Friday, October 07, 2005
Rich people and rich people cures
After Christopher Reeve (remember him? The sainted liberal poster boy who was crippled playing polo and whose medical bills--in the millions--were payed for by his Hollywood friends?), I had begun to hope that maybe we had heard the last (at least for a while) of wealthy people receiving groundbreaking surgeries that only wealthy people can afford or have access to. I was, sadly, wrong. Seems Stevie Wonder may be able to see again. Wow! The world can rest easy tonight knowing that a wealthy blind guy may see again! Of course, that doesn't do diddly for the blind of this planet who can't afford mega-bucks surgery, but who cares? What's really important is that Stevie Wonder may see again!
I have to wonder when the libs--those caring, socially conscious folks who weep such large crocodile tears--are going to start defending the paraplegics and blind people who don't have enough money to get through the week, let alone the cash for surgery. My brother had no health insurance, and when he had a massive heart attack, the bills were well over $100,000. His death did not, needless to say, stop the collection agencies.
But who cares? Stevie Wonder may see again!
I have to wonder when the libs--those caring, socially conscious folks who weep such large crocodile tears--are going to start defending the paraplegics and blind people who don't have enough money to get through the week, let alone the cash for surgery. My brother had no health insurance, and when he had a massive heart attack, the bills were well over $100,000. His death did not, needless to say, stop the collection agencies.
But who cares? Stevie Wonder may see again!
GOP Harriet Miers e-mail
This is the entire text of the e-mail I received today from the GOP regarding Harriet Miers. I've signed the online petition already, so please, if you support the President's choice, follow the link and sign the petition as well.
Dear Salena,
On Monday President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court.
Harriet Miers has a long and distinguished career as one of the foremost lawyers in the country which makes her exceptionally well qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court. As a Justice on the Supreme Court, she will strictly interpret the Constitution and laws of the United States, not legislate from the bench.The President has once again nominated someone to the federal bench who stand strong for our shared principles. Like Chief Justice John Roberts, Harriet Miers will bring to the Supreme Court modesty, humility, and a conservative judicial philosophy.
In recent days, many conservative leaders are rallying to support her nomination.
Dr. James Dobson:"We welcome the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. He pledged emphatically during his campaign to appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than create it. He also promised to select competent judges who will 'not use the bench to write social policy. To this point, President Bush's appointments to the federal bench appear to have been remarkably consistent with that stated philosophy."
David N. O'Steen, Executive Director - National Right to Life Committee:"President Bush has an excellent record of appointing judges who recognize the proper role of the courts, which is to interpret the law according to its actual text, and not to legislate from the bench. We believe that Harriet Miers is another nominee who will abide by the text and history of the Constitution."
Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel - American Center for Law and Justice:"At a time when the High Court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day - including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues - the person who replaces Justice O'Connor is critical. She [Harriet Miers] is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination. Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor"
Roberta Combs, President - Christian Coalition of America: "She [Harriet Miers] was the first woman to be elected the Texas State Bar Association President and the first woman to be hired in her law firm and to become President of the law firm. I trust that she will be an excellent addition to the High Court and all Americans will be proud of her."
Dr. Richard Land:"I'm supporting her because I know this president. There is no issue he is more committed to than turning around the role of judges in this culture and his commitment to strict-constructionist, original- intent jurists. There is no promise he has kept more faithfully."
Take Action! Sign our petition in support of Harriet Miers
Take Action! Let us know why you are supporting President Bush and his nomination of Harriet Miers. Email faithandvalues@gop.com and let us know why you are supporting her nomination.
Sincerely,
David Rexrode
Director of Conservative Development
Dear Salena,
On Monday President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court.
Harriet Miers has a long and distinguished career as one of the foremost lawyers in the country which makes her exceptionally well qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court. As a Justice on the Supreme Court, she will strictly interpret the Constitution and laws of the United States, not legislate from the bench.The President has once again nominated someone to the federal bench who stand strong for our shared principles. Like Chief Justice John Roberts, Harriet Miers will bring to the Supreme Court modesty, humility, and a conservative judicial philosophy.
In recent days, many conservative leaders are rallying to support her nomination.
Dr. James Dobson:"We welcome the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. He pledged emphatically during his campaign to appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than create it. He also promised to select competent judges who will 'not use the bench to write social policy. To this point, President Bush's appointments to the federal bench appear to have been remarkably consistent with that stated philosophy."
David N. O'Steen, Executive Director - National Right to Life Committee:"President Bush has an excellent record of appointing judges who recognize the proper role of the courts, which is to interpret the law according to its actual text, and not to legislate from the bench. We believe that Harriet Miers is another nominee who will abide by the text and history of the Constitution."
Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel - American Center for Law and Justice:"At a time when the High Court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day - including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues - the person who replaces Justice O'Connor is critical. She [Harriet Miers] is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination. Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor"
Roberta Combs, President - Christian Coalition of America: "She [Harriet Miers] was the first woman to be elected the Texas State Bar Association President and the first woman to be hired in her law firm and to become President of the law firm. I trust that she will be an excellent addition to the High Court and all Americans will be proud of her."
Dr. Richard Land:"I'm supporting her because I know this president. There is no issue he is more committed to than turning around the role of judges in this culture and his commitment to strict-constructionist, original- intent jurists. There is no promise he has kept more faithfully."
Take Action! Sign our petition in support of Harriet Miers
Take Action! Let us know why you are supporting President Bush and his nomination of Harriet Miers. Email faithandvalues@gop.com and let us know why you are supporting her nomination.
Sincerely,
David Rexrode
Director of Conservative Development
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Without a trace of bias
Tonight's episode of "Without a Trace" (carried, naturally, by the network that brought you Dan Blather) featured a poor, defenseless little kid being beaten by huge, merciless bullies.
What set off these bullies, these thugs, you ask? Well, I'll tell you--it seems the sweet, tiny, angelic, golden-haired boy dared to say that the government of these United States isn't protecting its citizens, and that said government was more than a little to blame for 9/11. For this crime, the sweet little boy was beaten by the immense and highly-muscled schoolroom bullies.
I didn't watch the entire episode, preferring by a wide margin to focus my energies instead on rooting for the Astros (they lost), so I have no idea how the episode ends. Nor do I care. (Oh, and I forgot to add that the angelic golden-haired little liberal pipsqueak, who reminded me sharply of a time-machined Joe Biden, was being raised by a brave and valiant single mother, who held two jobs.) Will I sleep better tonight knowing that short angelic liberal brats are out there defending the terrorists who want to kill me and my family? Not likely...
What set off these bullies, these thugs, you ask? Well, I'll tell you--it seems the sweet, tiny, angelic, golden-haired boy dared to say that the government of these United States isn't protecting its citizens, and that said government was more than a little to blame for 9/11. For this crime, the sweet little boy was beaten by the immense and highly-muscled schoolroom bullies.
I didn't watch the entire episode, preferring by a wide margin to focus my energies instead on rooting for the Astros (they lost), so I have no idea how the episode ends. Nor do I care. (Oh, and I forgot to add that the angelic golden-haired little liberal pipsqueak, who reminded me sharply of a time-machined Joe Biden, was being raised by a brave and valiant single mother, who held two jobs.) Will I sleep better tonight knowing that short angelic liberal brats are out there defending the terrorists who want to kill me and my family? Not likely...
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Hillary for the Supreme Court
I have an idea. President Bush is being criticized for nominating a lawyer who has never worn judicial robes (never mind that Rehnquist never did either, before his confirmation) for a spot on the Supreme Court. Fine, so here's my idea, and I think it's a really funny one--he should nominate Hillary Clinton instead. She's a lawyer, she's a she (until someone can actually prove otherwise), and she's the left's poster girl.
And then, since you know darned well that the Dems would have no choice but to confirm her to the Supreme Court (and since the Republicans would get the joke, she'd win unanimously!), we could watch them all implode, every single Democrat in the Senate. They would have to approve a Bush nominee, who would then be out of the running for the White House for the forseeable future.
I am, of course, kidding, but wouldn't it be fun?
And then, since you know darned well that the Dems would have no choice but to confirm her to the Supreme Court (and since the Republicans would get the joke, she'd win unanimously!), we could watch them all implode, every single Democrat in the Senate. They would have to approve a Bush nominee, who would then be out of the running for the White House for the forseeable future.
I am, of course, kidding, but wouldn't it be fun?
Monday, October 03, 2005
Harriet Miers
As everyone now knows, Harriet Miers has been nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Also, today marks Chief Justice Roberts' first official day on the job.
What sort of woman is Harriet Miers? She isn't a judge, but she definitely comes fully loaded with qualifications. She is the current head of Texas' State Bar. Something that will cause liberals everywhere to lose sleep, however, is the fact that Miers lobbied against abortion:
As president of the Texas State Bar in 1993, Harriet Miers urged the national American Bar Association to put the abortion issue to a referendum of the group's full membership. She questioned at the time whether the ABA should "be trying to speak for the entire legal community" on an issue that she said "has brought on tremendous divisiveness" within the ABA. from this link.
Libs can apparently draw courage (can't you just hear Dan Rather mournfully mouthing that word?) from the fact that in the 1980s, Miers donated to the Democratic Party:
Picking through the background of newly minted Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, there are some political activities that may irritate the president's conservative base -- she donated campaign cash to a handful of Democrats, including Al Gore.
In her defense, the donations date back to the 1980s. For example, Miers gave $1,000 to Gore, then a senator from Tennessee, during his 1988 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, according to Political Moneyline -- the best site on the Web to track money and politics.
During that same cycle, Miers donated $1,000 each to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.) and the Democratic National Committee.
Of course, I found that at Chris Cillizza's blog, which touts that tonmorrow's entries will include "another blow to Republicans," so I am quoting from a left-biased source, but still, the fact remains that Miers did indeed make those donations. Of course, over a 20-year period, anyone can change their minds and switch party affiliation. Anyone can be cured of liberalism, and hopefully, judging by her stance on abortion, Harriet Miers has indeed been cured.
For those interested, some of the choicer comments left on the above-cited blog (with my comments in parentheses after--and the original comments are unedited by me):
It seems as if Bush really blew it. He totally undercut the last group that was hanging with him - his base. (He totally undercut his base? Wow! Really? Why hasn't that made the news?)
I am so glad that you are writing The Fix. A talented journalist like yourself is a treasure to the pack journalists that roam this town. (Talented journalist? I found no talent whatsoever in the sparse paragraphs that this "treasure" jotted down in his blog.)
I just can't figure Bush out, he seems to think for himself every once in a while and it throws us all threw a loop. (Aww, sweetie, I'll just bet it does, because you're all so convinced Bush is a moron, and it really confuses you when you have to admit he can actually think for himself. Maybe we can provide barf-bags for that loopy ride you're on.)
just like when W selected Roberts, The far right and far left didnt approve. So maybe W is the guenus in disguise. (Well, we certainly know who isn't a genius in disguise...)
My concern isn't that Miers never was a judge or that she's been plucked from the dark Republican cave of Bush's Whitehouse but rather that she's SIXTY and has never been married. Perhaps it's her Halloween-style make-up or that her face is more wrinkled than a Texan raisen, or perhaps it's somethign else. Maybe she's looking to date Souter? Or, more likely, with the way Bush's second term is going, Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Most Jewish women experiment with lesbianism at some point in their lives. Usually it's sophmore year after a bowl of Humbolt. But never say never and Ginsburg is kind of hot. I'm sure we'll learn more during the hearings... (I'm not even certain this one was meant seriously. I certainly hope it wasn't...Regardless, it reveals something about the sort of people who commented on the "talented journalism" of the "treasure" writing the blog.)
Go ahead and fight abortion for yourself and in your family and in your church, but leave the rest of our society the hell alone. I don't believe that an undifferentiated mass of protoplasm at 3 or 6 months is any more a "baby" than a puppy fetus, a kitty fetus, or a hamster fetus. While I would treasure it myself and do everything possible to protect and sustain it, I cannot and would not force my will on anybody else. (So a woman who is 6 months pregnant is not carrying a baby, but is carrying an "undifferentiated mass of protoplasm?" There is so much wrong with this bizarre statement that I don't know where to start, so I'll just leave it as its own commentary, and end my post.)
What sort of woman is Harriet Miers? She isn't a judge, but she definitely comes fully loaded with qualifications. She is the current head of Texas' State Bar. Something that will cause liberals everywhere to lose sleep, however, is the fact that Miers lobbied against abortion:
As president of the Texas State Bar in 1993, Harriet Miers urged the national American Bar Association to put the abortion issue to a referendum of the group's full membership. She questioned at the time whether the ABA should "be trying to speak for the entire legal community" on an issue that she said "has brought on tremendous divisiveness" within the ABA. from this link.
Libs can apparently draw courage (can't you just hear Dan Rather mournfully mouthing that word?) from the fact that in the 1980s, Miers donated to the Democratic Party:
Picking through the background of newly minted Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, there are some political activities that may irritate the president's conservative base -- she donated campaign cash to a handful of Democrats, including Al Gore.
In her defense, the donations date back to the 1980s. For example, Miers gave $1,000 to Gore, then a senator from Tennessee, during his 1988 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, according to Political Moneyline -- the best site on the Web to track money and politics.
During that same cycle, Miers donated $1,000 each to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.) and the Democratic National Committee.
Of course, I found that at Chris Cillizza's blog, which touts that tonmorrow's entries will include "another blow to Republicans," so I am quoting from a left-biased source, but still, the fact remains that Miers did indeed make those donations. Of course, over a 20-year period, anyone can change their minds and switch party affiliation. Anyone can be cured of liberalism, and hopefully, judging by her stance on abortion, Harriet Miers has indeed been cured.
For those interested, some of the choicer comments left on the above-cited blog (with my comments in parentheses after--and the original comments are unedited by me):
It seems as if Bush really blew it. He totally undercut the last group that was hanging with him - his base. (He totally undercut his base? Wow! Really? Why hasn't that made the news?)
I am so glad that you are writing The Fix. A talented journalist like yourself is a treasure to the pack journalists that roam this town. (Talented journalist? I found no talent whatsoever in the sparse paragraphs that this "treasure" jotted down in his blog.)
I just can't figure Bush out, he seems to think for himself every once in a while and it throws us all threw a loop. (Aww, sweetie, I'll just bet it does, because you're all so convinced Bush is a moron, and it really confuses you when you have to admit he can actually think for himself. Maybe we can provide barf-bags for that loopy ride you're on.)
just like when W selected Roberts, The far right and far left didnt approve. So maybe W is the guenus in disguise. (Well, we certainly know who isn't a genius in disguise...)
My concern isn't that Miers never was a judge or that she's been plucked from the dark Republican cave of Bush's Whitehouse but rather that she's SIXTY and has never been married. Perhaps it's her Halloween-style make-up or that her face is more wrinkled than a Texan raisen, or perhaps it's somethign else. Maybe she's looking to date Souter? Or, more likely, with the way Bush's second term is going, Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Most Jewish women experiment with lesbianism at some point in their lives. Usually it's sophmore year after a bowl of Humbolt. But never say never and Ginsburg is kind of hot. I'm sure we'll learn more during the hearings... (I'm not even certain this one was meant seriously. I certainly hope it wasn't...Regardless, it reveals something about the sort of people who commented on the "talented journalism" of the "treasure" writing the blog.)
Go ahead and fight abortion for yourself and in your family and in your church, but leave the rest of our society the hell alone. I don't believe that an undifferentiated mass of protoplasm at 3 or 6 months is any more a "baby" than a puppy fetus, a kitty fetus, or a hamster fetus. While I would treasure it myself and do everything possible to protect and sustain it, I cannot and would not force my will on anybody else. (So a woman who is 6 months pregnant is not carrying a baby, but is carrying an "undifferentiated mass of protoplasm?" There is so much wrong with this bizarre statement that I don't know where to start, so I'll just leave it as its own commentary, and end my post.)
