Conservatives and the Constitution

Conservatives say they believe in a "strict construction" interpretation of the Constitution. We must not read into the document things that are not there. Ok, then, how do they arrive at the decision that a corporation-like GM or MobilExxon-is an individual and thus covered by the first Amendment free speech protection? That sounds like a "loose construction" interpretation to me. These same folks will also say that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate health care; a "strict construction" interpretation.

I wish they would make up their minds about the document. But to do so they have to read it first

Political Difference

It is said that liberals think too deeply about issues and are always questioning their "truths". They often see gray areas on issues. Conservatives, on the other hand, don't think deeply at all. They see everything as black or white. They always have ready made answers to all the problems we face-no taxes, less regulation, drill, baby, drill-thus not questioning their "truths". This does not mean liberals are any smarter or intellectual than conservatives: Smart people can be either. The problem for some liberals is that if you are not that intelligent then your liberal beliefs cause inner conflict, confussion and anxiety. You suffer from an inability to adequately defend your "truths". So much easier being a conservative. Just memorize the "talking points" sent to you by the GOP headquarters and you are good to go. (Maybe I am writing this on a down day: let me know what you think)

The Times; they are confusing

President Obama is accused of being too cozy with Wall Street types due to the TARP payments he is continuing to make. He kept Bush's secretary of defense and transportation. He is now going to bat for Bush's Federal Reserve Chairman. He has kept two wars going for the benifit of the US military industrial complex. He and democrats are seen as the "establishment" with GOPers in Massachusetts being elected as anti-establishment. And I have a relative who says Obama is a Marxist. Does any of this make sense?

Corporate Campaign Spending

In the response to the recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign spending, a group of companies have sent letters to Congress asking to be put on a "do-not call list". They don't want congressmen asking for donations or providing fundraisers. They say "members of congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors...". The letters were signed by 40 executives of companies like Playboy Enterprises, Ben and Jerrys, Seagram's, Hasbro (toys), Delta Air Lines, Men's Wearhouse, Quaker Chemical Corp, Brita Products, San Diego National Bank, Met Life and Crate & Barrell.

I would think if companies didn't have to spend money on political campaigns they would have more money to pay their employees or do research or whatever. But now, thanks to this radical right wing supreme court, our congressmen will be more in debt to the big givers than usual.

(Source: of the companies on do not call list. "CEO's ask to be added to Congress' do-not call list" by the AP. In The Virginian Pilot on 1/23/10)

Virginia and the NRA

Now that Bob McDonnell is the governor of Virginia the NRA wants something for their support. The Virginia Citizens Defense League wants three pro-con bills passed. First, a repeal of the ban on carrying concealed weapons in places that serve alcohol. Second, a repeal of a law that mandates only one gun purchase in a 30 day period. Third, make the application process for a permit to carry a concealed weapon easier by the following two changes. One, allow applications by mail, and two, "...elimate any fingerprinting requirements imposed by localities...". Are these people fecking nuts? Tell me how these "restrictions", if they can be even called that, infringe on the "constitutional rights" of gun owners?

(Source: on the VCDL and the law changes comes from "Gun Lobby Excited" on the op-ed page of The Virginian Pilot for 1/19/10/)

Race in America

On this date in 1952 the Professional Golfers Association agreed to allow African Americans to play in their golf tournaments. By the way-ten years prior-didn't we go to war with those who professed belief in a "master race"?

Pat Robertson and Haiti

In response to the recent disaster to hit Haiti, the televangelist Robertson has stated on his "700 Club" radio program that the earthquake is the result of a "...purported pact with the devil". He said the following. "Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh, you know Napolean III and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you, if you get us free from the French'-true story. And so the devil said, 'OK. it's a deal' and they kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free, and ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor". The slave rebellion was 1791 and Napolean III wasn't even born yet, but so what. In Robertson's defense it should be noted that his organization runs "Operation Blessing" which provides humanitarian aid to poor countries-Haiti included. But does he really believe that this earthquake was the result of a 219 year old curse? Is he saying the Haitians brought this on themselves?

I always wonder about those who claim to believe in God, but have the humanity of a door knob.

(Source: On Robertson statement. "Deal With Devil Cursed Haiti Many Years Ago, Robertson Says" by Lauren King of The Virginian Pilot on 1/14/10).

Scott Brown of Massachusetts

Brown is the GOP candidate for the senate seat recently vacated by the death of Edward Kennedy. He is running against the state Attorney General Martha Coakley. A side issue of interest is the fact that in 1982, Brown appeared naked as the centerfold in Cosmopolitan Magazine. His arm covered his private parts. He was 22 at the time. In an op ed piece by Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post she states the following about this issue. "This near-perfect picture (of Brown as a candidate) has a few thumbprints, especially on a certain Cosmopolitan spread for which Brown posed half a lifetime ago trying to raise law school tuition money (sounds like the young lady who wanted to give me a lap-dance and said she was working her way thru college in NYC). The photo, which conceals that which matters, may be a yawn to family and friends, but it's the sort of delicious peek into a politician's past that can't be ignored". Nice justification. I can just imagine what conservatives would say if Brown was a liberal candidate.

(Source: of the Parker quote, "Red star rising in Massachusetts" by Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post. In The Virginian Pilot on 1/13/10)

Reid or Wilson

Republicans want Harry Reid to "step down as majority leader" because of remarks he made about Barack Obama that were printed in a book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. Reid said Obama was a "light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect" in his speech. OK, compare that with republican congressman Joe Wilson who shouted "you lie" to the President during a speech before congress. The House voted a mild "repremand" which 179 members of the GOP opposed. Now they have the balls to call for Reid's resignation. Have these people no shame?

Labels, Again

On 6/20/09 I posted a message about the tendency of conservatives to label those who disagree with them with some negative term. Today an op-ed columnist from the NY Times writes about President Obama in regard to national security and calls him the following; a) "Captain Obvious", b) "President Cool" and c) "No Drama Obama". Sarah Palin in her book-Going Rogue-says that John Kerry is an "elitist loon" (p. 181). She refers to an opponent as "a Birkenstock and granola Berkeley grad"(p. 76). This tendency does not only occur when nationally known political figures are involved; it also occurs on a personal level. A relative has called me all kinds of negative things, most recently an atheist and marxist. Is this an intellectual flaw common to political conservatives?