All across this country, local governments are hiding behind their misguided interpretation of "separation of church and state" to deny people their constitutional rights to peacefully assemble and to follow the religion of their choice. Yet when illegal ordinances banning home Bible studies, house churches or any other religious gathering in a home are exposed, too often people of faith refuse to stand together to force their local officials to do what is right.
One of our blog readers sent me a link to a news story that broke last week on a San Diego newscast. A pastor and his wife were "interrogated" by a San Diego County employee for holding a small Bible study -- about 15 people -- in their home on a weekly basis, which the employee said violates county ordinances.
The couple's attorney, Dean Broyles of the Western Center for Law & Policy, said a few days after the interrogation, the pastor and his wife received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and that told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," a process that could cost them thousands of dollars.
"If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?" Broyles asked the TV reporter.
The couple is fighting this. But they should not have to fight this on their own. Every person living in that county who values his or her constitutional rights should be demanding that the county government recognize the Bill of Rights -- for everyone.
Years ago, we encountered a similar situation in Siloam Springs, Ark. Although city officials looked the other way when large churches in the community held small group Bible studies at members' homes, they told us we couldn't have a few people at a Sunday morning service at our house. The ordinance they cited prohibited any regular gathering in which more than two or three cars would be parked at a house. When we asked the ministers of the churches in town to sign a letter asking the city council to overturn the ordinance, none of them was willing to "rock the boat."
We face a related situation in Fairfax County, Va., in which the county refuses to give churches a permanent zoning permit. All they can get is a special use permit, which means they have to get the county's permission to do anything. But rather than banding together to fight this subtle discrimination, the churches live with the status quo.
During this past election, we heard a lot about the politics of change. Change must begin where we live. If we cannot effect change on the local level, how can we expect to change our world?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Joey's Take -- Obedience School
You know, I haven't seen Bo since the first week he moved into the White House. I'm figuring the president told him he had to get his book written this year or else ...
Or maybe the president sent Bo to obedience school. We can't have anyone running around out of control in the Beltway!
Speaking of which, I bet the president wishes he could get a muzzle for Joe Biden. Also on his wish list would be a shock collar -- wait, would that be considered torture? -- or at least obedience classes for some of the political animals in Congress. They just aren't doing what he wants them to do when he wants them to do it. They really need to be White House-broken.
It's bad enough that the Republicans aren't playing nice, but the Democrats should know better. According to pack behavior, they're supposed to follow the top dog.
Ah, but there's the rub. Just who IS the top dog?
While a number drink the president's water, I'm sure some of those congressional Democrats would wag their tails and point to Pelosi. Others might lick up to Reid or the show dogs from kennels backed by rich special interests. And in the Republican pack, a few are still sniffing around McCain while others are going in circles around Limbaugh, Romney, Gingrich or anyone else who tries to smell like a leader.
What all the political animals in D.C. need to remember -- President Obama included -- is that they are on a leash controlled by the American people. And that leash can be yanked, or shortened, at any time.
If you want to join my fan club, you can e-mail me at JoeyPortie@gmail.com or become a Facebook friend -- just look for Joey Serebrov.
Or maybe the president sent Bo to obedience school. We can't have anyone running around out of control in the Beltway!
Speaking of which, I bet the president wishes he could get a muzzle for Joe Biden. Also on his wish list would be a shock collar -- wait, would that be considered torture? -- or at least obedience classes for some of the political animals in Congress. They just aren't doing what he wants them to do when he wants them to do it. They really need to be White House-broken.
It's bad enough that the Republicans aren't playing nice, but the Democrats should know better. According to pack behavior, they're supposed to follow the top dog.
Ah, but there's the rub. Just who IS the top dog?
While a number drink the president's water, I'm sure some of those congressional Democrats would wag their tails and point to Pelosi. Others might lick up to Reid or the show dogs from kennels backed by rich special interests. And in the Republican pack, a few are still sniffing around McCain while others are going in circles around Limbaugh, Romney, Gingrich or anyone else who tries to smell like a leader.
What all the political animals in D.C. need to remember -- President Obama included -- is that they are on a leash controlled by the American people. And that leash can be yanked, or shortened, at any time.
If you want to join my fan club, you can e-mail me at JoeyPortie@gmail.com or become a Facebook friend -- just look for Joey Serebrov.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Under Attack
If you feel like you're under attack lately, I've got news for you. If your faith is an important part of your life, you definitely are being attacked -- on all fronts.
A report sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (yes, your tax dollars at work) has determined that "people who use religious coping actually ended up receiving significantly more intensive life-prolonging burdensome care than those who did not" (emphasis is mine). That quote comes from the study's author, Holly Prigerson, who examined the intersection of religion and medical care in patients with terminal cancer. Her conclusion, stripped of its euphemisms, is that people of faith shouldn't get expensive, life-prolonging medical care because it's not going to prevent death in the long run or end their suffering. (Check out http://www.hhs.gov/news/healthbeat/2009/05/20090528a.html)
I'm seeing some proposals for healthcare reform coming out of this study.
Another example also involves the NIH. Francis Collins, a respected scientist who is an evangelical Christian, is being considered to head up the NIH. You should see the response from scientists -- the ones who think they alone hold all the answers to the world's problems. Here's a sampling from scientists commenting on a blog featured in The Scientist:
-- "We're finally getting a funding bump and respect and it may all be for naught if a religious apologist ends up at the helm."
-- "I have very strong reservations about such a posting for such a clearly religious person. ... The posting would be for the head of the NIH and I can envision several serious conflicts that would compromise Collins' ability to lead effectively and may very well result in bad policy choices. For example, how would he deal with issues relating to contraception, teenage sex, AIDs, Embryonic Stem Cell research and so on?
"I have to conclude that anyone choosing to have a strong religious belief has chosen to disqualify themselves from holding such a post. We need people that can be absolutely objective, and by definition this is not possible for an evangelical christian."
-- "I did not invent the religion (that was done by profoundly ignorant men thousands of years ago) but I can observe what it does to the faithful and I cannot feel comfortable with those of strong faith being in such positions where their faith can potentially introduce a dangerous bias with far-reaching implications for our society."
-- "I am deeply uncomfortable with the use of religious belief to make moral decisions that affect national interest."
-- "In a secular society, people who want to hold a highly visible public office should keep their faith to themselves, and not let their faith influence their decisions at a scientific level."
So much for freedom of speech, freedom of religion or even freedom of thought.
A report sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (yes, your tax dollars at work) has determined that "people who use religious coping actually ended up receiving significantly more intensive life-prolonging burdensome care than those who did not" (emphasis is mine). That quote comes from the study's author, Holly Prigerson, who examined the intersection of religion and medical care in patients with terminal cancer. Her conclusion, stripped of its euphemisms, is that people of faith shouldn't get expensive, life-prolonging medical care because it's not going to prevent death in the long run or end their suffering. (Check out http://www.hhs.gov/news/healthbeat/2009/05/20090528a.html)
I'm seeing some proposals for healthcare reform coming out of this study.
Another example also involves the NIH. Francis Collins, a respected scientist who is an evangelical Christian, is being considered to head up the NIH. You should see the response from scientists -- the ones who think they alone hold all the answers to the world's problems. Here's a sampling from scientists commenting on a blog featured in The Scientist:
-- "We're finally getting a funding bump and respect and it may all be for naught if a religious apologist ends up at the helm."
-- "I have very strong reservations about such a posting for such a clearly religious person. ... The posting would be for the head of the NIH and I can envision several serious conflicts that would compromise Collins' ability to lead effectively and may very well result in bad policy choices. For example, how would he deal with issues relating to contraception, teenage sex, AIDs, Embryonic Stem Cell research and so on?
"I have to conclude that anyone choosing to have a strong religious belief has chosen to disqualify themselves from holding such a post. We need people that can be absolutely objective, and by definition this is not possible for an evangelical christian."
-- "I did not invent the religion (that was done by profoundly ignorant men thousands of years ago) but I can observe what it does to the faithful and I cannot feel comfortable with those of strong faith being in such positions where their faith can potentially introduce a dangerous bias with far-reaching implications for our society."
-- "I am deeply uncomfortable with the use of religious belief to make moral decisions that affect national interest."
-- "In a secular society, people who want to hold a highly visible public office should keep their faith to themselves, and not let their faith influence their decisions at a scientific level."
So much for freedom of speech, freedom of religion or even freedom of thought.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Looking for a Contender
Despite all the doomsday predictions foretelling the death of the Republican Party, the GOP actually has a good shot at reclaiming several important congressional seats next year. That is if it recruits credible contenders rather than embracing whomever shows up or letting weak Democrats go unchallenged.
Take the Nevada U.S. Senate seat, for instance. Harry Reid, Senate majority leader and, thus, titular head of all Senate Democrats, is asking to be taken out as he is no longer seen as the champion of Nevada. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports his favorable rating in the state is at 32 percent and his unfavorable rating at 51 percent. According to the newspaper's poll, Reid has fewer fans in Nevada than President Bush and even Rush Limbaugh!
But despite this news, no Republican has stepped forward yet to challenge Reid's Senate seat. Why? The most likely candidates have their eyes on the governor's mansion. And no one is eager to battle Reid who is infamous for his no-holds-barred campaign tactics.
Even though Reid is in no shape for a well-fought campaign, the most prominent Nevadan Republicans have jaws of glass. A few of them have actually contributed to Reid. Some of the problems they face? Criminal charges of recruiting and hiring undocumented workers. Accusations of pocketing money intended for nonprofit projects. Conflicts of interest, including a state senator whose day job is as a paid lobbyist to the Legislature.
But Nevada is not without its contenders. Tim Cushman, the third generation of a family that helped punch Nevada out of the dessert, is pro-business, understands the challenges facing Nevada and has kept his nose out of politics. He could be formidable in the ring if he could be persuaded to don the Repulican mantle.
Or there's state Sen. Barbara Cegavske, a small business owner who entered the political arena on the school board level when she became concerned about the education her sons weren't getting. Her family is grown now, and Barbara, from all reports, has proved she can go toe-to-toe with the meanest without becoming a closet bone collector.
If the Republicans are to regain seats in Nevada or elsewhere, the local and national committees have to do some scouting, start recruiting the brightest and best, and then dig into their pockets to give these candidates a fighting chance. Only then will they hush the naysayers and start building the excitement they will need to retake the White House in 2012.
Take the Nevada U.S. Senate seat, for instance. Harry Reid, Senate majority leader and, thus, titular head of all Senate Democrats, is asking to be taken out as he is no longer seen as the champion of Nevada. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports his favorable rating in the state is at 32 percent and his unfavorable rating at 51 percent. According to the newspaper's poll, Reid has fewer fans in Nevada than President Bush and even Rush Limbaugh!
But despite this news, no Republican has stepped forward yet to challenge Reid's Senate seat. Why? The most likely candidates have their eyes on the governor's mansion. And no one is eager to battle Reid who is infamous for his no-holds-barred campaign tactics.
Even though Reid is in no shape for a well-fought campaign, the most prominent Nevadan Republicans have jaws of glass. A few of them have actually contributed to Reid. Some of the problems they face? Criminal charges of recruiting and hiring undocumented workers. Accusations of pocketing money intended for nonprofit projects. Conflicts of interest, including a state senator whose day job is as a paid lobbyist to the Legislature.
But Nevada is not without its contenders. Tim Cushman, the third generation of a family that helped punch Nevada out of the dessert, is pro-business, understands the challenges facing Nevada and has kept his nose out of politics. He could be formidable in the ring if he could be persuaded to don the Repulican mantle.
Or there's state Sen. Barbara Cegavske, a small business owner who entered the political arena on the school board level when she became concerned about the education her sons weren't getting. Her family is grown now, and Barbara, from all reports, has proved she can go toe-to-toe with the meanest without becoming a closet bone collector.
If the Republicans are to regain seats in Nevada or elsewhere, the local and national committees have to do some scouting, start recruiting the brightest and best, and then dig into their pockets to give these candidates a fighting chance. Only then will they hush the naysayers and start building the excitement they will need to retake the White House in 2012.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
A Sacrifice We Don't Deserve
In today’s consumer-oriented society, we are so fixated on instant gratification and what’s-in-it-for-me ideals that we too often take for granted our freedoms, our liberty – even our privileges. After all, we’re Americans. We deserve to live in a democracy, to have a bloodless change of regime, to enjoy a higher quality of life than much of the world.
Then the calendar rolls around to Memorial Day, reminding us, for at least this one day, that our country was born and has survived – not because we deserve it – but because men and women for more than 200 years have believed in the United States, and what it stands for, so much that they were willing to put their lives on the line.
We don’t deserve their sacrifice.
And although we can never repay the debt we owe our veterans, we must recognize that, without them, there would be no democracy, no liberty – no freedom.
So this Memorial Day while you’re enjoying the unofficial start of summer, please give a thought to all the men and women who were willing to sacrifice everything so we wouldn’t have to.
Then the calendar rolls around to Memorial Day, reminding us, for at least this one day, that our country was born and has survived – not because we deserve it – but because men and women for more than 200 years have believed in the United States, and what it stands for, so much that they were willing to put their lives on the line.
We don’t deserve their sacrifice.
And although we can never repay the debt we owe our veterans, we must recognize that, without them, there would be no democracy, no liberty – no freedom.
So this Memorial Day while you’re enjoying the unofficial start of summer, please give a thought to all the men and women who were willing to sacrifice everything so we wouldn’t have to.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Joey's Take -- Choosy Voters
My mom and dad are very choosy when it comes to buying my food. They read all the ingredients, and don't let me have anything my sensitive stomach can't take. And Dad does a pretty good job of rotating from herring to venison to chicken just so my tastebuds don't get bored with just one kind of food.
They were just as picky when it came to choosing me. They knew they wanted a rescue pup, but they needed one who would become part of the family and who wouldn't set Dad's allergies off. That's where I came in -- with my big endearing eyes, my constantly wagging tail and my unquestionable loyalty.
Since coming to live with Mom and Dad, I've watched my share of political debates and listened to more pundits than I thought possible. What has always amazed me is that Americans, who are so choosy about everything else, are so willing to vote for whomever the cat dragged home -- as long as it's the "right" breed.
They're often taken in by the pedigree or the grooming. So dazzled by a pup's "cuteness" factor, they may forget that a show dog probably won't do much work down at the ranch. And those who are suckers for the strays convince themselves that the mangy pitbull will never bite them.
Rather than restricting their choices to the dogs with the rich bloodlines and fancy grooming or settling for whatever dog wanders into their yard, political parties need to be more proactive in recruiting hard-working, grass-roots candidates -- the kind who can get along at the dog park but are tough enough to protect the house.
(I've got a few ideas I'd be happy to share. I can be reached at JoeyPortie@gmail.com.)
They were just as picky when it came to choosing me. They knew they wanted a rescue pup, but they needed one who would become part of the family and who wouldn't set Dad's allergies off. That's where I came in -- with my big endearing eyes, my constantly wagging tail and my unquestionable loyalty.
Since coming to live with Mom and Dad, I've watched my share of political debates and listened to more pundits than I thought possible. What has always amazed me is that Americans, who are so choosy about everything else, are so willing to vote for whomever the cat dragged home -- as long as it's the "right" breed.
They're often taken in by the pedigree or the grooming. So dazzled by a pup's "cuteness" factor, they may forget that a show dog probably won't do much work down at the ranch. And those who are suckers for the strays convince themselves that the mangy pitbull will never bite them.
Rather than restricting their choices to the dogs with the rich bloodlines and fancy grooming or settling for whatever dog wanders into their yard, political parties need to be more proactive in recruiting hard-working, grass-roots candidates -- the kind who can get along at the dog park but are tough enough to protect the house.
(I've got a few ideas I'd be happy to share. I can be reached at JoeyPortie@gmail.com.)
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Ignorance of Intolerance
Yesterday, my husband caught up with an old schoolmate online. When the woman found out he had worked in the Bush administration, she cut him off with "We have nothing in common. Since you don't share my opinions, I have no reason to talk to you."
"How do you know?" Job asked her. "You have no idea what I think."
She responded with a list of all the hot-button issues and her stance on each of them. She then basically said that if he didn't agree with her straight down the line, they had nothing to talk about. The irony was her inconsistency. For instance, she's for animal rights, but she enjoys eating meat. (Job informed her that he's for people's rights, but he doesn't eat much meat and I'm a vegetarian.)
The clincher, of course, is that she can't stand conservatives because we're intolerant.
You know, refusing to talk to people who hold different views is like thinking you have nothing more to learn after you graduate from high school. It's like visiting another country but insisting on staying at American resorts, eating American food and hanging out only with Americans (who share your opinions, of course). It's like reading only one book, singing one song and wearing the same outfit every day for the rest of your life.
It is a lonely life devoid of adventure and intellectual growth. It is the ignorance of intolerance.
If you would like to join the e-mail list for this blog, please send a request to mari.serebrov@yahoo.com.
"How do you know?" Job asked her. "You have no idea what I think."
She responded with a list of all the hot-button issues and her stance on each of them. She then basically said that if he didn't agree with her straight down the line, they had nothing to talk about. The irony was her inconsistency. For instance, she's for animal rights, but she enjoys eating meat. (Job informed her that he's for people's rights, but he doesn't eat much meat and I'm a vegetarian.)
The clincher, of course, is that she can't stand conservatives because we're intolerant.
You know, refusing to talk to people who hold different views is like thinking you have nothing more to learn after you graduate from high school. It's like visiting another country but insisting on staying at American resorts, eating American food and hanging out only with Americans (who share your opinions, of course). It's like reading only one book, singing one song and wearing the same outfit every day for the rest of your life.
It is a lonely life devoid of adventure and intellectual growth. It is the ignorance of intolerance.
If you would like to join the e-mail list for this blog, please send a request to mari.serebrov@yahoo.com.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
(Un)classified
CNN ran an interview yesterday with Robert Draper, a GQ reporter who wrote an "expose" about Donald Rumsfeld, including some top secret briefing documents Rumsfeld purportedly prepared for President Bush. (A former aide said Rumsfeld didn't prepare the documents; military officials did.) The classified documents were recently given to the reporter by someone in the administration who must have had security clearance to get his hands on them and who was outraged by something in the documents.
The cause of the outrage and the focus of the CNN interview? The fact that the cover sheet for some of these intelligence briefing reports included a verse from the Old Testament in italics -- sandwiched between a large bold headline and a large color photo of a war scene. Yes, a government official dared to put a Bible verse on a top secret classified intelligence document. To prove it, CNN -- and I'm sure the GQ article -- ran pictures of these top secret classified intelligence documents for all the world to see.
The verses shown came from the Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Joshua -- all books of the Bible recognized by Christians, Jews and Muslims. Joshua is a history and Ecclesiastes and Psalms are often included in academic literature anthologies. Joshua also was a military strategist as was King David, who wrote most of the Psalms. Quoting them is rather like quoting Gen. Patton or Napoleon or Alexander the Great. But that's beside the point.
What I want to know is where is the outrage about a person with security clearance taking it upon himself to illegally leak top secret documents to the media just because he doesn't like the way they're put together. What else did this person leak?
Having a quote from King David on one of our government documents is far less dangerous than having someone we're supposed to be able to trust with our national security running around exposing classified information. If everyone with a security clearance could unilaterally and arbitrarily decide what should be released, we would have no national security.
A security clearance is a privilege and a huge responsibility. Violating that clearance has consequences for the country. And it should have consequences for the people who violate it -- whether they're government officials, politicians or the media.
The cause of the outrage and the focus of the CNN interview? The fact that the cover sheet for some of these intelligence briefing reports included a verse from the Old Testament in italics -- sandwiched between a large bold headline and a large color photo of a war scene. Yes, a government official dared to put a Bible verse on a top secret classified intelligence document. To prove it, CNN -- and I'm sure the GQ article -- ran pictures of these top secret classified intelligence documents for all the world to see.
The verses shown came from the Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Joshua -- all books of the Bible recognized by Christians, Jews and Muslims. Joshua is a history and Ecclesiastes and Psalms are often included in academic literature anthologies. Joshua also was a military strategist as was King David, who wrote most of the Psalms. Quoting them is rather like quoting Gen. Patton or Napoleon or Alexander the Great. But that's beside the point.
What I want to know is where is the outrage about a person with security clearance taking it upon himself to illegally leak top secret documents to the media just because he doesn't like the way they're put together. What else did this person leak?
Having a quote from King David on one of our government documents is far less dangerous than having someone we're supposed to be able to trust with our national security running around exposing classified information. If everyone with a security clearance could unilaterally and arbitrarily decide what should be released, we would have no national security.
A security clearance is a privilege and a huge responsibility. Violating that clearance has consequences for the country. And it should have consequences for the people who violate it -- whether they're government officials, politicians or the media.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
A Message to Republicans
As Republican leaders are gathering to discuss strategy and the future of the party, I've got a few pointers to share with them and the rank and file.
1. The past. Get over it. Yes, we lost the election -- but not by the landslide the Democrats would have you believe.
2. President Bush. Stop hiding from him. Yes, our country is in a mess. But many of our problems took root under President Clinton, maturing under Bush AND a Democrat-controlled Congress. Anytime someone starts blaming Bush for everything, politely remind them that Pelosi-Reid were tag-teaming in the House and Senate.
3. The agenda. Don't let the Dems define us, anoint "our" spokespeople or set our agenda. We should speak for ourselves by presenting well thought-out solutions to the problems facing the nation.
4. Name calling. It's so middle school. Do you really think we're going to advance the cause by spending valuable time arguing about whether we should "rename" the Democrat Party the "National Socialist Democrat Party"? Come on, we've got more important issues to tend to.
5. The basics. Get back to them. The Republican Party was once the party of practical solutions, a party dedicated to basic human freedom. That means expanding the tent and constructively adapting to demographic changes in our country.
6. The future. Recruit, recruit, recruit -- reaching out to minorities, women and people of all ages. We've got opportunities to take back congressional seats in 2010, including Harry Reid's Senate seat, but so far we have done little to recruit serious, credible candidates to challenge the incumbents. And when we do, we have to put our money where our mouth is to help our candidates win. While we're at it, we need to keep our eyes open for a fresh, strong lineup of presidential contenders who can bring new energy and excitement to the process and successfully challenge the Obama-Biden team in 2012.
1. The past. Get over it. Yes, we lost the election -- but not by the landslide the Democrats would have you believe.
2. President Bush. Stop hiding from him. Yes, our country is in a mess. But many of our problems took root under President Clinton, maturing under Bush AND a Democrat-controlled Congress. Anytime someone starts blaming Bush for everything, politely remind them that Pelosi-Reid were tag-teaming in the House and Senate.
3. The agenda. Don't let the Dems define us, anoint "our" spokespeople or set our agenda. We should speak for ourselves by presenting well thought-out solutions to the problems facing the nation.
4. Name calling. It's so middle school. Do you really think we're going to advance the cause by spending valuable time arguing about whether we should "rename" the Democrat Party the "National Socialist Democrat Party"? Come on, we've got more important issues to tend to.
5. The basics. Get back to them. The Republican Party was once the party of practical solutions, a party dedicated to basic human freedom. That means expanding the tent and constructively adapting to demographic changes in our country.
6. The future. Recruit, recruit, recruit -- reaching out to minorities, women and people of all ages. We've got opportunities to take back congressional seats in 2010, including Harry Reid's Senate seat, but so far we have done little to recruit serious, credible candidates to challenge the incumbents. And when we do, we have to put our money where our mouth is to help our candidates win. While we're at it, we need to keep our eyes open for a fresh, strong lineup of presidential contenders who can bring new energy and excitement to the process and successfully challenge the Obama-Biden team in 2012.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Stuck in Campaign Mode
Even though the presidential campaign is so yesterday, I don't think anyone has informed the president yet. He's still doing campaign speak -- you know, the kumbaya calls for common ground, the sweeping promises scant on detail, the uplifting rhetoric held down by lack of substance.
Consider Obama's speech yesterday at Notre Dame. According to the Associated Press, the president called for an effort to “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
This is the same man who has promised to change the Bush-era “conscience clause.” Under Bush, this clause forced hospitals and health plans to respect the rights of doctors and other healthcare workers to refuse to deliver "treatments" that conflicted with their personal or moral beliefs. But with Obama's proposed revisions "based on sound science," these medical professionals will be forced to perform abortions if they want to stay in practice. So much for honoring conscience or finding the common ground he stressed at Notre Dame.
(I think the president missed the memo on the Gallup poll last week that showed the majority of Americans are now pro-life. Or perhaps, a la Pelosi, he wasn't listening at the briefing.)
Obama is good at delivering speeches. Anytime things heated up during the campaign, he made a speech, re-focusing media attention. But the campaign is over. Speechmaking and empty rhetoric will not solve the problems our nation is facing. If he truly wants to find common ground, he needs to start walking in our direction.
Consider Obama's speech yesterday at Notre Dame. According to the Associated Press, the president called for an effort to “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
This is the same man who has promised to change the Bush-era “conscience clause.” Under Bush, this clause forced hospitals and health plans to respect the rights of doctors and other healthcare workers to refuse to deliver "treatments" that conflicted with their personal or moral beliefs. But with Obama's proposed revisions "based on sound science," these medical professionals will be forced to perform abortions if they want to stay in practice. So much for honoring conscience or finding the common ground he stressed at Notre Dame.
(I think the president missed the memo on the Gallup poll last week that showed the majority of Americans are now pro-life. Or perhaps, a la Pelosi, he wasn't listening at the briefing.)
Obama is good at delivering speeches. Anytime things heated up during the campaign, he made a speech, re-focusing media attention. But the campaign is over. Speechmaking and empty rhetoric will not solve the problems our nation is facing. If he truly wants to find common ground, he needs to start walking in our direction.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Joey's Take -- The Back Yard
One of the differences between dogs and people is that we know the value of a good back yard.
Hey, when I've got business to do, I head for the back yard. There's no way you're going to see me tucking my tail between my legs and heading half way around the world! Nope, when it's time to do my business, I want it close by where I can make sure things get cleaned up properly.
Like any good dog, I invest a lot of time and energy into protecting my back yard. I'm OK with all the birds, squirrels, chipmunks and deer who share our yard. But I watch them. And if I see a fox sneaking up, I sound the alarm. There's no way you're going to catch me acting friendly with a fox -- not even for a photo op.
I've also learned that back yards take a lot of work. If you ignore a back yard, it quickly becomes a tangled mass of overgrown weeds and moldy leaves. And if you ignore it too long, you might as well say goodby to all the effort you originally put in to cultivating it. You'll have to rip everything out and start all over. Believe me, it's a whole lot easier to just maintain it in the first place.
(Since these same lessons can be applied to our country's back yard in Latin America, I must -- for the sake of complete transparency -- disclose my partiality to this region of the world. I'll take a chihuahua over a Chinese crested any day! And as a Portuguese water dog, I owe my life, and the survival of my entire breed, to Conchita Cintron Castello, a lady bullfighter who was a civil attache at the Peruvian embassy in Lisbon.)
Hey, when I've got business to do, I head for the back yard. There's no way you're going to see me tucking my tail between my legs and heading half way around the world! Nope, when it's time to do my business, I want it close by where I can make sure things get cleaned up properly.
Like any good dog, I invest a lot of time and energy into protecting my back yard. I'm OK with all the birds, squirrels, chipmunks and deer who share our yard. But I watch them. And if I see a fox sneaking up, I sound the alarm. There's no way you're going to catch me acting friendly with a fox -- not even for a photo op.
I've also learned that back yards take a lot of work. If you ignore a back yard, it quickly becomes a tangled mass of overgrown weeds and moldy leaves. And if you ignore it too long, you might as well say goodby to all the effort you originally put in to cultivating it. You'll have to rip everything out and start all over. Believe me, it's a whole lot easier to just maintain it in the first place.
(Since these same lessons can be applied to our country's back yard in Latin America, I must -- for the sake of complete transparency -- disclose my partiality to this region of the world. I'll take a chihuahua over a Chinese crested any day! And as a Portuguese water dog, I owe my life, and the survival of my entire breed, to Conchita Cintron Castello, a lady bullfighter who was a civil attache at the Peruvian embassy in Lisbon.)
Thursday, May 14, 2009
What's Really Needed
Speaking at a town hall meeting in New Mexico today, President Obama said public pressure will force congressional Republicans to "compromise" with his administration on issues such as healthcare reform.
"I think that we'll see more and more agreement over time as the Republican Party starts to realize that the American people want results right now," Obama said. "They don't want bickering. And when they realize that, they'll have an open, outstretched hand from me." (Source: CNN)
Once again, Obama provides a lopsided view of compromise. For him, "compromise" means the Republicans have to come around to his way of thinking. True to his Democratic roots, he's all about take and no give.
The president is right about one thing. We're all tired of the bickering.
But we're also tired of the self-righteous grandstanding, the hypocritical scapegoating, Pelosi's dancing around the facts, Leahy's vindictive finger-pointing, and the excessive spending on earmarks and bloated government agencies.
But rather than embrace a Democratic agenda, which Congress has been forcing upon us for the past 2-1/2 years, Republicans must stop bickering among themselves and start promoting a practical, doable, unified agenda of their own. We need solutions -- not arguments or compromise.
"I think that we'll see more and more agreement over time as the Republican Party starts to realize that the American people want results right now," Obama said. "They don't want bickering. And when they realize that, they'll have an open, outstretched hand from me." (Source: CNN)
Once again, Obama provides a lopsided view of compromise. For him, "compromise" means the Republicans have to come around to his way of thinking. True to his Democratic roots, he's all about take and no give.
The president is right about one thing. We're all tired of the bickering.
But we're also tired of the self-righteous grandstanding, the hypocritical scapegoating, Pelosi's dancing around the facts, Leahy's vindictive finger-pointing, and the excessive spending on earmarks and bloated government agencies.
But rather than embrace a Democratic agenda, which Congress has been forcing upon us for the past 2-1/2 years, Republicans must stop bickering among themselves and start promoting a practical, doable, unified agenda of their own. We need solutions -- not arguments or compromise.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The 'Safe' Retirement Bet
If Social Security is your retirement nest egg, you're sitting on a rotten egg. The bad news out today is that Social Security and Medicare are going broke faster than the government had projected.
That's right, the trustees for the fund reported today that Social Security will be dried up by 2037 -- that's four years earlier than they had predicted last year. Now before you start doing the math to see if you can squeeze your retirement in under the line, keep in mind that the trustees expect Social Security to start spending more (on actual Social Security, that is) than it takes in by 2016.
As for Medicare, it's going to be broke by 2017. And it's already spending more than it takes in.
This is one problem the Dems can't blame on President Bush. He tried to get Congress to address this issue, but the Dems pretty much accused him of Chicken Little rhetoric and continued spending their way through the funds.
The bottom line? Investing in lottery tickets for retirement may be a safer bet than Social Security!
That's right, the trustees for the fund reported today that Social Security will be dried up by 2037 -- that's four years earlier than they had predicted last year. Now before you start doing the math to see if you can squeeze your retirement in under the line, keep in mind that the trustees expect Social Security to start spending more (on actual Social Security, that is) than it takes in by 2016.
As for Medicare, it's going to be broke by 2017. And it's already spending more than it takes in.
This is one problem the Dems can't blame on President Bush. He tried to get Congress to address this issue, but the Dems pretty much accused him of Chicken Little rhetoric and continued spending their way through the funds.
The bottom line? Investing in lottery tickets for retirement may be a safer bet than Social Security!
Monday, May 11, 2009
More Fuzzy Math
I didn't graduate from Harvard Law School. I can't afford to wear designer sneakers. And my husband and I definitely didn't pull in more than $2 million last year.
But I'm a natural at basic math -- without a calculator. And I can tell you, with absolute certainty, there's no way our mint-'em-and-spend-'em government is going to reduce the federal deficit by even $10 at the rate it's going.
Remember when President Obama committed, with a lot of fanfare, to cutting $17 billion in wasteful government spending next year? Well, that was last week.
Today, the White House budget office revealed that thanks to the misguided Wall Street bailout and the Democrats' bloated economic stimulus bill -- OK, the budget office didn't use those exact words -- the deficit for this year is going to be $89 billion more than what the president told us last week. That's five times the "savings" he had promised us for next year. And it adds up to more than $1.8 trillion in red ink for 2009 alone.
Next year, the president plans to add another $1.3 trillion to our national debt.(Hey, it could be worse. Remember the $17 billion he's going to save us!) Of course, that $1.3 trillion is today's forecast. By time the Democratic Congress gets done with the 2010 budget, you can bet the farm that we're going to owe a whole lot more.
What this all means is that we're borrowing 46 cents for every dollar the government spends.
Look on the bright side. We individaully may not have the ability to get a mortgage, extend our line of credit or qualify for an auto, small business or student loan, but thanks to the generosity and far-sightedness of our leaders, we can rest assured that we'll spend the rest of our lives head over heels in national debt.
But I'm a natural at basic math -- without a calculator. And I can tell you, with absolute certainty, there's no way our mint-'em-and-spend-'em government is going to reduce the federal deficit by even $10 at the rate it's going.
Remember when President Obama committed, with a lot of fanfare, to cutting $17 billion in wasteful government spending next year? Well, that was last week.
Today, the White House budget office revealed that thanks to the misguided Wall Street bailout and the Democrats' bloated economic stimulus bill -- OK, the budget office didn't use those exact words -- the deficit for this year is going to be $89 billion more than what the president told us last week. That's five times the "savings" he had promised us for next year. And it adds up to more than $1.8 trillion in red ink for 2009 alone.
Next year, the president plans to add another $1.3 trillion to our national debt.(Hey, it could be worse. Remember the $17 billion he's going to save us!) Of course, that $1.3 trillion is today's forecast. By time the Democratic Congress gets done with the 2010 budget, you can bet the farm that we're going to owe a whole lot more.
What this all means is that we're borrowing 46 cents for every dollar the government spends.
Look on the bright side. We individaully may not have the ability to get a mortgage, extend our line of credit or qualify for an auto, small business or student loan, but thanks to the generosity and far-sightedness of our leaders, we can rest assured that we'll spend the rest of our lives head over heels in national debt.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Joey's Take on the GOP Dog Show
(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are mine and mine alone. Mom and Dad taught me to think for myself; it's a lesson they think I've learned too well -- especially when it comes to trying to chase the Metro down I-66 or bark at metal deer sculptures.)
Since Bo has been lying low at the White House this past week, I thought I'd do some sniffing around at what's shaping up to be the GOP Dog Show. Hey, I may be a pound puppy, but my bloodlines are show quality all the way, so I think I'm at least as qualified as Meghan McCain to dish about the potential contestants.
First, with the big competition still more than three years off, it's a bit early to give the Best of Show trophy to anyone. Secondly, all the wanna-bes need to stop rubbing up against the legs of the media pitbulls. They're not the judges who count. The winner of this dog show will be the one who wins the People's Choice award.
A third thing to keep in mind is that just because someone was best of show or a runnerup last time out doesn't mean squat. It's a quick trip from best of show to the doghouse.
As for the possible contestants -- we've got the usual mix of frou frous, yappers, old American standards and a few exotic breeds. There are those who compete in whichever class is the most popular -- or the most convenient -- at the time. We've got the ones who are so excited about getting to the show that they haven't thought about what they would do if they win. And there are those who know they don't have a shot at the big trophy, but they want to get some experience in the ring.
Me, I'd like to see the judges get behind a working dog who can outsniff the bloodhounds, has better vision than the sighthounds and can outdistance the greyhounds.
(If you have any ideas you'd like to have me chew on in a future blog -- or if you just want to tell me I'm adorable and brilliant, you can write to me at JoeyPortie@gmail.com.)
Since Bo has been lying low at the White House this past week, I thought I'd do some sniffing around at what's shaping up to be the GOP Dog Show. Hey, I may be a pound puppy, but my bloodlines are show quality all the way, so I think I'm at least as qualified as Meghan McCain to dish about the potential contestants.
First, with the big competition still more than three years off, it's a bit early to give the Best of Show trophy to anyone. Secondly, all the wanna-bes need to stop rubbing up against the legs of the media pitbulls. They're not the judges who count. The winner of this dog show will be the one who wins the People's Choice award.
A third thing to keep in mind is that just because someone was best of show or a runnerup last time out doesn't mean squat. It's a quick trip from best of show to the doghouse.
As for the possible contestants -- we've got the usual mix of frou frous, yappers, old American standards and a few exotic breeds. There are those who compete in whichever class is the most popular -- or the most convenient -- at the time. We've got the ones who are so excited about getting to the show that they haven't thought about what they would do if they win. And there are those who know they don't have a shot at the big trophy, but they want to get some experience in the ring.
Me, I'd like to see the judges get behind a working dog who can outsniff the bloodhounds, has better vision than the sighthounds and can outdistance the greyhounds.
(If you have any ideas you'd like to have me chew on in a future blog -- or if you just want to tell me I'm adorable and brilliant, you can write to me at JoeyPortie@gmail.com.)
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Fuzzy Math
I guess President Obama and much of Congress bought into the "fuzzy math" they used to -- and probably still do -- teach in school. In releasing his budget figures today for fiscal 2010, the president acknowledged that "all across this country, Americans are responding to difficult economic times by tightening their belts and making tough decisions about where they need to spend and where they need to save." He added that Washington was prepared to act with the same sense of responsibility.
Then he unveiled the details of just how responsible Washington would be under his watch. He said he had charged his staff with "looking for areas where we can save taxpayer dollars," adding that his budget office, for starters, has come up with "a list of more than 100 programs slated to be reduced or eliminated altogether" as part of his effort to slash the deficit by the end of "my first term in office." (He's pretty confident he'll have a second term and is already making plans for it.)
"These savings, large and small, add up," the president says in a White House statement. "The 121 budget cuts we are announcing today will save taxpayers nearly $17 billion next year alone. And even by Washington standards, that should be considered real money."
But here's where the fuzzy math begins. Immediately after saying these cuts will save taxpayers money, Obama introduces his plans to SPEND that money: "To put this in perspective, the $17 billion is more than enough savings to pay for a $2,500 tuition tax credit for millions of students as well as a larger Pell Grant -- with enough money left over to pay for everything we do to pay for [sic] -- to protect the national parks."
No matter how you calculate it, you can't move $10 from your checking account to a savings account, then transfer $15 from savings to checking so you can write a check for $20 and claim you're saving money -- unless you're drinking the Kool-Aid and doing the fuzzy math.
Then he unveiled the details of just how responsible Washington would be under his watch. He said he had charged his staff with "looking for areas where we can save taxpayer dollars," adding that his budget office, for starters, has come up with "a list of more than 100 programs slated to be reduced or eliminated altogether" as part of his effort to slash the deficit by the end of "my first term in office." (He's pretty confident he'll have a second term and is already making plans for it.)
"These savings, large and small, add up," the president says in a White House statement. "The 121 budget cuts we are announcing today will save taxpayers nearly $17 billion next year alone. And even by Washington standards, that should be considered real money."
But here's where the fuzzy math begins. Immediately after saying these cuts will save taxpayers money, Obama introduces his plans to SPEND that money: "To put this in perspective, the $17 billion is more than enough savings to pay for a $2,500 tuition tax credit for millions of students as well as a larger Pell Grant -- with enough money left over to pay for everything we do to pay for [sic] -- to protect the national parks."
No matter how you calculate it, you can't move $10 from your checking account to a savings account, then transfer $15 from savings to checking so you can write a check for $20 and claim you're saving money -- unless you're drinking the Kool-Aid and doing the fuzzy math.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Love, Honor and Trust
Years ago when I was at Moody Bible Institute, I had a young pastoral student say that all men, including strong Christians, fantasized about other women. That's just the way men are. They can't help it.
"You don't know my father," I told him. "My dad fantasizes only about my mother."
The young man smiled smugly. "That's what he says. But he's just like any other man."
"Like I said, you don't know my father," I insisted as I walked away, letting him continue to justify his own thoughts by thinking all men shared his problem.
Since then, I've heard that lame argument a lot -- in conversations, magazines, politics, even from the pulpit. It is an argument that makes man no better than an animal. It provides an excuse for men to cheat, mentally or physically. It is an argument that degrades men when they live down to it.
Each time I've heard a married man reminisce about his conquests, seen him oggle a pretty woman or watched him flirt, I've thanked God that I have been blessed with a father who truly knows how to love and honor his wife. As a young woman, I hoped and prayed that some day I would have a husband who would love me the same way, a husband I could trust -- with my life and my love. God answered that prayer.
Happy anniversary, Job. And, Dad, happy birthday. I love you both.
"You don't know my father," I told him. "My dad fantasizes only about my mother."
The young man smiled smugly. "That's what he says. But he's just like any other man."
"Like I said, you don't know my father," I insisted as I walked away, letting him continue to justify his own thoughts by thinking all men shared his problem.
Since then, I've heard that lame argument a lot -- in conversations, magazines, politics, even from the pulpit. It is an argument that makes man no better than an animal. It provides an excuse for men to cheat, mentally or physically. It is an argument that degrades men when they live down to it.
Each time I've heard a married man reminisce about his conquests, seen him oggle a pretty woman or watched him flirt, I've thanked God that I have been blessed with a father who truly knows how to love and honor his wife. As a young woman, I hoped and prayed that some day I would have a husband who would love me the same way, a husband I could trust -- with my life and my love. God answered that prayer.
Happy anniversary, Job. And, Dad, happy birthday. I love you both.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Joey Unleashed
First, I want to say how proud I am to have a Portie as First Dog. Although we've been around for nearly 1,000 years, we've only recently been recognized by the American Kennel Club. So Bo moving into the White House is quite an accomplishment for all of us Porties.
Secondly, I want to set the record straight. While Bo and the Kennedy Porties are bluebloods, most of us are red-blooded working dogs. Throughout the centuries, we've had to earn our keep -- as herders, hunters, fishing dogs, retrievers, messengers, babysitters and protectors of the realm. No handouts for us. We work hard for our room and board.
My advice to Bo?
Secondly, I want to set the record straight. While Bo and the Kennedy Porties are bluebloods, most of us are red-blooded working dogs. Throughout the centuries, we've had to earn our keep -- as herders, hunters, fishing dogs, retrievers, messengers, babysitters and protectors of the realm. No handouts for us. We work hard for our room and board.
My advice to Bo?
- Don't let the stardom go to your head. Be yourself.
- Avoid flyby photo flops.
- Don't chew on your mom's $540 Lanvin sneakers. They may be "just shoes," but they could pay to keep a family of four well fed for a month.
- Get in tight with those two cute people pups. That way when your family moves out of the White House, you won't end up like Socks Clinton. It had to find another home and another family when it was no longer needed as a presidential accessory.
- Don't dig too deeply in the White House lawn. You never know what bones are buried there.
- Remember that being First Dog doesn't mean you're Top Dog. Or that you're right.
- But most importantly, be there for your family. There are going to be times when they will really need you.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Dialogue With a Dog
When Joey, our Portuguese water dog, heard that one of Sen. Kennedy's Porties was going to write a book a few years ago, he took over the office chair and begged me to let him write the Republican response.
"You? What do you know about Republicans? Or Democrats?"
"We may look like fou fou dogs, but Porties are the smartest thing on four legs," he barked. "And I'm a red-blooded pitbull when it comes to politics."
When Joey heard a Portie was moving into the White House, he barked a little louder, strutted a little more and wagged his tail a little harder. But then this week he heard Bo was going to write a book. There's been no living with him since.
"If that inexperienced pup who's still wet behind the ears thinks he's got something to say after just one month in the White House, then it's time for the howl of experience to be heard," Joey told me.
"What would you write about?"
"Hey, I've been around the block a few times. I've peed on my share of bushes, and I've marked a lot of real estate," he bragged. "I've lived through two presidential elections and Asa Hutchinson's gubernatorial campaign. Believe me, I've got things to say." Joey looked up at me with his soulful round eyes. He really knows how to use that look.
"OK, I'll give you a trial run," I told him. "I'll let you write the blog once in awhile."
Joey stood on his hind legs, put his front paws on my shoulders and licked me joyfully. "You won't regret it," he told me. (He always has to have the last word.)
So tomorrow, it's Joey -- unleashed.
"You? What do you know about Republicans? Or Democrats?"
"We may look like fou fou dogs, but Porties are the smartest thing on four legs," he barked. "And I'm a red-blooded pitbull when it comes to politics."
When Joey heard a Portie was moving into the White House, he barked a little louder, strutted a little more and wagged his tail a little harder. But then this week he heard Bo was going to write a book. There's been no living with him since.
"If that inexperienced pup who's still wet behind the ears thinks he's got something to say after just one month in the White House, then it's time for the howl of experience to be heard," Joey told me.
"What would you write about?"
"Hey, I've been around the block a few times. I've peed on my share of bushes, and I've marked a lot of real estate," he bragged. "I've lived through two presidential elections and Asa Hutchinson's gubernatorial campaign. Believe me, I've got things to say." Joey looked up at me with his soulful round eyes. He really knows how to use that look.
"OK, I'll give you a trial run," I told him. "I'll let you write the blog once in awhile."
Joey stood on his hind legs, put his front paws on my shoulders and licked me joyfully. "You won't regret it," he told me. (He always has to have the last word.)
So tomorrow, it's Joey -- unleashed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)