CommenTerry

Elitist Attacks on Palin Could Backfire

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has recently come under increased attacks from the elitist media over her religious and personal beliefs. This assault is being lead by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, whom I call the Grand Poobah of elitism, and his leftist lesbian sidekick, Rachel Maddow. The perennially-wrong Hollywood harebrains, like the atheist nutcase Bill Maher, have now piled on.

If they want the Democrats to win in November, they would be advised to stay out of Gov. Palin’s private matters. If they continue, all they are going to do is stir up sympathy for her from mainstream America. Even though they may not agree with her on everything, average Americans can more closely identify with Palin than they can with the Hollywood and media elite. I’m not a big proponent of Palin myself, but this merciless savaging of her character is making me angry.

What do these snarky secularists think they’re going to accomplish by belittling and lampooning Palin’s religion? All that’s going to do is make their lack of religious faith that much more obvious. And it’ll make the Democratic Party look like the enemy of religion. Is that what they really want?

And why are Palin’s positions on life, creationism, marriage, and abstinence education such horrible things to them? What exactly are they afraid of? I haven’t researched this, but I’ll lay odds that at least 50% of the U.S. voting public holds a view similar to Palin on one or more of those issues. All this disparagement of Palin is going to highlight just how out of touch her critics really are. But they’re probably too dumb to realize it. So go ahead, pompous punks, make John McCain’s and Sarah Palin’s day!

Did Bankruptcy Reform Cause the Mortgage Crisis?

Recently, a gentleman wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper in which he found fault with the bankruptcy reform enacted by Congress in October 2005. He blamed this change in the nation’s bankruptcy laws for the increase in home foreclosures that helped lead to the current upheaval in our financial markets. Specifically, he pointed to the fact that individuals filling Chapter 7 bankruptcy can no longer keep their homes at the conclusion of this process. As a consequence, more homes have gone into foreclosure.

However, the fact remains that if financial institutions hadn’t started offering mortgages to those who weren’t creditworthy, any change in bankruptcy laws would have been a moot point. There was a reason that mortgages used to be restricted to those with good credit histories. And it had nothing to do with discrimination – it had everything do with the fact that those people could pay the money back and were unlikely to ever declare bankruptcy.

By the way, that letter writer also criticized John McCain for supporting bankruptcy reform back in 2005, and praised Barack Obama for opposing it. To me, that just makes McCain look like a more logical choice for president in November. Actually, I don’t think Congress went far enough with bankruptcy reform back in 2005. If I had my way, I would have removed the option for people, other than victims of medical or other emergencies, to completely walk away from their debts and obligations.

Bush "Dynasty" Began on a Cold Night in Iowa

We are nearing the end of the third Bush presidency, the second  of two for George W. Bush, which followed two for Bill Clinton, which followed one for George H.W. Bush. Whether the Bush presidencies should be called a dynasty is up for debate. What's probably not up for debate is the likelihood that there would have been no Bush presidencies had it not been for the events of a cold night in Iowa back in the winter of 1980.

On that night, a little known former CIA director and former one-term congressman named George H.W. Bush registered a stunning two-point margin of  victory over heavy favorite Ronald Reagan in the Iowa Republican Caucuses. Before that night, Bush was just one of a number of presidential wannabes who were hoping that some kind of miracle would allow them to seriously compete with Reagan for the GOP presidential nomination.

Had it not been for his performance that night, the Bush name would probably have disappeared into the mist of other political also-rans who were also challenging Reagan for the nomination - names like Phil Crane and John Anderson - and the elder Bush would likely have never been considered for Vice President, much less for President. Consequently, the younger Bush, without the political clout inherited from his father's two terms as Vice President and one term as President, would probably have remained just another obscure Texas businessman to this day.

By the way, who remembers Crane and Anderson? Probably no one but political junkies like me! Of course, there were some more well known contenders as well, like Bob Dole, John Connally, and Howard Baker. However, Bush's name recognition at that time was more at the level of Crane and Anderson.

At any rate, Bush's victory that night caught candidate Reagan and even seasoned political analysts by surprise. Reagan recovered from his loss in Iowa, scored a resounding victory in the New Hampshire Primary, and ultimately won the presidential nomination and the presidency. However, thanks to Bush's Iowa performance, Reagan's victory didn't come until after a long, arduous, and often nasty nomination fight with Bush that lasted throughout nearly the entire primary and caucus schedule. It put Bush, one-on-one, on the same political stage with Reagan, as if he were Reagan's political equal.

When Reagan's original choice for a running mate, former President Gerald Ford, turned him down, he tapped Bush, the only politician who was able to stand toe-to-toe with him that year and the only logical choice he felt that he had left. The rest, as they say, is history. 

Classic Rants and Raves #53

The most difficult part of most any job is figuring out where to begin.       

---

President Bush should close down Gitmo as soon as possible. If we have enough evidence to hold the suspected terrorists being housed there, then we should have enough evidence to go ahead and charge them with something. Otherwise, we should return them to where they came from.

---

Lazy people constantly miss out on the satisfaction of a job well done.

---

If you'll truly look around, you will see much more to be happy and excited about than to be sad and depressed about. 

---

It's difficult to be depressed and busy at the same time.

---

Upper Peninsula: That piece of Michigan that looks as if it ought to belong to Wisconsin. 

---

Yesterday I saw the following posted on a church marquee: "Complaining displeases the Lord." Hmm...I wonder if its members will keep this in mind the next time another movie like The Da Vinci Code is released! 

---

No matter how comfortable a pair of new shoes might be, they still need some time to be broken in.

Why Change the Rules in the Last Five Minutes?

College football has now adopted pro football’s concept of using different sets of rules, depending on how much time is left on the game clock. In particular, college football officials now only temporarily stop the clock when the ball carrier goes out of bounds. It is restarted when ball is placed on the new line of scrimmage. That is, of course, unless it’s the last five minutes of the game or half. In that case, the clock remains stopped until the ball is snapped again – a rule that used to apply to the entire game. 

I think it’s silly to not play with the same rules during the whole game. If a rule is good enough for the last five minutes of a half, why isn’t it good enough for the first 25 minutes of that same half? Conversely, if a rule works well for the first 25 minutes, why abandon it in the last five minutes? The whole idea doesn’t make any sense to me.

It’s also unfair and diminishes the integrity of the game. If a team builds a lead with one set of rules, then why allow the other team to make a comeback using a different set of rules? I know it creates the potential for a more exciting finish, and it’s more fun for fans, but at what expense?  Each team should be forced to score its points under the same conditions. The scoreboard treats all points the same, so they should be equally earned. That way, the final score would mean a lot more.

Election Day Will Not Be the End of the World

No matter who comes out victorious in the presidential election on November 4, it will not be end of the world. It will not result in any cataclysmic events and the republic will not fall apart. Barack Obama will not transform the U.S. into an Islamic state, nor will he import communism from Cuba or socialism from Europe. John McCain will not start World War III or set off some kind of nightmarish recession. Obama is not the Antichrist, nor is he a Muslim. McCain is not a warmonger, nor is he suffering from dementia.

For the next four years, life will go on as it always has. Of course, try telling that to rabid partisans on either end of the political spectrum. I suspect that some of them will need to check into therapy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) if their candidate loses. Those are the folks, many of them bloggers, who are so fanatical about their candidate that they can’t stand for one anyone to say anything nice about the other. Their candidate can do no wrong, while the opposition can do no right. They just can’t comprehend a guy like me, who generally has both positive and negative things to say about all political office seekers.

No matter what the wackos might say, I believe there will be a silver lining on Election Night for supporters of the losing ticket. In fact, I believe there is reason for them to have their own celebration that night – four years early! They can rest assured that their party will likely come out on top in 20012. Can you imagine Obama or McCain getting elected to a second term? I can’t. There is also no way, in my opinion, that vice presidential nominees Sarah Palin and Joe Biden stand a chance to be elected president. Of course, since I’m not a psychic, I can’t be sure that one them won’t become president due to the disability or death of the man at the top of their ticket. But even in that case, they would never be elected to a term of their own.

I don’t understand why right-wingers hate Obama so much or why the left-wingers feel the need to be so disrespectful to McCain. I believe all four of the candidates on the two major party tickets are decent people. I would be thrilled to sit down and have a drink with any of them (although it would have to coffee, tea, or a soda, since I am a non-drinker). However, despite their obvious good intentions, I just see them as regular people, not presidential timber, although one is obviously going to be elected president. I’m not presidential timber myself, but at least I have enough common sense not to run.

There are plenty of folks out there whom I believe would make good presidents. Among them are Ron Paul, Chuck Hagel, and Mike Huckabee on Republican side; and Bob Casey, Jr. on the Democratic side. Maybe we’ll get lucky and one of them will be nominated next time. But for the next four years, we’ll just have to endure an ineffectual, although fairly innocuous, presidency.

It's Time to Put the Handcuffs on Police Departments

Every time I watch a TV show like NBC’s To Catch a Predator, I get so mad that I swear steam probably emanates from my ears. Why is it that four or more screaming cops, with guns drawn, have to shove an unresisting, nonviolent, terrified (and sometimes crying) suspect to the ground and put handcuffs on him? In a physical confrontation, most of these offenders would be no match for any one of the officers – even a female. They could be just as easily apprehended by one officer with a simple, “Come with me.” This use of handcuffs and all the roughhouse tactics no doubt result in some of those guys enduring Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for many years afterward.

I can appreciate the need for police officers to err on the side of caution and protect themselves as much as reasonably possible. They have a very dangerous job and I understand that. But the use of strong-arm tactics on obviously submissive suspects seems excessive to me. A private citizen would not be allowed such disproportionate use of force. For example, if someone much smaller than I slapped me in the face, I could not legally respond by pointing a loaded gun at him and getting three of my friends to help me force him to the ground. Of course, such action would almost certainly guarantee my safety during the confrontation and would virtually ensure that I come out victorious. However, a court of law would very likely find that response unlawfully extreme, not to mention cowardly. 

Don’t get me wrong, my beef is not with individual cops. My problem is with the policies and procedures their departments dictate that they follow. The rules should be changed to prohibit this kind of activity by police departments, even if it requires a constitutional amendment. Cops should not be required, directed, or allowed to handcuff, draw their guns on, or otherwise roughly handle someone unless that person meets one or more of the following criteria: He or she (1) has been convicted of a violent crime in the past, (2) has been known to use violence in the past, (3) has been convicted of weapons violations in the past, (4) is currently suspected of a violence crime, (5) is currently suspected of a weapons violation, (5) is acting in a belligerent manner, (6) has produced a weapon or reasonably appears to be reaching for or carrying one, or (7) is attempting to actively and physically resist.

Some people will now undoubtedly conclude that I’m one of those liberals who is tough on police and soft on suspects? But that’s not the case at all. Many suspects are fearless, menacing, and/or intimidating.  Those are the kinds of people that are the real threat to the police. They should always be approached with the greatest of caution. And when doing so, I believe police are justified in using whatever means they feel are necessary to emerge unharmed.

Is the 'Age of Accountability' Doctrine Biblical?

Many protestant denominations, including Southern Baptists, teach the ‘age of accountability’ doctrine. Simply put, this doctrine holds that children are not responsible for their own sins until they reach some nebulous age of accountability that only God is aware of. Supposedly, this is the point at which an individual child begins to understand the difference between right and wrong along with how to receive forgiveness for his or her sins and salvation for the soul.

After that point, they are held accountable for their own sins. And if they die after this line has been crossed without having been saved, they, like any adult in that condition, will be doomed to eternal punishment. However, any child dying before reaching the age of accountability automatically goes to heaven because he or she is said to be in a state of innocence.   

However, this doctrine cannot be found anywhere in the Holy Bible. It does not say what kind of afterlife, if any, awaits innocent children who die. Therefore, we do not really know the answer. Unfortunately, many deeply religious people, especially those of the fundamentalist persuasion, feel that saying you don’t know something about your religion is somehow an indication of weak theology. Therefore, this doctrine was fabricated as an effort to answer the question about the fate of those who die as innocent babies and children.

My other problem with this doctrine is that contradicts one of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity – that belief in Christ is the only path to salvation. Most of those who hold to the doctrine of the age of accountability also claim to adhere to this “one way” salvation model. What they don’t seem to realize is that the idea that innocents automatically go to heaven identifies a second way to be saved – one which does not necessitate the belief in Christ.

I’ll stick with what the Bible actually teaches and admit that there are some things that I’ll never know during my journey through this life. That’s far better than subscribing to desperate attempts to explain the unknown.

How Vice Presidential Candidates Should Be Picked

I don’t like the way both major parties select their vice presidential nominees. All too often, the presidential nominee selects someone who has not run for president in the primaries. Yes, this person does go through a vetting process, but there’s no better way to scrutinize candidates that than to watch them make presidential runs of their own.

In addition, the current process is unfair those receiving millions of votes in the primaries. For example, just this year, Hillary Clinton received over 18 million votes in the Democratic primaries and was left on the outside looking in. And the Republican side, look at all the votes Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee received. They were both left out as well.

I think the vice presidential nomination should be automatically offered to the person receiving the second highest total of delegates during the primaries, assuming he or she garners at least 20% of them. If that person turns it down, then it should be offered to the person with the third highest total and at least 20% of the delegates. This would continue until one of the candidates accepts or until no one with at least 20% of the delegate total remains. If the latter is case, then the presidential nominee would be free to select whomever he or she wanted.

In addition to be getting a more vetted candidate and being fairer, this method would help build party unity. It would discourage candidates from bashing each other during the primaries. In most cases, the ticket would be comprised of the two candidates who were the most favored by primary voters. Also, it would allow the primary season to still be meaningful, even after the presidential nomination has been clinched. That would be a boost to states that conduct their primaries and caucuses later in the nominating season. I see this as a win-win situation for the candidates, the parties, the states, and the voters alike.

Don't Confuse Needs and Wants

People get themselves in trouble when they get their needs and wants confused. A person needs good health, a steady stream of income, food/water, clothing, and shelter. Those to whom God has given all these things have everything they need. Everything else falls into the category of wants. However, many people who have all these things still feel as if some of their 'needs' haven't been met. This attitude is the root cause of bad relationships, failed marriages, gangs, cults, religious fanaticism, etc.