Jesse Helms dies, press and others fall over themselves to find something nice to say about him

Our culture frowns upon speaking ill of the dead.  That's probably a good and safe position for a society but it's crap.  Jesse Helms, the former Senator from North Carolina was a bigot and an asshole. Some news outlets have stressed the work he did for the conservative movement.  While he may have done a lot for his movement, if he is really their best poster-child, well they are in serious trouble.  His influence came primarily from the way he worked in the Senate.  He was able to amend more bills than he named and by doing that he was much more influential.  He also repeatedly used race-baiting and fear-mongering to win elections.  Sure, in a perfect world these tactics would have fallen on deaf ears.  Ours is not a perfect world, however, and as a leader we should expect more.  He never lived up to that.

 

I never wish death or bad things on people but I am not going to shed any tears for this bastard.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Thank you Speaker Pelosi

Variety is the spice of life…

 

Thank you, Speaker Pelosi.  This week the newly Democratic House of Representatives passed a bill that would give the nation's capitol a seat in the House of Representatives.   This bill adds to seats to the House, one for the Democratic DC and another for the Republican Utah.  It is shameful that American citizens have no voice in our government.  For DC, the injustice in compounded because Congress exerts controls over that city that are unique to it.  So the lives of its residents can be changed and there is no one in either chamber of Congress who can speak for them.  As an elementary school student, I was always taught we separated from because we did not like the idea of 'taxation without representation,' a phrase that adorns many DC license plates.  Even without the undue influence the Legislative branch holds over the District, it is deplorable that these people can serve (and die) in the military, pay taxes and enjoy all the other rights and adhere to the obligations of US citizenship, they do not have any voice in Congress.  The Republicans let this bill languish and have supported something else, returning DC to Maryland, an idea with no support in DC or  Maryland.  One funny part of this is that I saw some DC news coverage — www.myfoxdc.com — and it was truly hilarious.  The anchor reiterated Dubya's statement that he will veto this bill but the anchor added — "He will be more inclined to sign the bill IF the Senate votes to pass it."  Things brings up an interesting point SEEING THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT SIGN ANY BILL BEFORE THE SENATE PASSES IT.  D'Oh!

 

If you would like to see this measure passed, please call you Senator — the Capitol switchboard is 202-225-3121.

 

It was one step back and one step forward for the left…

 

No, not all supporters of gay rights support abortion and not all abortion supporters are for gay rights (and the reverse, maybe there are some abortion opponents who support gay rights, I mean sam sex couples will not produce any pregnancies). New Hampshire seems on the verge of joining some other northeastern states (Vermont, Massachusetts,Connecticut,New York, Maine and DC) in allowing either civil unions or marriages for gay couples.  Personally, I have never understood why anyone thinks allowing gay people to get married is ANY threat to straight marriages.  Are these people so attracted to the gay lifestyle, or whatever they think it is, that should gay marriage become the law of the land (and it will one day, like it or not, it's kind of like technology — it will come to your area, though if you really oppose it you can become like the Amish or something) most married straight people will say "Oh! My! God!  I can have sex and marry someone who is the same gender as me, I am out of here!"  Is straight marriage that fragile an institution?  And is it not true that having more married couples increases the stability of a community?  Isn't that one of the reasons so many people wanted to get rid of the 'marriage penalty'?  For the record, and really this should not matter, I am a straight woman.  A few years ago a number my friends came down here for a march on the DoJ and commitment ceremony and the issue hit home.  I had never thought much about the right to get married but there is something special in getting up in front of your friends and family and proclaiming, "This is the person I want to spend my life with."  Ok, they can do that now without any new laws but those laws are needed so that one partner can make critical medical decisions should the other become ill.  If two people remain in a committed relationship for years and years, what right does anyone else have to interfere in what one of them wants if they become ill?  Under today's laws, that life partner often has no rights and the family can swoop in and take over.  This is especially egregious when the relationship has been acrimonious and they shut out the sick person's partner from even seeing their loved one.

 

The one step back was the abortion ruling but I have written about that and more will come later.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend