Thank you, President Obama!!
For the last three years, every single time I have allowed a criticism of your policies, actions, or inaction to escape my mouth in the presence of someone from the left, I and other reasonable Republicans have had to endure the knee jerk and irrelevant accusation that I'm "probably a Birther too." I have always thought that Obama was a natural born citizen of the United States. I will, however, admit to wondering about the justiciability of his dual citizenship with Indonesia and whether it violates the intent of the natural born citizen clause for PURELY academic reasons. Does this make me a Birther? I don't think so. I'm sure those who bow down to the icon of Obama will disagree.
Not that the left has ever had their own version of Birtherism. Never! Lest we forget that this red herring originated from the left in the first place with a lawsuit filed against him in 2008 by Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter [and Truther] Phillip Berg.
A close friend of mine had a theory that the reason why Obama hadn't released his long form birth certificate was because it might have had his religion listed as Muslim because of his father. This theory has been disproven as well. [I find it necessary to add that this particular friend thinks that Obama is NOT Muslim and is convinced that Obama is actually an atheist who later and cynically joined Wright's church for Chicago political clout].
Anyhow, thank you for putting this nonsense to rest, Mr. President. Now maybe when honest and reasonable citizens make coherent, legitimate, and good faith criticisms of your administration, we won't be met with the undeserved name calling.
Of course, your perpetual Presidential campaign will likely frame this as a victory and attempt to use this as evidence of your rightness on a whole host of issues on which you have been so so so very wrong.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
R.I.P. Geraldine Ferraro
Despite the fact that my political philosophy diverged from your own, you gave little girls like me a reason to dream. Thank you for your contributions to all women regardless of ideology and for being, in my mind, the true feminist ideal. You are already greatly missed.
Right vs. Privilege
I have a lot of teachers who are friends. A lot. People who I love dearly. People whose opinion I respect and seek very often on matters relating to the development and education of my children. People who it is not my intention to personally hurt when I publish this post regarding the misinformation surrounding what we are seeing at the state level regarding teachers' and public employees unions right now. I write this out of love because the fact is that I cringe when I hear the inaccuracies that some of my friends are spouting regarding the current "plight" of teachers' "rights". I write this only to clarify some of these misconceptions so that other people can be more informed about what the law actually says and we can have a better discussion.
Collective Bargaining "Rights"
This is a most unfortunate misnomer. The "right" of a public employee to collectively bargain is not really an inherent right, but rather it is a privilege that was given and codified by only about half of the states in this country to its employees. It is an artificial "right" that became law by state legislators and governors who pandered to teachers' unions for campaign funds.
If this were a true right, then every jurisdiction in the United States, to include that of the federal government, would be forced to allow its employees to collectively bargain. At present, thirty-five of the fifty states have pro-collective bargaining statutes for public employees on the books, five states prohibit collective bargaining of public employees, and eleven have no laws regarding collective bargaining of public employees on its books. The federal government does not allow its employees to collectively bargain.
I find this concept akin to that of sovereign immunity which bars the states and federal governments from civil and criminal prosecution unless they allow for it. The manner by which governments allow for such suits are statutes like the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act. This is just like this. Here, the government must give special codified permission as an exception to the rule. I consider such statutes to be governmental privileges rather than rights. Privileges that can be undone if the government is in a state of crisis, perhaps fiscal crisis, or even at the change of its citizens' opinion.
When a government employee strikes, it does so not against a corporation, but against the taxpayers. FDR, a proponent of public employees' rights to associate and assemble even warned that "meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government."
Supporters of public employees' collective bargaining "rights" try to conveniently separate the notion of collective bargaining from an employee's ability to strike. That is a canard. The ability to strike is inherent to the ability to collectively bargain. It is impossible to separate the two because the primary source for a union's bargaining capital is the management's ability or inability to survive a strike. [Steven Abraham, Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy, Volume 1 page 73]
Even for inarguably pro-union FDR, the idea of public employees striking was "unthinkable and intolerable".
Teachers' Due Process Rights Will Be Violated
There is NO SUCH THING as a right of due process in matters of employment. None. The right to due process guaranteed by our constitution ONLY applies to citizens accused of a CRIME. The end. There is no caveat or condition that alters this fact. There are lawyers who get this basic first year constitutional law concept wrong all the time. I've heard them. They should have their licenses to practice revoked.
In the private sector, if you feel you have been wrongfully terminated from employment, you file a discrimination grievance with the state EEOC and have your case settled by a third party. It is actually a decent system. I think public employees should have to use this same system instead of getting their own special procedures that costs us taxpayers even more out of pocket.
I have been told by a friend that she knows several teachers who have been dismissed. These people must have done something pretty terrible for the state or school district to go through the pain of removing them! Or maybe she lives in a state where collective bargaining is prohibited and people can be fired more easily for cause. Even the superintendent of Indiana Public Schools, Dr. Eugene White acknowledges how costly and difficult it is. He blames the administrators for failing to do their jobs, not the unions who pressured to put these procedures in place.
My question: Aren't administrators part of the teachers' unions? Isn't this a distinction without a difference?
In the private sector, management is not part of the union. Part of the reason collective bargaining works is because we have two competing interests coming together in good faith to advance each interest mutually. If the administrators, who are essentially management are on the same side as teachers, where is the competing interest? Where is the adversarial nature needed to keep cost down and bad teachers out of the classroom? There is none.
*I am embarrassed to admit that I must emend my earlier statement regarding right of due process being an exclusively criminal construct. It also applies to government takings like eminent domain. Regardless, it still does not apply to employment.
Collective Bargaining "Rights"
This is a most unfortunate misnomer. The "right" of a public employee to collectively bargain is not really an inherent right, but rather it is a privilege that was given and codified by only about half of the states in this country to its employees. It is an artificial "right" that became law by state legislators and governors who pandered to teachers' unions for campaign funds.
If this were a true right, then every jurisdiction in the United States, to include that of the federal government, would be forced to allow its employees to collectively bargain. At present, thirty-five of the fifty states have pro-collective bargaining statutes for public employees on the books, five states prohibit collective bargaining of public employees, and eleven have no laws regarding collective bargaining of public employees on its books. The federal government does not allow its employees to collectively bargain.
I find this concept akin to that of sovereign immunity which bars the states and federal governments from civil and criminal prosecution unless they allow for it. The manner by which governments allow for such suits are statutes like the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act. This is just like this. Here, the government must give special codified permission as an exception to the rule. I consider such statutes to be governmental privileges rather than rights. Privileges that can be undone if the government is in a state of crisis, perhaps fiscal crisis, or even at the change of its citizens' opinion.
When a government employee strikes, it does so not against a corporation, but against the taxpayers. FDR, a proponent of public employees' rights to associate and assemble even warned that "meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government."
Supporters of public employees' collective bargaining "rights" try to conveniently separate the notion of collective bargaining from an employee's ability to strike. That is a canard. The ability to strike is inherent to the ability to collectively bargain. It is impossible to separate the two because the primary source for a union's bargaining capital is the management's ability or inability to survive a strike. [Steven Abraham, Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy, Volume 1 page 73]
Even for inarguably pro-union FDR, the idea of public employees striking was "unthinkable and intolerable".
Teachers' Due Process Rights Will Be Violated
There is NO SUCH THING as a right of due process in matters of employment. None. The right to due process guaranteed by our constitution ONLY applies to citizens accused of a CRIME. The end. There is no caveat or condition that alters this fact. There are lawyers who get this basic first year constitutional law concept wrong all the time. I've heard them. They should have their licenses to practice revoked.
In the private sector, if you feel you have been wrongfully terminated from employment, you file a discrimination grievance with the state EEOC and have your case settled by a third party. It is actually a decent system. I think public employees should have to use this same system instead of getting their own special procedures that costs us taxpayers even more out of pocket.
I have been told by a friend that she knows several teachers who have been dismissed. These people must have done something pretty terrible for the state or school district to go through the pain of removing them! Or maybe she lives in a state where collective bargaining is prohibited and people can be fired more easily for cause. Even the superintendent of Indiana Public Schools, Dr. Eugene White acknowledges how costly and difficult it is. He blames the administrators for failing to do their jobs, not the unions who pressured to put these procedures in place.
My question: Aren't administrators part of the teachers' unions? Isn't this a distinction without a difference?
In the private sector, management is not part of the union. Part of the reason collective bargaining works is because we have two competing interests coming together in good faith to advance each interest mutually. If the administrators, who are essentially management are on the same side as teachers, where is the competing interest? Where is the adversarial nature needed to keep cost down and bad teachers out of the classroom? There is none.
*I am embarrassed to admit that I must emend my earlier statement regarding right of due process being an exclusively criminal construct. It also applies to government takings like eminent domain. Regardless, it still does not apply to employment.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Tarted Up Daughters & Feminism
Dressing sexy has been around and frowned upon since some cavewomen decided to wear their animal skins on one shoulder as opposed to the dowdy sac style dresses of the more conservative cavewomen. Yet, Jennifer Moses' recent opinion in the WSJ has garnered a lot of attention lately.
I love reading through the comments section of these sorts of pieces. People get crazy and completely non sequitur. [Yes, in my world, one can be in a state of being that can only be described as non sequitur. :)]
In this particular comments section, people attribute the sluttification of our daughters to that of the feminist and sexual revolution. Some people are trying to make it a virtue and a victory. Others show it as a failure of feminism. The comments section argument then devolves into a "now you all wonder why you are all still single when we get the milk for free" battle.
Here's my take [based on the fact that I was once a provocatively dressed young single educated woman looking for a spouse who found one].
Girls dress tartish because they don't know HOW to dress sexy. They don't understand that putting together a sexy outfit is an art yet. They are learning. Just the right amount of cleavage or skin or leg leaves more to the imagination of a guy than showing everything. I think there are so many women out there who don't understand this concept that they don't know how to teach their daughters properly. Then they complain about their girls looking slutty.
If you are a single dad or a woman who just hasn't been good at fashion and makeup, do your daughter a favor and take her to the makeup counter at a department store and invest in some good makeup lessons. They don't cost all that much. Usually free, sometimes a minimum purchase.
Then, get her a subscription or two to a couple of appropriate fashion magazines. In Style is the best and People Stylewatch is also a good one for TEACHING about fashion and putting together an outfit without all of the anorexic imagery and oversexed ads. Also, they are not for old ladies. Back when I was a kid, my mom got me a subscription to YM. She said it was the best thing she ever did because I never went through "The Hooker Phase" that all the other girls seemed to go through.
Teach your girls to love their figures and HOW to dress instead of complaining about it. Give them the tools and they will make the better decisions. Proper fashion choices are just as much about education as sex is.
Now for my personal three step lesson on Finding A Spouse For A Feminist
1. Smile and Laugh.
2. Get fit. Get sexy. - Sorry, girls it's the most anti-feminist concept ever. If you want to find a spouse, you need to take care of yourself and make yourself physically desirable. It's simple math, the more guys attracted to you, the more potential mates you have to choose from. Once you are married and running around after kids, you can run around without makeup wearing comfy Birkenstocks all you want, but you ain't gonna get there without sexing it up while you're single. Spare me the whole, "I want to find someone to love me for me" shit. A man doesn't love you for being sexy. The sexiness just opens up the door to the possibility of him loving you. Step three is what will get him to fall in love you.
3. Learn to Cook a Good Roast Beast. - If you want a straight guy who loves women, then you need to learn to cook meat. The end. Guys like meat. You will find the occasional veggie guy, but as women, we all know how to cook veggies because we are fit and taking care of ourselves. See step two. If you find a guy who loves to cook, then be the best dishwasher you can be.
It's not hard. Pretend you live in the 1950's and are trying to rope a guy. Put on a pretty dress that shows off your curves and make him a roast. If you can make a good Manhattan or Old Fashioned, you are two steps ahead of the game.
I'm sorry. I wish there was a more feminist sounding answer for finding a husband. There isn't.
After nearly 7 years of marriage [which isn't really long in the grand scheme of things, we are still newlyweds really] my husband and I have had the conversation about what made the other one of us want to marry that person.
I knew the moment we first started talking that I was going to marry him. We just clicked. He was ridiculously smart, goodlooking, had a ripping sense of humor, and kind eyes [the Marine swagger didn't hurt either].
My husband's response, "I wanted to get to know you because you had a great ass and you usually wore high heels with pedicured toes. I liked that. I knew I was going to marry you the first time you made Jambalaya for me. Speaking of which... I don't think you've made Jambalaya since we've been married."
*Thinking about it, I don't think I've had a proper salon pedicure in over a year either and my footwear of choice these days are a pair of Birkenstocks with jeans. [But they are really CUTE Birkenstocks!]
I love reading through the comments section of these sorts of pieces. People get crazy and completely non sequitur. [Yes, in my world, one can be in a state of being that can only be described as non sequitur. :)]
In this particular comments section, people attribute the sluttification of our daughters to that of the feminist and sexual revolution. Some people are trying to make it a virtue and a victory. Others show it as a failure of feminism. The comments section argument then devolves into a "now you all wonder why you are all still single when we get the milk for free" battle.
Here's my take [based on the fact that I was once a provocatively dressed young single educated woman looking for a spouse who found one].
Girls dress tartish because they don't know HOW to dress sexy. They don't understand that putting together a sexy outfit is an art yet. They are learning. Just the right amount of cleavage or skin or leg leaves more to the imagination of a guy than showing everything. I think there are so many women out there who don't understand this concept that they don't know how to teach their daughters properly. Then they complain about their girls looking slutty.
If you are a single dad or a woman who just hasn't been good at fashion and makeup, do your daughter a favor and take her to the makeup counter at a department store and invest in some good makeup lessons. They don't cost all that much. Usually free, sometimes a minimum purchase.
Then, get her a subscription or two to a couple of appropriate fashion magazines. In Style is the best and People Stylewatch is also a good one for TEACHING about fashion and putting together an outfit without all of the anorexic imagery and oversexed ads. Also, they are not for old ladies. Back when I was a kid, my mom got me a subscription to YM. She said it was the best thing she ever did because I never went through "The Hooker Phase" that all the other girls seemed to go through.
Teach your girls to love their figures and HOW to dress instead of complaining about it. Give them the tools and they will make the better decisions. Proper fashion choices are just as much about education as sex is.
Now for my personal three step lesson on Finding A Spouse For A Feminist
1. Smile and Laugh.
2. Get fit. Get sexy. - Sorry, girls it's the most anti-feminist concept ever. If you want to find a spouse, you need to take care of yourself and make yourself physically desirable. It's simple math, the more guys attracted to you, the more potential mates you have to choose from. Once you are married and running around after kids, you can run around without makeup wearing comfy Birkenstocks all you want, but you ain't gonna get there without sexing it up while you're single. Spare me the whole, "I want to find someone to love me for me" shit. A man doesn't love you for being sexy. The sexiness just opens up the door to the possibility of him loving you. Step three is what will get him to fall in love you.
3. Learn to Cook a Good Roast Beast. - If you want a straight guy who loves women, then you need to learn to cook meat. The end. Guys like meat. You will find the occasional veggie guy, but as women, we all know how to cook veggies because we are fit and taking care of ourselves. See step two. If you find a guy who loves to cook, then be the best dishwasher you can be.
It's not hard. Pretend you live in the 1950's and are trying to rope a guy. Put on a pretty dress that shows off your curves and make him a roast. If you can make a good Manhattan or Old Fashioned, you are two steps ahead of the game.
I'm sorry. I wish there was a more feminist sounding answer for finding a husband. There isn't.
After nearly 7 years of marriage [which isn't really long in the grand scheme of things, we are still newlyweds really] my husband and I have had the conversation about what made the other one of us want to marry that person.
I knew the moment we first started talking that I was going to marry him. We just clicked. He was ridiculously smart, goodlooking, had a ripping sense of humor, and kind eyes [the Marine swagger didn't hurt either].
My husband's response, "I wanted to get to know you because you had a great ass and you usually wore high heels with pedicured toes. I liked that. I knew I was going to marry you the first time you made Jambalaya for me. Speaking of which... I don't think you've made Jambalaya since we've been married."
*Thinking about it, I don't think I've had a proper salon pedicure in over a year either and my footwear of choice these days are a pair of Birkenstocks with jeans. [But they are really CUTE Birkenstocks!]
Friday, March 18, 2011
Once Upon A Time...
I started this blog during the 2008 campaign season to express my political views in lieu of clogging up my facebook feed. I continued to blog for nearly a year following the election and made some fine friends along the way. There were only two problems. One, the conservative blogosphere moves WAY too fast for me to keep up with posting the latest news race. Two, I found myself caving and compromising my own political philosophy in order to get readers. This was nobody's fault but my own--I am not writing this to denigrate ANYONE.
So this is me.
I am a mother. I am a military wife. I am a lawyer. I am a musician. I am a scientist. I am an artist. I love the water. I care passionately about the environment. I am a Roman Catholic adult convert. I am a feminist. I am a clotheshorse. I am pretty funny. I am a good cook. And I am a neoconservative.
So how can someone who, on paper, fits the stereotype of a liberal consider themselves a neoconservative? Two words: Women's Rights.
I consider myself a neoconservative because I think there is no problem worse on our small globe than the overt oppression and subjugation of women. I am not talking about women who can't get access to free abortions in our free society. I am not talking about women not being able to whip out a boob in a public place to feed a baby. I am not even talking about women being paid less for doing the same work. Nope. I am talking about state-sponsored oppression of women wherein women are still deemed chattel by their own governments. I am talking about governments who do not allow their female citizens a voice yet are recognized and supported by the world economy under the guise of multiculturalism.
I guess I am a small "r" republican in that I believe that first generation individual rights of all humans should be guaranteed by not just our own nation, but the global community as a whole.
So this is where I come from. I think about things. I am open to discussion with viewpoints that diverge from my own and I welcome you to engage [albeit thoughtfully and respectfully].
So this is me.
I am a mother. I am a military wife. I am a lawyer. I am a musician. I am a scientist. I am an artist. I love the water. I care passionately about the environment. I am a Roman Catholic adult convert. I am a feminist. I am a clotheshorse. I am pretty funny. I am a good cook. And I am a neoconservative.
So how can someone who, on paper, fits the stereotype of a liberal consider themselves a neoconservative? Two words: Women's Rights.
I consider myself a neoconservative because I think there is no problem worse on our small globe than the overt oppression and subjugation of women. I am not talking about women who can't get access to free abortions in our free society. I am not talking about women not being able to whip out a boob in a public place to feed a baby. I am not even talking about women being paid less for doing the same work. Nope. I am talking about state-sponsored oppression of women wherein women are still deemed chattel by their own governments. I am talking about governments who do not allow their female citizens a voice yet are recognized and supported by the world economy under the guise of multiculturalism.
I guess I am a small "r" republican in that I believe that first generation individual rights of all humans should be guaranteed by not just our own nation, but the global community as a whole.
So this is where I come from. I think about things. I am open to discussion with viewpoints that diverge from my own and I welcome you to engage [albeit thoughtfully and respectfully].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)