Sunday, June 28, 2009

Gay Rights, Or The "Carrot On A Stick" For The Left

For about two decades now, the Left has been promising one of it's constituent groups their fair share of rights, but they've taken very little real action to prove their good intentions.

Gay Rights have been dangled out in front of the Gay Community every election cycle like clockwork to garner the votes of approximately 5-7% of all Americans (current estimate puts the Gay population at around 10% so I'm giving a rough conservative estimate). Following the election, the whole idea is shelved until needed again in two years. This dishonest and disrespectful treatment of a constituency is a golden opportunity for us on the Right.

It occurs to me that if the GOP wants to break the image of "The Party of No", as well as the impression that we are out of touch, and shake up the opposition, we should address this matter.

I have written about how the issue of Gay Marriage should be handled, so I won't reiterate it here. However, the approach to such would be a win-win-win situation if we only had the testicular fortitude to use it.

Basically, we would do the following:

1. Secretly write up a bill outlining the above linked idea.

2. Introduce the bill directly after the mid-term elections. This would be somewhat underhanded, as we would be going against our base. So, to counter that effect, give the people lots of time before the next available election to get used to the idea. Given that no Democrat worth his membership to Progressionism would dare to attack us on the measure, the only ones to worry about would be the Republican Junior Representative and their Senate counterpart hopefuls in 2012.

3. Watch the fur fly on the Left.

Obama would be in a bad spot as he would have to make a no-kidding real tough decision. Would he anger the Gay Community by Vetoing the bill, or would he risk the ire of the Black and Latino Communities who indubitably gave their support with the inclusion of a "short list" of things to not do (Gay Rights being on it, I assure you)? Either way, he would lose votes (roughly 5-7% either way in my estimation), and we would gain them. In addition to the direct fallout from his actions, we would also enjoy a measure of sympathetic gratitude from (mostly moderate) voters who would see this as a real "change" in our party.

The Left in general would seethe over having this issue ripped out from under them. The base would scream bloody murder at us, but they would be more angry with their own for letting us take the glory on it. In Washington, every Democrat in Congress and the Senate would have to smile and praise us publicly while cursing our existence in (very) private.

The Serpent Immortal of the Gay Rights issue would be at last defanged, with only Military Service remaining as a semi-serious bone of contention.

You see, as soon as the Black and Latino Communities realize that Obama will need an extra boost to his polls to get through the 2012 election, they may give the "Green Light" for such action on the Left. As such, we need to preempt them by "poaching" it for ourselves.

I believe though, that the greatest benefit from this action (aside from votes) would be the improvement in PR and Brand Image. Even our fiercest detractor would have to acknowledge this as a move in the right direction (no pun intended).

The only problems that I could see would be the base's reaction to such a thing. Many would rail against it, and the Left would certainly help that along, but with proper presentation and planning, we could minimize the "homefront backlash" and call out any Democrats attempting to assist the opposition from the right.

To conclude, I will say this:

I have always found myself more respectful and even trusting of an honest enemy than a dishonest friend.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Properly Directed Outrage

This will probably turn out to be more of a true rant than usual, but here goes...

I have seen today a lot of Right-wing sites criticizing Obama for taking his girls out for ice cream while Iran burns. The main cry from these sights has been "What if Bush did this?" Of course they are referring to the fact that the MSM would have been quite critical of such a thing and would have stretched the story out for days to support the meme of an uncaring President. Well, to turn this question on it's ear just a bit:

We would have defended him, and rightly so.

Are we to believe that Obama cannot take out his daughters for some ice cream because the world is doing it's absolute best to forget the words to "Kumbayah"? Must his duties to his family suffer for the "good" of whatever ideal we choose to apply? It has been pointed out that while no one really has the black heart to say that he cannot take his family out, appearances are meaningful, and he should have chosen a better time to do such a thing.

Like when? When the world stops being full of hateful and evil people who desire death upon their neighbors? Not gonna happen folks, not gonna happen.

I see this more as an onset of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) than anything else. Especially when there are so many other things to be rightly critical of (See, I am still a Conservative, I just reserve my ire for those issues that deserve it):

1. North Korea threatening to provide a fireworks display for Hawai'i on the 4th of July and the Media silence that enshrouds it. This little problem is, in my mind, an open act of war. I know that we are deploying missile defense (funny how those have become useful now, hunh?) units to shield the 50th state, but them used to be "fightin' words" back in the day. I even have my doubts about us actually doing anything of substantial value if they try it, and I get the distinct impression that even if they launch, and we shoot down a Taepodong-2 missile, it will be news for about a week, and then watch it quietly sink beneath the waves of Socialized Healthcare and Unemployment.

2. The ABCNEWS plug for Obama's Healthcare. They have refused any opposing viewpoints to be broadcast as part of a one-hour "Infomercial" regarding Obama's proposed outline for Socialized Medicine. Not only is this a disgrace to objectivity in the media, but it smacks quite loudly of desperation. The polls are now dead even (from higher support earlier this year) when it comes to support for these measures, and I would ask anyone who challenges this assertion to answer me this: If it is such a popular move, why is he trying so hard to sell it?

3. Obama cut the spending for pro-democracy groups in Iran via the State Department. Recently. Like during the Iranian crisis that is currently getting worse. This is a perfect example of a horrifying mixed message, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it was an oversight by some well-meaning staffer who didn't know what they were cutting. I certainly hope so, at least.

4. Uighers (terrorists) now living in Bermuda. Watch the video (You only need the first half...). Look around your house. Look at your checkbook. Check the stock market. Remember that the economy is really bad off. Remember that you are an American Citizen. Sharpen the pitchforks. Prepare the torches. Get back to me. One word: Inexcusable.

See? These are legitimate sources of outrage. You can feel wholesome and angry all at the same time. Sometimes these things just come together.

Oh, and another thing. Remember when the Iranians were bad? I do. I am going to be cynical here and say that I think that this situation is one of those "support today, fight tomorrow" kinds of things. I know that Mousavi and the others were the only choices that the Iranian people had, and that he was the "lesser of the available evils", but I will reserve my undying love for those who have proven that they deserve it.

Do not take from that statement that I wish any harm on anyone. I cheer the demonstations that cry out for democracy and peace. I am moved to tears by some of the horrific videos that we are seeing. I applaud the Iranian people's courage in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. I just remain guarded and cautious when it comes to a country that has a history of enthusiastically hating us. I remember (barely) the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and I seem to recall seeing cheers in the streets all over the muslim world when 9/11 happened.

Let's just say that I am taking a stance of "We'll see..."

How do you conclude a widely ranged rant like this one? I suggest a quote:

"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." ~Molly Ivins

H/T: AofSHQ, FOXNEWS, Rasmussen, The Daily Show

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Iran's Turmoil And Obama

Well, on the lighter side, I guess we all have a momentary reprieve from the "threat" of an Iranian Nuclear Device.

I suppose that everyone there in the various seats of theocratic power is busy dealing with those troublesome youths and their uppity ideas about fair elections and something called "Democracy".

Poor fellows. Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of guys, I tell you what.

In all seriousness, the reports and images leaking out of Iran are describing a political movement of such scale as to make any number of Washington politicians throw their wallets and pocket change and run screaming in the other direction.

I do so wonder what Mr. Ahmedinejhad is doing right about now. Does he have an "Undisclosed Location" guarded in this instance by Hamas and possibly Hezbollah thugs? Is he beginning to question the legitimacy of his regime, or at least reading the writing on the wall? Has he seen the banners at the soccer games that say "Go To Hell Dictator"? Does he realize that that is his glorious self to which they are referring? Does he care?

Information is slowly coming out, and we are all watching carefully to see how this develops. I must admit that while I would like to hear more definitive statements from Obama to the effect of supporting the Democratic Process and the Will of the People, I suppose that he is being cautious due to the fact that we have become the World's de facto Iranian Negotiator and he needs to avoid overtly taking a side (other than the people's) due to the unfortunate possibility that he will be back to the Talkin' Table with the one guy that has just GOT to be a blast at parties.

I know, I know, I'd like to see him rend his shirt from off his chiseled pectorals and announce from atop the Rotunda that America will not stand for such injustices too, but then how could he sit down with the World's Most Cheerfully Brutal Dictator and talk about peace (No really, the guy looks just so happy almost all of the time. Like he's just having the time of his life hanging folks from cranes all day. Creepy...)?

The truth is that I am not surprised to see France, Germany, and now Canada display their solidarity with the Iranian People. This time, they get to make US look like panty-waists. Thanks guys... I suppose it is easier to pick a side and cheer when you don't have the testicular fortitude to actually be the one (no pun intended) to talk to this wretched little man.

Look, I am not the biggest supporter of Obama, but he is our President and I honestly think that he is taking what may very well be a prudent course of action. It will hurt him here, and as reported by Kianoosh Sanjari (via: Gateway Pundit):

"The people of Iran will not forgive Barack Obama for siding with the evil regime."

As much as it will damage our "Public Image", retaining the chance to negotiate Iran out of the Nuke is an important card to keep in our hand. Besides, he may be privy to more information than we are getting.

Or I could just be hoping that that is the strategy...

Regardless of here at home, the real issue is the Iranian people. They are finally demonstrating their displeasure with the current way of doing things, and have made quite clear their desire for a more moderate leadership. I understand that Mousavi is hardly a saint, but a step in the right direction is always a good one.

I congratulate them on their bravery and perseverance, and wish them the best for their future's sake. I will pray for them all.

Oh, and the Mullahs' claim that America is meddling? "Bovine Leavings", you say?

I don't suppose you can "Tweet" back on Twitter to any of those Iranian Student "Citizen Journalists" with your encouragement can you?

Because if you can, that may become evidence on some kid's cell phone or computer to convict them of treason. Such evidence would be catalogued, remembered, and pushed in our faces. Maybe Obama shouldn't worry about trying to save the remaining few shreds of diplomacy for Ahmedinejhad and just start climbing the Capitol Building after all...

H/T: (Gateway Pundit) and Hot Air

Thursday, June 11, 2009

David Letterman's Shameful Remarks

Recently, an indicator of our country's further social division reared it’s ugly head. David Letterman, a comedian of some note, made some rather horrific remarks in regards to Sarah Palin’s daughter.

disgraceful attempt at humor came during the opening monologue of the “Late Show” when he made the statement that Mrs. Palin’s 14-year-old daughter Willow had been raped at a baseball game by Alex Rodriguez, a baseball player.

I am not the biggest fan of Mrs. Palin, but I am a human and a father. Such horrendous and disgusting vitriol would anger me if it had been said about the Obama girls or any other individual’s children. To brutally attack someone’s family with such words for the purported purposes of humor is an abhorrent act. This is not levity or good-natured ribbing, this is cruel and vicious degradation.

What further angers me about this situation is the fact that it is apparently
up for debate as to the “merits” of the statements themselves. As though these remarks made in supposed “jest” have any business being uttered over the airwaves and sent into our homes by someone whom we have invited into them. As though the comments were well within the standards of basic Human Decency. As though it is acceptable to attack an individual’s family due to their difference from yourself in any way.

The repulsive issue has prompted some to state that Letterman was simply making a joke, or that as an entertainer, he has free license and carte blanche to say whatever he pleases about anyone. I fully support Freedom of Speech, but there is a line of respect and decency that should not be crossed when performing for such a broad swath of the public. To say such things in private is still reprehensible, but it is in private, and the damage done is minimal and self-punishing. To say such things in public, before a live studio audience, and with the reasonable expectation to be heard by millions is a blatant and irresponsible disregard for one’s own Humanity and Society’s basic principles of conduct.

Mr. Letterman, for all his seniority in television, and as a father, should have known better and refrained from such low and classless behavior.

The CBS apple, it would seem, has fallen very far from the Murrow Tree…

H/T: Gateway Pundit

UPDATE: I was apparently in error when I reported that Mr. Letterman had said that Willow, Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter had been raped at a baseball game. He said that her daughter (allegedly referring to 18-19 year old Bristol) had been "knocked up".

I apologize for the shoddy reporting and will do better in the future. That having been said, I still feel it to be in poor taste to make such jokes about someone's family. Class by example is sorely lacking as it is in this country...