Bipartisanship, there is a name Republicans and Democrats alike trot out every election: Ronald Reagan.
Each party tries to paint themselves with the Reagan brush. Every Republican tries to convince conservatives that they are like him, with Reagan's values and leadership abilities. Every Democrat praises Reagan's ability to "get things done" and claims to admire his willingness to compromise.
They're all mostly wrong.
Reagan was the last President who was elected in a landslide. (All the talk of a landslide in this last election is foolish. Nobody who wins the popular vote by barely 1 percentage point wins in a landslide.) Landslides are good for this country. At least they were at one time. A landslide shows that the winner is doing a good job, and that the electorate believes in the job he's doing. It lends a certain amount of legitimacy to the winner. Something we haven't seen in a long time.
Reagan did that, in 1984. And there was a reason for it, but not the one that you hear about on most news outlets today. What you hear from most people today, and even from politicians who try to invoke Reagan's name as a measure of their own abilities (usually inaccurately, I might add) is that Reagan was the best at "working with the other side." He did no such thing. That's the myth that most talking heads want you to believe today.
This much is true: Reagan famously brought the country together in a way that hadn't been seen for decades previously, and certainly hasn't been seen since. He not only reinvigorated the economy, it could be argued he reinvented it. He drastically reduced the unemployment lines. He strengthened our country, both economically and militarily -- so much so that the Communists eventually just gave up.
But he didn't do it by "working with the other side." He did it by convincing the other side they were wrong, and that his own ideas were better. And that was no small task.
There's no question that he made compromises at times when he thought it prudent to do so, but what he did primarily was make the other side believe that their ideas weren't as good as his own, and they'd all be better off giving Reagan's policies a chance. He was usually right.
And he did it in two distinct ways. First, he truly loved America, and he made people feel good about being Americans. Unlike our current administration, Reagan championed America at every turn and made people proud to be from United States. He didn't blame all the world's problems on us. He showed no fear in speeches all over the world proclaiming that America was not only the greatest country in the world, but the model by which everyone else should fashion there's. Wouldn't you like to hear a little of that today?
Secondly, he eliminated class warfare. Now I know there are many who disagree with that sentiment, primarily because today's media likes to portray the 80's as a time of the "Have's" vs. the "Have-Not's." But that simply isn't the case.
See, there are truly people in this country who need help. There really are people who are down on their luck, and need a helping hand getting back on their feet. They're not freeloaders, or slackers, and they're not trying to take advantage of the system or get a free handout. Through no fault of their own, save a few bad breaks and honest mistakes, they just need a little help from someone else.
Reagan understood this. And he had an honest compassion to help those people, not because he wanted to be their savior, but rather because he just wanted to help those who needed help. But he understood you couldn't give handouts without a little personal responsibility in return.
But he also believed in the American dream. That if you worked hard and became successful, you should be rewarded for it, not penalized. You never heard Reagan say something stupid like, "the rich should pay a little more than the rest of us." Because he understood they already were. And he understood that if you reward people for success, they will try harder to be successful.
Additionally, he knew that if you didn't punish people for being successful, they would gladly want to help others who are less fortunate. People don't run from taxation. They run from penalizing taxation. Most people aren't opposed to doing their fare share, and they're certainly not opposed to helping a neighbor, as long as its not a punishment for hard work, and the neighbor is willing to pitch in and help himself.
Reagan understood all this. He understood that a true democracy really can champion capitalism while at the same time helping those who need it. Reagan is known for his tax cuts and his "trickle-down" economic theory, but he also signed 11 bills into law that raised taxes during his terms. The bottom line is that, all combined, the economy rebounded, jobs were created, inflation reduced and the Gross National Product increased every year during is Presidency.
At the same time, he cut federal spending to several social programs, including Medicaid and food stamps, and increased military spending. The "less government" philosophy is true to the original federalist idea that the states should have more power and the federal government should focus on national security. These Reagan cuts did indeed put the burden of funding of these social programs more on the states. In turn, at the federal level, his policies created jobs. Rather than give them welfare, Reagan believed you should give them a job. "Teach a man to fish..." as it were.
Social programs, Reagan believed -- as did Mitt Romney, I might add, -- should be the job of the states. To be sure, some states did a better job of it than others, but one thing is certain: whether we liked it or not, these policies worked. During Reagan's two terms, less people received government assistance than at any time since.
Today's politicians -- and media, for that matter -- want us to believe it was because Reagan was a master of bipartisanship. That simply is not true. Most officials from that era will tell you that Reagan rarely, if ever, compromised his ideals and beliefs. A read of his own diaries bear that out. He is not known as the "Great Compromiser." He's known as the "Great Communicator."
That's because he was perhaps the best at explaining his ideas, communicating his values and establishing his standards. And then a master at convincing others that those ideas were best. Democrats and Republicans alike had a very difficult time refuting Reagan's ideas, especially as each time one was implemented, good things came of it.
No, Reagan was no master at Bipartisanship. I don't think he even liked the idea. He was a master at convincing others that his way was better.
And he was mostly right.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Bipartisanship
The American people got what they asked for last night.
Well, I should say, just barely over half of the American people got what they asked for. Because, let's be honest, they knew exactly what they were getting with Barack Obama for the next four years, because its what they've been getting the last four years. It's absolutely no secret. Now they get it over the next four years on steroids.
Obama was elected last night by a smaller margin than he was in 2008. In other words, the candidate who four years ago promised Hope and Change and vowed to finally bring the country together was barely re-elected by an even more divided electorate. The people who voted for him four years ago rewarded him for failing to do what he promised in 2008. Weird.
For some reason, though he's done nothing of the sort in his first term, exit polls showed that most Obama voters thought he was the better candidate when it came to working together with the other side. This despite the fact that he is roundly considered to be the most partisan president in decades.
But while I believe Obama's policies are damaging, the bigger problem is this: There really is no such thing as bipartisanship (Heretofore known as BP, 'cause its easier to spell.) It's a myth. It doesn't exist. It really never has, but more on that later.
Suffice it to say, many from both sides of the aisle complain that the other side won't work together. Most voters gripe about how the two sides can't get along. But one could ask the question: When have they ever gotten along? And even a bigger question: Is it even possible to do so?
I suggest it is not. How can two sides, who have fundamental differences in philosophy and theology, come to agreement. I mean, isn't that the reason we each choose a side to begin with? Because we align ourselves with a certain viewpoint -- a platform, if you will -- that is based in a certain set of fundamental beliefs that is usually diametrically opposed to the other side.
Ask yourself this: How are two individuals who have opposing views on, say, abortion, supposed to work together? What's the compromise? "If you promise not to abort every baby you want, I suppose I'll agree to allow you to only partly kill a couple of them." It's laughable to think that people with those opposing views could ever really agree on anything.
And yet, even though we pick a side, that is exactly what we ask of our politicians every time we vote. "Why can't we all just get along?" It's not only unrealistic, it's nearly impossible.
Richard Mourdock, a conservative, was defeated in a Senate race here in Indiana primarily because of a bad choice of words late in the campaign, and I highlighted that issue in a previous post, but even prior to that, one of the primary items about him that was attacked by the democrats was an interview he gave to CNN back in the spring during which he said that one of the things he enjoyed about politics is inflicting his will on others, or some words of that nature. Liberals beat him up pretty good over it. But democrats to the same thing, because he's right.
I don't want to get along with the other side, because I honestly think that their views and ideas are bad for our country. I voted for the individuals I did because I want them to go to Washington and defeat the other side. That's really why everyone votes, even if they're reluctant to admit it. They want their person to further their agenda, whatever that may be. Nobody votes for someone just so they can go to DC and "get along" with everybody else. Never happens.
But Obama, and liberal ideology in general, is even more damaging than that, because their agenda is based on class warfare. Their whole theology is based on pitting everybody against each other. Obama in no way tried to hide that agenda. He was open about his desire to tax the rich, and spend that money on social programs for poorer people. That mentality is coupled with the ideology that liberals are not just the only people who care for the downtrodden, but also the only people who can help those who are less fortunate. Liberalism espouses the idea that everyday life is gloomy and bad for most people, that it is because of rich people, and that the only people who can do anything about it is democrats.
Now, if you subscribe to those ideas, or believe them to be true, that's your prerogative and I won't try to change them. But you have to understand that that class-warfare mentality is precisely what prevents the very thing you accuse the other side of blocking... BP.
BP can never be achieved when one group of people always thinks the other side is out to get them. When you are ingrained to inherently distrust the other side, you will never find common ground with them, because there is no common ground to be had.
The point of this post isn't to try to convince someone that conservatism is better than liberalism, or vice versa, it's to point out that if you align yourself with one side or the other -- and we all do, even those who claim to be "independent" -- than the idea of working together with the other side is not only difficult, its foolish. Why would I vote for someone who I believe is a bad leader, or whose ideas I believe will hurt the country? Moreover, why would I want the people I did vote for trying to make compromises with those same bad ideas?
BP is really unattainable. The country would be a lot better off if everyone would own up to this. Because if they did, I believe it would better keep everyone focused on the issues, and less susceptible to the media bias of who they think just happens to be the hippest guy. If we ignore the myth of BP, we might actually vote based on the issues, and whose ideas are actually better for the country.
I know there will be some who read this who will never subscribe to my assessment, but their reluctance to admit the truth of it won't change the fact that the next time they head to the voting booth, they will align themselves with a side and choose the candidate they think best represents their side, just like I will. And they won't care if their guy is interested in "getting along" with the other side.
This is not meant to suggest that people with different viewpoints or ideas can't get along. We all have friends with whom we have opposing opinions on all sorts of matters. That is a reality of everyday life and I'm not suggesting we can't just "agree to disagree." This is a political issue, and the BP problem has existed from the foundation of this country. Which is precisely why there were opposing political parties from Day 1. The trendy notion, forwarded by an increasingly biased media, is that the inability to get along across the aisle is a relatively new phenomena in politics. Study your history, kiddos. It is not.
In closing -- and selfishly, I might add, in leading you to my next post -- this is a message to both sides of the aisle. I'm in no way trying to suggest that conservatives don't also make the mistake of trying to achieve BP. In fact, these days they often attempt to hearken back to a better day, and align themselves with and invoke the name a President who they believe represented BP like few others, and certainly none since.
They're right that he got things done with the other side. I would suggest he was one of the best at it. But is wasn't BP that got the job done.
I guess you'll have to read on...
Well, I should say, just barely over half of the American people got what they asked for. Because, let's be honest, they knew exactly what they were getting with Barack Obama for the next four years, because its what they've been getting the last four years. It's absolutely no secret. Now they get it over the next four years on steroids.
Obama was elected last night by a smaller margin than he was in 2008. In other words, the candidate who four years ago promised Hope and Change and vowed to finally bring the country together was barely re-elected by an even more divided electorate. The people who voted for him four years ago rewarded him for failing to do what he promised in 2008. Weird.
For some reason, though he's done nothing of the sort in his first term, exit polls showed that most Obama voters thought he was the better candidate when it came to working together with the other side. This despite the fact that he is roundly considered to be the most partisan president in decades.
But while I believe Obama's policies are damaging, the bigger problem is this: There really is no such thing as bipartisanship (Heretofore known as BP, 'cause its easier to spell.) It's a myth. It doesn't exist. It really never has, but more on that later.
Suffice it to say, many from both sides of the aisle complain that the other side won't work together. Most voters gripe about how the two sides can't get along. But one could ask the question: When have they ever gotten along? And even a bigger question: Is it even possible to do so?
I suggest it is not. How can two sides, who have fundamental differences in philosophy and theology, come to agreement. I mean, isn't that the reason we each choose a side to begin with? Because we align ourselves with a certain viewpoint -- a platform, if you will -- that is based in a certain set of fundamental beliefs that is usually diametrically opposed to the other side.
Ask yourself this: How are two individuals who have opposing views on, say, abortion, supposed to work together? What's the compromise? "If you promise not to abort every baby you want, I suppose I'll agree to allow you to only partly kill a couple of them." It's laughable to think that people with those opposing views could ever really agree on anything.
And yet, even though we pick a side, that is exactly what we ask of our politicians every time we vote. "Why can't we all just get along?" It's not only unrealistic, it's nearly impossible.
Richard Mourdock, a conservative, was defeated in a Senate race here in Indiana primarily because of a bad choice of words late in the campaign, and I highlighted that issue in a previous post, but even prior to that, one of the primary items about him that was attacked by the democrats was an interview he gave to CNN back in the spring during which he said that one of the things he enjoyed about politics is inflicting his will on others, or some words of that nature. Liberals beat him up pretty good over it. But democrats to the same thing, because he's right.
I don't want to get along with the other side, because I honestly think that their views and ideas are bad for our country. I voted for the individuals I did because I want them to go to Washington and defeat the other side. That's really why everyone votes, even if they're reluctant to admit it. They want their person to further their agenda, whatever that may be. Nobody votes for someone just so they can go to DC and "get along" with everybody else. Never happens.
But Obama, and liberal ideology in general, is even more damaging than that, because their agenda is based on class warfare. Their whole theology is based on pitting everybody against each other. Obama in no way tried to hide that agenda. He was open about his desire to tax the rich, and spend that money on social programs for poorer people. That mentality is coupled with the ideology that liberals are not just the only people who care for the downtrodden, but also the only people who can help those who are less fortunate. Liberalism espouses the idea that everyday life is gloomy and bad for most people, that it is because of rich people, and that the only people who can do anything about it is democrats.
Now, if you subscribe to those ideas, or believe them to be true, that's your prerogative and I won't try to change them. But you have to understand that that class-warfare mentality is precisely what prevents the very thing you accuse the other side of blocking... BP.
BP can never be achieved when one group of people always thinks the other side is out to get them. When you are ingrained to inherently distrust the other side, you will never find common ground with them, because there is no common ground to be had.
The point of this post isn't to try to convince someone that conservatism is better than liberalism, or vice versa, it's to point out that if you align yourself with one side or the other -- and we all do, even those who claim to be "independent" -- than the idea of working together with the other side is not only difficult, its foolish. Why would I vote for someone who I believe is a bad leader, or whose ideas I believe will hurt the country? Moreover, why would I want the people I did vote for trying to make compromises with those same bad ideas?
BP is really unattainable. The country would be a lot better off if everyone would own up to this. Because if they did, I believe it would better keep everyone focused on the issues, and less susceptible to the media bias of who they think just happens to be the hippest guy. If we ignore the myth of BP, we might actually vote based on the issues, and whose ideas are actually better for the country.
I know there will be some who read this who will never subscribe to my assessment, but their reluctance to admit the truth of it won't change the fact that the next time they head to the voting booth, they will align themselves with a side and choose the candidate they think best represents their side, just like I will. And they won't care if their guy is interested in "getting along" with the other side.
This is not meant to suggest that people with different viewpoints or ideas can't get along. We all have friends with whom we have opposing opinions on all sorts of matters. That is a reality of everyday life and I'm not suggesting we can't just "agree to disagree." This is a political issue, and the BP problem has existed from the foundation of this country. Which is precisely why there were opposing political parties from Day 1. The trendy notion, forwarded by an increasingly biased media, is that the inability to get along across the aisle is a relatively new phenomena in politics. Study your history, kiddos. It is not.
In closing -- and selfishly, I might add, in leading you to my next post -- this is a message to both sides of the aisle. I'm in no way trying to suggest that conservatives don't also make the mistake of trying to achieve BP. In fact, these days they often attempt to hearken back to a better day, and align themselves with and invoke the name a President who they believe represented BP like few others, and certainly none since.
They're right that he got things done with the other side. I would suggest he was one of the best at it. But is wasn't BP that got the job done.
I guess you'll have to read on...
Friday, November 2, 2012
Light-Sabres on the Beach
Several years ago, when I was a young father, I was honored to be invited to join a group of high school choir members as they traveled to the East coast for a choir competition. It was an all-girls choir. I got to be the drummer.
In lieu of compensation for my vast musical talent, they instead paid the expenses for my family to travel with me. We had an infant son, who was born the previous fall 11 weeks premature. After an 8-week stay in the hospital, doctor's orders kept us couped up in the house all Winter, so a chance to get some fresh ocean air as our first venture out with our new son was appealing. So my wife and I, along with my barely 3-year old son and our new baby, packed up and drove to the beach so I could play drums with a bunch of high school kids.
We had a great time. We had a room with a balcony facing the ocean, we got to spend time on the beach, eat at some cool restaurants, and spend a lot of time with teenagers. The energy that a group of teens can project is infectious. When they're having a good time, in makes everybody around them feel better. We just felt better being there. And all the girls in the choir oohed and ahhed over my two young boys. You know what they say... a baby is a chick-magnet. My wife and I enjoyed watching our young sons being fawned over by a group of high school girls.
But something else magical happened on that trip. And it didn't involve the girls.
A group of Senior boys from the school -- but who weren't in that choir -- decided to travel out to the coast to support the group anyway. I believe they traveled on their own dime, but I'm not really sure. They got a room in the hotel with the rest of us. I had developed friendships with them all. I had watched some grow up. I'm still friends with some of them today. So I was looking forward to hanging with the guys a little bit on the trip.
I did. Some. One evening, I hung out in their room, and hung way past my welcome. They thought I didn't know, but I did, which is why I hung around so long. They were hoping the old guy -- me -- would split so they could get to the party, which is to say, they wanted to drink the alcohol they had procurred. They didn't want me to know, what with them being underage and all, but I knew they had it, which is why I delayed the fun by hanging around so long. But they didn't know I knew.
For some reason, one of those young men had befriended my 3-year old son. The young man dated a girl who was a family friend, so we spent some more time with them than we might otherwise spend with high school kids, and they took a liking to my kids, and my kids to them. They came to their birthday parties, and our get-togethers, and they were our friends. And my 3-year old really liked the young man because the young man played with him, and treated him like the friend he was.
And they shared a fondness for Star Wars.
The young man had promised my son that sometime on this trip, he would play light-sabres with him. And my son was really looking forward to it. So, one evening, as the sun was setting, the young man took my son out to the beach and played light-sabres with him. You know... the cool ones. The ones that light up and even make the swooshing noise when you swing them, and the light-sabre "crack" when they clash.
This young man, who was digging hanging with his buddies, and certainly digging being with a whole choir of young, good-looking high school girls, played light-sabres on the beach with my 3-year old son. And they played, and my son laughed. And the young man laughed.
So often -- all too often, maybe -- we walk through life wondering if we ever make a difference. We long to affect others in a positive way, to impact somebody's life. Sometimes, people die never knowing if they ever did.
Tonight, I asked my now 17-year old son if he remembered playing on the beach that night. Not really, he says. But then, how many of us remember what we did when we were three? Says he has vague memories of it, but certainly remembers us talking about it as he's grown up. Seems as though each time we see the young man, we all recall the memory and share a laugh.
And there's the magic. That throughout all these years, the only thing we all talk about when we think back on that trip is the young man playing on the beach with our son. And we all laugh.
Tonight, the young man is hurting. He is a father now, and he and his young son have suffered a tragedy I can't fathom. And I wish I could help, but I can't. Tonight, he told me that he always looked up to me as a guy and a dad. That's touching, because he has always had a special place in my heart, and I suppose it's time I said thanks.
Because, all those years ago, when he thought he was just out being a goofy high school kid, he made a difference in my kid's life. I don't know whether he was Darth Vader, or Luke, but he made my son laugh, and my family laugh, and made me hope even more to be a good dad. And that means a lot.
Thanks Jed.
In lieu of compensation for my vast musical talent, they instead paid the expenses for my family to travel with me. We had an infant son, who was born the previous fall 11 weeks premature. After an 8-week stay in the hospital, doctor's orders kept us couped up in the house all Winter, so a chance to get some fresh ocean air as our first venture out with our new son was appealing. So my wife and I, along with my barely 3-year old son and our new baby, packed up and drove to the beach so I could play drums with a bunch of high school kids.
We had a great time. We had a room with a balcony facing the ocean, we got to spend time on the beach, eat at some cool restaurants, and spend a lot of time with teenagers. The energy that a group of teens can project is infectious. When they're having a good time, in makes everybody around them feel better. We just felt better being there. And all the girls in the choir oohed and ahhed over my two young boys. You know what they say... a baby is a chick-magnet. My wife and I enjoyed watching our young sons being fawned over by a group of high school girls.
But something else magical happened on that trip. And it didn't involve the girls.
A group of Senior boys from the school -- but who weren't in that choir -- decided to travel out to the coast to support the group anyway. I believe they traveled on their own dime, but I'm not really sure. They got a room in the hotel with the rest of us. I had developed friendships with them all. I had watched some grow up. I'm still friends with some of them today. So I was looking forward to hanging with the guys a little bit on the trip.
I did. Some. One evening, I hung out in their room, and hung way past my welcome. They thought I didn't know, but I did, which is why I hung around so long. They were hoping the old guy -- me -- would split so they could get to the party, which is to say, they wanted to drink the alcohol they had procurred. They didn't want me to know, what with them being underage and all, but I knew they had it, which is why I delayed the fun by hanging around so long. But they didn't know I knew.
For some reason, one of those young men had befriended my 3-year old son. The young man dated a girl who was a family friend, so we spent some more time with them than we might otherwise spend with high school kids, and they took a liking to my kids, and my kids to them. They came to their birthday parties, and our get-togethers, and they were our friends. And my 3-year old really liked the young man because the young man played with him, and treated him like the friend he was.
And they shared a fondness for Star Wars.
The young man had promised my son that sometime on this trip, he would play light-sabres with him. And my son was really looking forward to it. So, one evening, as the sun was setting, the young man took my son out to the beach and played light-sabres with him. You know... the cool ones. The ones that light up and even make the swooshing noise when you swing them, and the light-sabre "crack" when they clash.
This young man, who was digging hanging with his buddies, and certainly digging being with a whole choir of young, good-looking high school girls, played light-sabres on the beach with my 3-year old son. And they played, and my son laughed. And the young man laughed.
So often -- all too often, maybe -- we walk through life wondering if we ever make a difference. We long to affect others in a positive way, to impact somebody's life. Sometimes, people die never knowing if they ever did.
Tonight, I asked my now 17-year old son if he remembered playing on the beach that night. Not really, he says. But then, how many of us remember what we did when we were three? Says he has vague memories of it, but certainly remembers us talking about it as he's grown up. Seems as though each time we see the young man, we all recall the memory and share a laugh.
And there's the magic. That throughout all these years, the only thing we all talk about when we think back on that trip is the young man playing on the beach with our son. And we all laugh.
Tonight, the young man is hurting. He is a father now, and he and his young son have suffered a tragedy I can't fathom. And I wish I could help, but I can't. Tonight, he told me that he always looked up to me as a guy and a dad. That's touching, because he has always had a special place in my heart, and I suppose it's time I said thanks.
Because, all those years ago, when he thought he was just out being a goofy high school kid, he made a difference in my kid's life. I don't know whether he was Darth Vader, or Luke, but he made my son laugh, and my family laugh, and made me hope even more to be a good dad. And that means a lot.
Thanks Jed.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Rape Abortions
Here's the problem now with the abortion issue: Rape is the new, trendy, go-to argument for the liberals.
As they continue to lose ground in the abortion issue, as the laws continue to make it more restrictive, and it becomes tougher and tougher to justify, the rape aspect of it is their last bastion of hope.
Problem is, it's a trap. It's a trick-question, with its sole purpose nothing more than attempting to trap someone who's anti-abortion into saying that, somehow, they support it.
You see, most statistics show that the percentage of abortions tied to rape is about 1% of the overall number. And even if that stat is higher because so many rapes go unreported, its still a relatively small percentage. So, problem #1 is that, any way you look at it, rape is the least of the abortion problems. So, when someone claims to be anti-abortion, rape is the least determining factor that leads them to that decision.
Problem #2 is the misguided assertion that someone who is anti-abortion would somehow support a crime as heinous as rape. I am unequivocally opposed to abortion, and equally as opposed to rape. Not only do I abhor the crime, I think anyone who sexually forces themselves onto someone else against that person's will ought to have their genitals removed publically in the town square.
But the conundrum is this, by example: Murder is against the law. As a society, while we generally agree with that premise, we have no problem with someone who shoots and kills an intruder in their home, or someone who kills someone else in self-defense. We abhor the killing of someone else, but see its justification in extreme circumstances.
Breaking the speed limit is against the law, but generally, someone would get a pass for doing so if they were driving a heart attack victim to the hospital, or, ironically, a female about to give birth.
As an anti-abortionist, I'm against abortion in general practice, but cannot in good faith say that I would condemn someone from having one in the aftermath of a rape. That DOES NOT mean I support abortion. It means that I can see the law being bent in extreme cases. I think any right-minded pro-lifer would admit the same.
But that brings us to Problem #3. How many abortions can really be attributed to rape, and how many are simply sought under that banner to merely justify it? That's probably an impossible question to answer, but the reality is that most times when a liberal asks someone how they feel about abortions in cases of rape, what they are not doing is trying to protect women who are viciously raped. Rather, more often than not, they are merely trying to open a loophole through which anybody who wants one can have an abortion for any reason.
Worse -- as I believe the current situation with Richard Mourdock to be -- it is a political ploy to trap someone who they already know is against it into saying they somehow support it. The goofball who asked Mourdock his views on abortion in cases of rape;
1) wasn't trying to champion women's rights.
2) already knows Mourdock's position on abortion.
3) couldn't care less about Mourdock's view because he isn't voting for him anyway.
4) simply wants to twist Mourdock's words so they can be used against him in a campaign.
My friend Bryce said today that noone who heard what Mourdock had to say could actually believe he -- or God, for that matter -- somehow thinks rape is OK. And Bryce is right: no right-minded individual would walk away with that belief. But that wasn't the point. Wait for it... you'll see a political ad soon that somehow tries to portray Mourdock as a rape-supporter. And that was precisely the point of the question.
A trap.
Let's remember, the baby didn't choose to be created. Even in the event of something as horrifying as a rape, it's not the baby's fault he was conceived. So while I may be in no position to condemn the victim, I certainly don't believe anyone has the right to arbitrarily end that innocent life. But that's just me.
However, if liberals are so bent on protecting a woman's right to an abortion in cases of rape, then I have a solution. First, why does abortion have to be an all-inclusive law? Again, murder is against the law in this country, but there are also laws in place that justify it in cases of self-defense. Why can't this be done with abortion? Since this seems to be the liberal justification for abortion, then I propose the following:
In order to receive an abortion because of a rape, the woman must file a police report alleging a rape. And when a perpetrator is caught, the woman must file charges. If the perp is not apprehended until after the abortion, should the woman decide by then to not file charges, then she should be charged and fined for filing a false police report.
Look, I know there's bigger issues that involve women being afraid to report rape, and even further, women who fear facing their attackers. I get it, and understand its a problem. But we can't fix everything with one full stroke. One step at a time, as it were. But if liberals are going to insist on flying the abortion banner under the issue of rape, then by all means, to the best of our ability, there should be some rules put into place ensuring the woman was actually raped.
I don't think that's too much to ask.
As they continue to lose ground in the abortion issue, as the laws continue to make it more restrictive, and it becomes tougher and tougher to justify, the rape aspect of it is their last bastion of hope.
Problem is, it's a trap. It's a trick-question, with its sole purpose nothing more than attempting to trap someone who's anti-abortion into saying that, somehow, they support it.
You see, most statistics show that the percentage of abortions tied to rape is about 1% of the overall number. And even if that stat is higher because so many rapes go unreported, its still a relatively small percentage. So, problem #1 is that, any way you look at it, rape is the least of the abortion problems. So, when someone claims to be anti-abortion, rape is the least determining factor that leads them to that decision.
Problem #2 is the misguided assertion that someone who is anti-abortion would somehow support a crime as heinous as rape. I am unequivocally opposed to abortion, and equally as opposed to rape. Not only do I abhor the crime, I think anyone who sexually forces themselves onto someone else against that person's will ought to have their genitals removed publically in the town square.
But the conundrum is this, by example: Murder is against the law. As a society, while we generally agree with that premise, we have no problem with someone who shoots and kills an intruder in their home, or someone who kills someone else in self-defense. We abhor the killing of someone else, but see its justification in extreme circumstances.
Breaking the speed limit is against the law, but generally, someone would get a pass for doing so if they were driving a heart attack victim to the hospital, or, ironically, a female about to give birth.
As an anti-abortionist, I'm against abortion in general practice, but cannot in good faith say that I would condemn someone from having one in the aftermath of a rape. That DOES NOT mean I support abortion. It means that I can see the law being bent in extreme cases. I think any right-minded pro-lifer would admit the same.
But that brings us to Problem #3. How many abortions can really be attributed to rape, and how many are simply sought under that banner to merely justify it? That's probably an impossible question to answer, but the reality is that most times when a liberal asks someone how they feel about abortions in cases of rape, what they are not doing is trying to protect women who are viciously raped. Rather, more often than not, they are merely trying to open a loophole through which anybody who wants one can have an abortion for any reason.
Worse -- as I believe the current situation with Richard Mourdock to be -- it is a political ploy to trap someone who they already know is against it into saying they somehow support it. The goofball who asked Mourdock his views on abortion in cases of rape;
1) wasn't trying to champion women's rights.
2) already knows Mourdock's position on abortion.
3) couldn't care less about Mourdock's view because he isn't voting for him anyway.
4) simply wants to twist Mourdock's words so they can be used against him in a campaign.
My friend Bryce said today that noone who heard what Mourdock had to say could actually believe he -- or God, for that matter -- somehow thinks rape is OK. And Bryce is right: no right-minded individual would walk away with that belief. But that wasn't the point. Wait for it... you'll see a political ad soon that somehow tries to portray Mourdock as a rape-supporter. And that was precisely the point of the question.
A trap.
Let's remember, the baby didn't choose to be created. Even in the event of something as horrifying as a rape, it's not the baby's fault he was conceived. So while I may be in no position to condemn the victim, I certainly don't believe anyone has the right to arbitrarily end that innocent life. But that's just me.
However, if liberals are so bent on protecting a woman's right to an abortion in cases of rape, then I have a solution. First, why does abortion have to be an all-inclusive law? Again, murder is against the law in this country, but there are also laws in place that justify it in cases of self-defense. Why can't this be done with abortion? Since this seems to be the liberal justification for abortion, then I propose the following:
In order to receive an abortion because of a rape, the woman must file a police report alleging a rape. And when a perpetrator is caught, the woman must file charges. If the perp is not apprehended until after the abortion, should the woman decide by then to not file charges, then she should be charged and fined for filing a false police report.
Look, I know there's bigger issues that involve women being afraid to report rape, and even further, women who fear facing their attackers. I get it, and understand its a problem. But we can't fix everything with one full stroke. One step at a time, as it were. But if liberals are going to insist on flying the abortion banner under the issue of rape, then by all means, to the best of our ability, there should be some rules put into place ensuring the woman was actually raped.
I don't think that's too much to ask.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Day 10... Time to go home.
Day 10...
We go home today.
I'm thankful I've had the chance to write. I've missed it.
Thanks for reading.
The end.
We go home today.
I'm thankful I've had the chance to write. I've missed it.
Thanks for reading.
The end.
Day 9... Dolphins and South Beach
Day 9...
Today is Cody's birthday.
This trip wasn't planned for him, but seeing as how it was planned over the boys' new 2-week fall break, and that break coincided with Cody's birthday, then a few special things were planned. What he did request was a dinner at Hooters, being the dog he is, and so we fulfilled that a couple nights ago. He also wanted to go to Miami.
So, it was down to Miami for our last full day here, which is about an hour from us. We all trouped up in a newly rented Suburban (nice!) and made the trip all the way down to the Miami Seaquarium. Now, while it was indeed Cody's request to go to Miami on his birthday, Ginger was the one who guided us to the Seaquarium. Because they have dolphins.
And if there's dolphins nearby, Ginger wants to see 'em.
And the Miami Seaquarium has lots of 'em, not the least of which is the World Famous Flipper, although I suspect the one they introduced as Flipper is probably not the original, but I don't think anyone cares. And one of the dolphins in the Flipper show was claimed to be the son of the dolphin, Snowflake, from Ace Venture fame, so there's that.
We had a really nice time, with some cool pictures, highlighted by Ginger's Mom's generosity that allowed us to all to get to pet and have our picture taken with one of the dolphins, much to the delight of the little girl inside Ginger. The Seaquarium is a very cool place and if you get the chance to go, you should go.
From there it was off to South Beach.
The beaches of South Miami are very big, and as such, I assume, ripe for loads of people. As we got there later in the afternoon, our hunger dictated that we eat first. So we chose a place called Finnegans and by the time we were done, it was too late to catch some of the finer South Beach ambience -- if you know what I mean. But we had a good time anyway.
Driving down Ocean Boulevard on South Beach, it appears that the fare and vibe of that beach lends itself to a slightly more adult clientele, than, say, Panama Beach, which is a haven for teenagers and young adults. I'm sure South Beach gets its fair share of young beach-goers, but the shops and restaurants seem to appeal to an older -- and dare I say -- more sophisticated customer. Just my impression.
But I can tell you this... I'm not sure I'd want to spend a lot of time there as that beach filled up. It's huge, and as I look out over the balcony now from where we are staying, I'll take the beach here at Delray anyday. We're here in the offseason, I know, and so I'm sure even the beach here can get pretty full at times, but I suspect South Beach is full all the time. No thanks.
I'm gonna miss it here. We hit a home run with the weather, as its been spectacular from the get go, and its been a great time of relaxing, reflecting, and renewal. Everybody needs a chance to reset from time to time, and I'm the first to admit that not every vacation offers that chance. That's my fault, mostly. Most of the time, when I leave for a vacation, I want to see and do, but this time, I just wanted to relax. There were many days we just sat around the house until the afternoon, all of us just reading in silence. I think we all needed that.
There will come a day -- very soon, I suspect -- that I will yearn badly to come back here, and there's lots of stuff I want to see and do while I'm here, but this time, I'm just thankful I had the chance to reset.
I'd be lying if I said I'm ready to go home. I'm never ready to leave a vacation. I'm ready to see my friends, and our puppies, but I'm not ready to leave. But I'm thankful -- very much so -- for the time I've gotten here to relax.
Oh, one more thing... wherever I go, I have my family with me. My boys and my beautiful wife. So every place is a good place to be.
It's important I don't forget that.
Today is Cody's birthday.
This trip wasn't planned for him, but seeing as how it was planned over the boys' new 2-week fall break, and that break coincided with Cody's birthday, then a few special things were planned. What he did request was a dinner at Hooters, being the dog he is, and so we fulfilled that a couple nights ago. He also wanted to go to Miami.
So, it was down to Miami for our last full day here, which is about an hour from us. We all trouped up in a newly rented Suburban (nice!) and made the trip all the way down to the Miami Seaquarium. Now, while it was indeed Cody's request to go to Miami on his birthday, Ginger was the one who guided us to the Seaquarium. Because they have dolphins.
And if there's dolphins nearby, Ginger wants to see 'em.
And the Miami Seaquarium has lots of 'em, not the least of which is the World Famous Flipper, although I suspect the one they introduced as Flipper is probably not the original, but I don't think anyone cares. And one of the dolphins in the Flipper show was claimed to be the son of the dolphin, Snowflake, from Ace Venture fame, so there's that.
We had a really nice time, with some cool pictures, highlighted by Ginger's Mom's generosity that allowed us to all to get to pet and have our picture taken with one of the dolphins, much to the delight of the little girl inside Ginger. The Seaquarium is a very cool place and if you get the chance to go, you should go.
From there it was off to South Beach.
The beaches of South Miami are very big, and as such, I assume, ripe for loads of people. As we got there later in the afternoon, our hunger dictated that we eat first. So we chose a place called Finnegans and by the time we were done, it was too late to catch some of the finer South Beach ambience -- if you know what I mean. But we had a good time anyway.
Driving down Ocean Boulevard on South Beach, it appears that the fare and vibe of that beach lends itself to a slightly more adult clientele, than, say, Panama Beach, which is a haven for teenagers and young adults. I'm sure South Beach gets its fair share of young beach-goers, but the shops and restaurants seem to appeal to an older -- and dare I say -- more sophisticated customer. Just my impression.
But I can tell you this... I'm not sure I'd want to spend a lot of time there as that beach filled up. It's huge, and as I look out over the balcony now from where we are staying, I'll take the beach here at Delray anyday. We're here in the offseason, I know, and so I'm sure even the beach here can get pretty full at times, but I suspect South Beach is full all the time. No thanks.
I'm gonna miss it here. We hit a home run with the weather, as its been spectacular from the get go, and its been a great time of relaxing, reflecting, and renewal. Everybody needs a chance to reset from time to time, and I'm the first to admit that not every vacation offers that chance. That's my fault, mostly. Most of the time, when I leave for a vacation, I want to see and do, but this time, I just wanted to relax. There were many days we just sat around the house until the afternoon, all of us just reading in silence. I think we all needed that.
There will come a day -- very soon, I suspect -- that I will yearn badly to come back here, and there's lots of stuff I want to see and do while I'm here, but this time, I'm just thankful I had the chance to reset.
I'd be lying if I said I'm ready to go home. I'm never ready to leave a vacation. I'm ready to see my friends, and our puppies, but I'm not ready to leave. But I'm thankful -- very much so -- for the time I've gotten here to relax.
Oh, one more thing... wherever I go, I have my family with me. My boys and my beautiful wife. So every place is a good place to be.
It's important I don't forget that.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Day 6 & 7... Alligator Hunting
Days 6 & 7...
I'm writing this after I wrote Day 8, and because I haven't written in a coupla days. But mainly because since I've started chronicalling our vacation in South Florida, I sorta feel obligated to cover the whole thing, at least for me.
So I combined two days. Big deal, right?
We went alligator hunting on Friday. And lest you think most of this vacation has revolved around Cody, we did so because Cory wanted to see alligators. Cory has a fascination with alligators and sea turtles. Several years ago, Cory's grandfather and uncle began regailing him with stories of wild alligators they see regularly at their vacation home in Hilton Head. After several trips there ourselves, we have yet to see the same. In fact, for the most part, and to Cory's chagrin, our alligator sightings have been limited to visits to a place called the Crab Shack on Tybee Island, which not only sports maybe the best outdoor ambience of any restaurant I've ever visited, but also a bevy of captive alligators, which can be fed by the restaurant-goers. It's a must-visit for Cory.
So, being as we are so close to the Everglades, we went alligator hunting, the term "hunting" being used here lightly, as it consisted of us paying an airboat operation to take us and several other tourists less than a mile into the glades to see the wildlife.
To make a long story short, we REALLY enjoyed the experience, and we REALLY got to see some wild gators, to Cory's delight. But the alligator "wrangling" demonstration we got to see at the end as part of the package was really the coolest part, as a young, volunteer, bare-footed female did indeed wrangle a gator that was equal to, or even slightly bigger than, she was. When she started off her presentation by asking the on-lookers if we wanted her to wrestle a more calmer and experienced gator, or the more feisty, rambunctious gator, we, of course, cheered for the rambunctious choice, me thinking, "OK, she has to ask that to make it more interesting." Well, I can only believe that either she's telling the truth -- that indeed some were more tamer than others -- or that they're ALL feisty, and she just makes the comment for effect, because this was one grumpy gator.
And while she did all the same gator-wrangling tricks one often sees that seem somewhat hokey on TV, I can tell you that this particular gator was NOT interested in being wrangled. The small, young lady was in the pit by herself, with all of the other gators looking on, and she truly wrangled into submission this gator who was more interested in getting in the water. When you see some big bruiser climbing on the back of some gator and he gets his head chomped on, you're sorta pulling for the gator. But I found myself definitely rooting for the girl in this exchange, and I really enjoyed the show.
Later, at Cody's request (surprise) we went to Hooters in Ft. Lauderdale for his "birthday" dinner. (It's not until Monday.) I have to admit, for a restaurant, the ambience at Hooters isn't bad either. {Said the author, without a hint of sarcasm!}
That night, me and the boys went to see the new movie Argo. If you have not already, and you're sorta into political thrillers, go see this one. A very good movie revolving around the Iranian hostage crisis.
Yesterday, things got downright exciting as Campaign Romney has rolled into town. Turns out, Monday's presidential debate is just a few miles up the coast from us in Boca Raton, and Mitt and his team have arrived to prepare, and word is he is staying in the Marriott hotel which is literally one block away from us. US Coast Guard gun boats have been patrolling the shore line right in front of us since yesterday morning, intercepting any boats they deem are too close to the shoreline and ushering them further out to sea. Talk on the sidewalk last night was of the secret service snipers now perched on top of the hotel. We've seen the motorcade go by a couple of times. Kinda cool, really, except that I was planning to visit the roof of our own building before we left, and now I believe that excursion might be ill-advised. I will update you if I get to see the man I hope will be the next President of the United States.
Otherwise, we've been trekking out to get something to eat, and I can tell you the local community is very quaint and laid back. Delray Beach seems to get less attention than say, Boca Raton to the south and Boynton and Palm Beaches to the north, which makes it a nice place to hang out without huge amounts of people. The shops are small and reasonably priced, and within just a few miles, you'll find more of the national chains of shops and restaurants if that's what gets you going.
We leave in just a couple of days. It's gonna be hard to go. A guy could get used to a place like this.
I'm writing this after I wrote Day 8, and because I haven't written in a coupla days. But mainly because since I've started chronicalling our vacation in South Florida, I sorta feel obligated to cover the whole thing, at least for me.
So I combined two days. Big deal, right?
We went alligator hunting on Friday. And lest you think most of this vacation has revolved around Cody, we did so because Cory wanted to see alligators. Cory has a fascination with alligators and sea turtles. Several years ago, Cory's grandfather and uncle began regailing him with stories of wild alligators they see regularly at their vacation home in Hilton Head. After several trips there ourselves, we have yet to see the same. In fact, for the most part, and to Cory's chagrin, our alligator sightings have been limited to visits to a place called the Crab Shack on Tybee Island, which not only sports maybe the best outdoor ambience of any restaurant I've ever visited, but also a bevy of captive alligators, which can be fed by the restaurant-goers. It's a must-visit for Cory.
So, being as we are so close to the Everglades, we went alligator hunting, the term "hunting" being used here lightly, as it consisted of us paying an airboat operation to take us and several other tourists less than a mile into the glades to see the wildlife.
To make a long story short, we REALLY enjoyed the experience, and we REALLY got to see some wild gators, to Cory's delight. But the alligator "wrangling" demonstration we got to see at the end as part of the package was really the coolest part, as a young, volunteer, bare-footed female did indeed wrangle a gator that was equal to, or even slightly bigger than, she was. When she started off her presentation by asking the on-lookers if we wanted her to wrestle a more calmer and experienced gator, or the more feisty, rambunctious gator, we, of course, cheered for the rambunctious choice, me thinking, "OK, she has to ask that to make it more interesting." Well, I can only believe that either she's telling the truth -- that indeed some were more tamer than others -- or that they're ALL feisty, and she just makes the comment for effect, because this was one grumpy gator.
And while she did all the same gator-wrangling tricks one often sees that seem somewhat hokey on TV, I can tell you that this particular gator was NOT interested in being wrangled. The small, young lady was in the pit by herself, with all of the other gators looking on, and she truly wrangled into submission this gator who was more interested in getting in the water. When you see some big bruiser climbing on the back of some gator and he gets his head chomped on, you're sorta pulling for the gator. But I found myself definitely rooting for the girl in this exchange, and I really enjoyed the show.
Later, at Cody's request (surprise) we went to Hooters in Ft. Lauderdale for his "birthday" dinner. (It's not until Monday.) I have to admit, for a restaurant, the ambience at Hooters isn't bad either. {Said the author, without a hint of sarcasm!}
That night, me and the boys went to see the new movie Argo. If you have not already, and you're sorta into political thrillers, go see this one. A very good movie revolving around the Iranian hostage crisis.
Yesterday, things got downright exciting as Campaign Romney has rolled into town. Turns out, Monday's presidential debate is just a few miles up the coast from us in Boca Raton, and Mitt and his team have arrived to prepare, and word is he is staying in the Marriott hotel which is literally one block away from us. US Coast Guard gun boats have been patrolling the shore line right in front of us since yesterday morning, intercepting any boats they deem are too close to the shoreline and ushering them further out to sea. Talk on the sidewalk last night was of the secret service snipers now perched on top of the hotel. We've seen the motorcade go by a couple of times. Kinda cool, really, except that I was planning to visit the roof of our own building before we left, and now I believe that excursion might be ill-advised. I will update you if I get to see the man I hope will be the next President of the United States.
Otherwise, we've been trekking out to get something to eat, and I can tell you the local community is very quaint and laid back. Delray Beach seems to get less attention than say, Boca Raton to the south and Boynton and Palm Beaches to the north, which makes it a nice place to hang out without huge amounts of people. The shops are small and reasonably priced, and within just a few miles, you'll find more of the national chains of shops and restaurants if that's what gets you going.
We leave in just a couple of days. It's gonna be hard to go. A guy could get used to a place like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)