On The Plight Of The Busty

In the past few weeks, I have about ten subjects that have irked me to anger, but I can't write decently when I'm angry. So, here is a very serious problem I now deal with on a daily basis: 12 Problems Only Busty Girls Have.

As a former ranking member of the IBTC** whose middle school/high school/college/twenties prayers for boobs were all miraculously answered at once after having my second child [in what can only be described as a cruel joke by God], I can attest to having experienced all of these problems firsthand now [with the exception of the suspenders problem]. I hereby publicly apologize to all of my busty friends whom I mocked when they would complain about the "plight" of bustiness. I AM SORRY.

*They need to replace suspenders to swinging a golf club. [Who wears suspenders anyhow beside The Cajun Cook and beings from Ork?]

**IBTC: Itty Bitty Titty Committee

A Feminist Distinction

Please check out "Modern Feminism Means Equal . . . Outcome?" by Chelsea Gruenwald at Misfit Politics. The piece makes a marvelous distinction between modern feminism's faulty focus on equal outcomes rather than equal means. A quick worthwhile read.

Mourning The Loss Of A Great Voice And Inspiration: Andrew Breitbart RIP

Right now lots of Andrew Breitbart anecdotes are swirling around on the blogosphere and twitterverse. I didn't know the man, but I am a huge fan of his. I've read a lot of these anecdotes and tributes today. My favorites, by far, were those of James Taranto of the WSJ and, of course, my favorite person on the internets, Jim Treacher [I mean, Sean Medlock, I still am not used it!] of the Daily Caller. I've spent most of today following @jtLOL's feed; Sean's been paying tribute to Breitbart's penchant for comically retweeting his detractors' vitriole.

The core motivation of conservatives' love of Andrew Breitbart was not that he was hyper-conservative, because he wasn't particularly hyper-partisan. It was because he had no compunction for calling out the lying, smear perpetrating, and hyper-partisan liberal 'journalists' [or DNC talking point shills] in that ballsy in-ones-face manner in which most conservatives would love to engage.

By definition, conservatives are, well, conservative. I joked during the Health Care Act Townhalls that the liberal media's portrayal of angry violent conservatives at these townhalls was ridiculous as evidenced by their wardrobe: golf shirts and madras and sperrys. Conservatives' version of confrontation is the same as liberals' version of restrained/repressed civility.

And then there was Andrew Breitbart: a living, breathing, erudite id and ego of the conservative conscience without the usual self-defeating conservative super-ego. He was entertaining even at his most obnoxious moments. I do not think I have ever laughed so loud and hard at anything recently than watching his confrontation of the 2012 CPAC Occupy Protestors. "Behave Yourself!"



I pray for his wife and children that they may have strength and peace. I hope his children will always know just how beloved and brave their father was. *Well, darn it, I hope someone writes a tribute this good about me some day. The Weekly Standard's Matt Labash obliges.

Wisconsin Confirmed Success of School Choice

"What we're seeing is pretty strong evidence that school vouchers have positive effects on Educational Attainment, that's how far students go in school. Here in Milwaukee, voucher students graduated from high school at a rate 4-7 percentage points higher than similar MPS [Milwaukee Public School] students. They enrolled in college at a rate 4-7 percentage points higher. Which is a big deal because only about 25% of these students go to college. So a 4-7 percentage point difference that's like a 20% difference."

Military Children Are Being Held Hostage

By bad schools and bad school systems.

In honor of National School Choice Week, I am writing about a subject very near and dear to my heart, military child education.

When it comes to the short end of the straw, military children get it time and time again--whether in times of war or peace. They move and start over every couple years in and out of public school systems who could give two bits less about them except for the federal moneys they bring with them. Mind you, these school systems are mostly located in areas whose ENTIRE ECONOMY is centered around the existence of that military base. Every year, these school systems receive extra funding for having active duty military attend their schools. Recently, due to the unignorable inadequacy of these military child holding pens masquerading as schools, the DOD has decided to give them even MORE money to the tune of $250M.

Here's the dirty little secret that every single military parent knows. It doesn't matter how much money you pour into those school systems, it still won't fix the problem. Because when it comes right down to it, money is not the problem: lack of control over our children's education is. They are giving this money to crappy local school districts [on top of the federal subsidy they receive per child of non-resident active duty attending their school] and the military members have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in how that money is allocated. The local school boards are elected by local residents and they are usually entrenched local yokels who have little to no connection to the military. How about we create thresholds where for every 10% of military children attending a school district, they have to reserve one voting seat on their school board for an active duty military member either electable or appointed by the local base commander. Then we tie the federal subsidies to fulfillment of this threshold requirement. Most military members I know would jump at the chance to be civic leaders where they are stationed, but they face the common obstacle in that they are unknowns in the community.

Right now, 32% of all homeschooled children are military. That's insane. I have a lot of friends who homeschool for various reasons, but the biggest one being they can't afford private schools that are 1] better able to control the fluidity and quality of their children's education and 2] have the ability to better control the self-esteem sapping pitfall of constantly being a new kid or outsider. Then there are parents like myself who spend every bit of our tiny military expendable income on private school for our children. On an officer's income it's a stretch and just another sacrifice we make as part of serving our country, but on an enlisted income it's an impossibility. To me, that is just unconscionable. We have laid just one more burden on the military spouse to not only get by as a single parent deployment after deployment, but now they have the extra added burden of homeschooling their children because no reasonable sane person could send their children to local public schools.

A further solution to the problem military families face would be to give military families the federal subsidy check. Let them get their kids into local private schools and subsidize their tuition!! Where I live in CA, the base schools are run by the CA school system. The same CA school system who, as of 2007 was ranked 46th of all states. FORTY-SIXTH. It should be noted, however, that the average classroom teacher salary in CA is over $69K per annum only to be outspent by second ranked Massachusetts at $71K per annum. Obviously CA is doing something wrong here. The school district where I would be forced to send my children is ranked 574/766 of all the districts in the forty-sixth worst state for education. The best rated local elementary school is rated 946 in the state out of 5188. Most of the children attending that school are children of field grade and above officers. The other base option is number 4513/5188. See where I am going with this?

The aforementioned 946th ranked elementary school raises $80K in extra funds from the parents over the course of the year. Yet their kindergarten class has 40 kids to one teacher, no aide, and no special subjects like art, music, gym, or technology. Pathetic. The local Catholic schools raise less than that per year yet costs $4500/student to educate [as opposed to the $8700 per pupil in the public school district]. Their student to teacher ratio is 10:1 while the public school district claims to be 16:1. This is truly an outrage. Let's save some money, DOD, and subsidize private school tuition instead of crappy mismanaged leeching school districts. Give our military children and families a chance.

The Problem With Perry

Let me preface this entire post by saying that I will vote for Rick Perry over Barack Obama in a general election. I will HATE doing it. I mean, I will absolutely loathe myself in that I-need-to-take-an-hour-long-hot-shower-and-still-won't-feel-clean-enough loathing for voting for Rick Perry. To me, in the contest of the lesser of two evils, well, Perry wins hands down. But I am the exception.

Rick Perry is unelectable versus Barack Obama. Period. The End. I don't care how much money the man has. I don't. Rick Perry will never win against Obama and it has nothing to do with the merits of his candidacy. It has everything to do with Barack Obama's ability to run against George W. Bush.

In the 2008 election, Obama ran not against McCain, but Bush. He was elected not for McCain or Palin's inadequacies, but for Bush's. For the last three years we have heard nothing but "Blame Bush" for every failure of his administration. Essentially, the man has run a perpetual campaign against George W. Bush for the last four years. And now in the face of this, there is a camp of people who want to place a drawling swaggering Texan with half the talent and capability of our last drawling swaggering Texan in a position to run against him. Why don't we just GIVE this administration another four years?

If there is one thing that the last three years has taught us it is that there is only one thing Barack H. Obama can do successfully and that is BLAME BUSH. So WHY in a million zillion years would anyone in their right mind pick a candidate with the accent and mannerisms of the second coming of Bush to face a person who has made a successful career out of villainizing him?

It is obvious that many have never gotten over 2000. Every presidential election since has been a 2000 rematch. Even an election where Bush was not a candidate. Two thousand twelve will be no exception.

Happy Saturday

Res ipsa loquitur

Before There Was Cordray...

Two months ago, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter questioned Interim Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Raj Date. One has got to wonder if they've consolidated the authority of the new director and phased out Mr. Date or if he's still operating in his capacity as interim director and the American Taxpayer is now paying two people do the same job? Go efficiency!

New Year's Resolutions

Christmas has ended and we have all been hearing about the resolutions; resolutions to save more money, turn off the TV, get organized, lose weight. Since both of my children recently became school age and we are stationed in a place for too short a time for me to justify the expense and time spent studying and taking the bar in our current jurisdiction, I spent last year's resolutions on taking time for myself. I focused on doing things I've always wanted to do, but haven't had the time for: learning to play guitar and learning to sew. While these are both crafts that require years of study and practice, I feel confident enough to say that I have hit a level of competence to say that I, in fact, can do these activities. [Notice my purposeful omission of any mention of skill level. ;)] With the guitar I have found a new outlet for my passion for music and it's a heck of a lot lighter than carrying a piano around. :)

Facing a similar year, I was at a loss. I'm happy enough with my weight and have a healthy lifestyle, but I'm not kidding myself that, at 37 years old, I will ever fit my curves into designer size 4 ever again--certainly not with these Italian genes. We're doing quite a bit of traveling this year, so that would be a convenient one to make, but kind of a cop out don't you think? Until yesterday, I had relegated myself to no resolutions this year and to stick to just trying to keep my head above water in my oh so glamorous life as a mother and wife. Basically, I resolved to have no resolve in 2012.

Until yesterday...

Yesterday, I was chatting with a parent of one of my daughter's classmates. He said he had heard I was a lawyer. [The going reaction is usually one of surprise given that my uniform these days is jeans, boots, and a sweater.] I said I was. We talked and I mentioned that I had done a little political writing. I almost fell over when he handed me his card and asked me to e-mail him a sample. I went home and looked through past posts [that I had removed from this site and saved] and selected one to send. In doing so, I realized how much I missed having an outlet for my voice and given the political season, I realized my 2012 resolution.

So here is to 2012 and finding resolve.

Death To Birtherism

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.

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.

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!]

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].

We're No Shining Lights Of The Bar

Between Dahlia Lithwick's recent fifth grade report on women judges and Ginsburg's notion that looking to foreign law when interpreting the meaning of laws made and passed by U.S. legislators is jurisprudentially sound, I sit here embarrassed and appalled by the apparent lack of good representation [excuse the pun] for my fellow women lawyers.

Ms. Lithwick's thesis and support have several very fatal flaws. The reason why Obama should appoint another female to the SCOTUS, she maintains, is that women have a special ability to judge facts. To support this, Ms. Lithwick points to a very narrow sociological study ["award winning" or not, for those hard science background people, like myself, the results of political science studies are overly subjective and malleable] that says women judges or panels with a woman judge are more likely to rule in favor of the plaintiff in a sexual discrimination case than male judges or an all male panel. This is her sole empirical evidence for her thesis that women judge differently. She goes on further to discuss the importance of experiential diversity for judges.

There is no bigger insult to a judge--any judge--than to tell them that their personal life experiences [especially with respect to uncontrollable characteristics] affect their ability to properly interpret and apply the law. It matters not if the speaker's intent is to flatter or denigrate. The best compliment for a judge is impartiality. Maintaining judicial impartiality and experientially guided judging are mutually exclusive endeavors. A fact which seems to have eluded Ms. Lithwick since taking the MPRE or her law school ethics class.

While I personally agree that Obama should appoint more females on the bench, including the SCOTUS, I do not think that one should be appointed based upon gender. Furthermore, I reject her stereotyping of "crisp" male justices versus "soft" female justices. We [the collective one] HAVE GOT TO get past this mentality. The law should be neither masculine nor feminine. It should be neither white nor black. It should be neither Christian nor Buddhist. It SHOULD be blind. Like Ms. Lithwick and Ms. Ginsburg, it is many people's perceptions that the law is biased and not blind in its application. However, we do not combat such bias with judges who hold mirror biases with some eye toward balancing out the undesired bias. The result is polarity of judicial philosophies/theories instead of a social movement toward equality.

I further reject that women judges do not evaluate cases strictly or "crisply"; terms, which connote and reflect accuracy of thought. I'm sure such an allusion was not Ms. Lithwick's intent, but that is the exact effect of such stereotyping and I, for one, am insulted by it. Furthermore, I believe to my core that Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would reject Ms. Lithwick's assertions. I implore her to read actually read and responsibly reference O'Connors message in her book, The Majesty of the Law, specifically chapter twenty, "Women in Judging". There, Justice Day O'Connor discusses how Clarence Darrow once told a group of women lawyers, "You can't be shining lights at the bar because you are too kind."

For your perusal, I have provided a couple choice quotes from the aforementioned chapter to demonstrate Lithwick's blatant bastardization of O'Connor's words.

As judges, we all strive to be dispassionate and objective in analyzing issues, to be impartial and analytical, to be courageous and independent when we resolve a case in a manner sure to be unpopular generally. Women, like men, can and do have all of these attributes...

...So the question remains: Do women judges decide cases differently by virtue of being women? I would echo the answer of another woman judge, Justice Jeanne Coyne, formerly of the Minnesota Supreme Court, who says that "a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion."

The softness of women is not what "we" mean when we say we need more women justices. In alleging such a thing, Ms. Lithwick has taken our gender in the profession of law ten steps backwards.

Another flaw in the argument for experientially based judging on the SCOTUS is it ignores a common characteristic of 99.99% of cases that go before the SCOTUS: they are last resort appeals on usually VERY VERY minute and narrow issues of law. Such determinations don't require personal experience, they require a sharp legal mind with a thorough attention to detail.

I will close with a final quote from The Majesty of The Law,

In class or in grading papers over seventeen years, and now in reading briefs and listening to arguments in court for fourteen years, I have detected no reliable indicator of distinctly male or surely female thinking--or even penmanship.

The speaker of that final quote was none other than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So, the question still remains, what DO you mean Ms. Lithwick?

The Truthiness Commissions

Certain segments of the American left [here too] are calling for truth and reconciliation commissions. Truth commissions like the ones held in South Africa, Germany, Argentina, Chile, and Yugoslavia for a pattern of egregious violations of human rights against their own citizenry. You know, the same truth commissions intended for the healing of countries with protracted histories of complete dehumanization of its citizens usually entailing the kidnapping and murder of suspected political dissidents? Now, we're not just talking about the state sponsored killing or torture of the most radical elements of their society. We're also not just talking about countries who mistreated foreign national sworn enemies of their state. No, we're talking about countries whose own citizens lived in constant fear of exhibiting the mere appearance of dissent.

Is there anything more narcissistic than comparing liberal America's psuedo suffering to that of the actual suffering of the peoples of the aforementioned countries? We only reiterate our "spoiled American" persona by trivializing the real injuries of the truly oppressed with our latest political whimsies.

Much to the dismay of that segment of the left, Obama stated that he will not authorize a truth commission for the outgoing administration. So, to satisfy those who are salivating for such pomposity, I will oblige:

THE TRUTHINESS COMMISSIONS

Neocon Blonde,
Commanding Officer of the Perpetually Serene House of Quinn

Pursuant to the proposal of Dahlia Lithwick, et al.,

DECREES:

Article 1

There is hereby created a polypartisan Commission called the "The Truthiness Commission of Inquiry Into The Poopy Stinky Meanness of BushCheney."

Article 2

The mission of the Commission is:

- to investigate and make recommendation upon the criminalization or just plain general offensiveness of Texas accents and/or swaggering.
- to replace responsible consideration of complicated legal issues with pouting that conforms to spoiled adolescent sensibilities.
- to create an American Intelligence Oversight Committee consisting of the editorial boards of the New York Times, The Nation, and Keith Olbermann which exclusively will determine classification levels and dissemination criteria for all sensitive information.
- to hear testimony from any person willing to complain about BushCheney (Committeeperson Sullivan will chair a one-man subcommittee to hear complaints about Palin).
- to bring back the altogether peaceful, happy, and loving relationship the United States enjoyed with the Arab world prior to the advent of BushCheney.

Article 3

The Commission is composed of:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich: Commission Chair
William Ramsey Clark: Legal Counsel
Michael Moore: Recording Secretary
Cynthia McKinney: Law Enforcement Expert
Congressman Ron Paul: Token Republican
George Galloway: UN Representative
Gore Vidal: Commissioner Emeritus
Dr. Ayman Zawahiri: Medical Expert
David Remes: International Outreach
Andrew Sullivan: Religionism and Feminism Expert
Adam Kokesh: Military Expert
Jane Fonda: Commission Armpiece

Article 4

The Commission may summon any natural, legal, or fictional person in a position to assist it in the pre-ordained missions of the investigation.

Article 5

If the investigation so requires, members of the Commission may provide their own personal testimony and consider their own personal complaints.

Article 6

To this end, the material resources necessary will be put at the disposal of the Commission to enable it to carry out its mission.

Article 7

The Commission shall submit its report within 4 years, preferably during the month of October 2012.

Article 8

When the pre-determined determinations have been properly concluded, a decree of Neocon Blonde will terminate the mandate of the Commission.

Clinging To Our Guns, Religion, and... Happiness?

Republicans are Happier!!!

The Washington Post is incredulous. Forgive my language, but I shit you not. David Montgomery asked the following question:

The data, alas, do not account for those furious Republicans at McCain-Palin rallies. Are they happy in their anger?

Has this guy even ATTENDED a Republican rally? I'm serious. Is he going by the Ruth Marcus or David Singleton accounts: both of which have been completely debunked?

Here's the deal. I'm a Republican. I like my party. That being said, the anger displayed at these rallies is G rated in comparison to the violence [both in language and in action] we have witnessed this election coming from our opponents. The way Ruth Marcus and David Singleton have portrayed [LIED ABOUT is a more accurate description, but I'm Republican and happy, so I can afford to be generous] these rallies, one would think that attending a McCain Palin rally was akin to going to a Pantera concert. The rather uncool reality is that the level of violence is more akin to a John Tesh or Kenny G affair... And, odd as it might sound, that makes me happy.

Capitalism Is Scary: Dress Up As Adam Smith For Halloween Instead of Michael Myers

We have come full circle. The debate as to what constitutes socialism is now at the forefront. The narrative is right where the Republican party wants it to be. Hopefully, it's not too late for this election.

I couldn't post a comment for Ruth Marcus' piece, "The 'Socialist' Scare" in the Washington Post. So I'm posting it here because I have serious questions as to whether Ms. Marcus and I were even at the same rally.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruth Marcus, what an irresponsible take and explanation of the Woodbridge rally. You should be ashamed of yourself. Of course, you probably are not because it's all for the "greater good" of getting your guy elected, isn't it?

Your ignorance comes through loud and clear when you say that the Obama for Change bumper stickers were all Soviet symbols. The C with the star was a take on the flag of the Nation of Islam. Anyone with half a brain and certainly someone who is publishing a piece in the WaPo should know this. They should also know that McCain supporters, including the McCain campaign itself got authorities and made him leave. Don't believe me? Watch This Clip. Several Muslim Republicans confronted the people and many people cheered and clapped when those people were forced to leave.

Second, the rally was calm. There were lots of young families there, including my own. You chose to highlight the handful of people among thousands yelling "socialism" without noting that many in the crowd were laughing when the remarks were made because the people shouting them looked silly--not shouting angrily in agreement as Ms. Marcus would have us believe.

What you willfully ignored was the positivity and optimism of Republicans. I met people of all ilks at that rally and people were as nice as can be. I saw moms in line at the port-a potties, reaching into their diaper bags and purses for wipes and tissues and napkins to give to strangers with other young children. I saw a man dancing with his daughter who was in a wheelchair. I saw a woman run up to another woman with a young child on her shoulders to fix the child's "plumber butt" [no pun intended]. Basically, I saw kindness. Kindness that the Democratic party thinks does not exist simply because we don't agree as to the extent that the government should be "evening the playing field". The purpose of OUR government is to maintain order and protect its citizens: NOT to provide a welfare state.

The Washington Post should be ashamed of itself for publishing this piece. I have toilet paper that has more factual support.

**Update: Further evidence that this woman is just another idiot blinded by Obama's hypnotizing smile. We Republicans are so freaking SELFISH aren't we?

***My original title was, "Capitalism Is Scary: Dress Up As Adam Smith or Jeremy Bentham For Halloween Instead of Michael Myers". I decided to edit it because my intent was not easily understood. I received an e-mail "correcting me" that Bentham is considered the Father of the Welfarism. I know this. My not-so-great title was intended to point to the difference highlighted in my comment: capitalism v. welfarism, which would explain my use of "or" in the title. The interns are busy watching Scooby Doo and the Reluctant Werewolf as a treat. They will be firmly reprimanded later.

****My earlier comment on the rally.

Re: Corporate Fraud Initiative, Amendment 53

The Race To The Bottom responsibly discusses (here, here, here, and here) Colorado's proposed Corporate Fraud Initiative or Amendment 53.

A vote of NO suggested by Daily Kos? How very laissez-faire of him. Even Adam Smith did not wear an Adam Smith necktie.

Truth be told, while Amendment 53 may not be a viable answer for Coloradans, such thinking is a step in the right direction. It is arguable that we wouldn't need an SEC if states would simply pass and enforce their corporate criminal laws. One problem is that state criminal law attorneys usually lack the specialized corporate and business law knowledge and background necessary to prosecute these crimes.

What is needed, is something along the lines of the federal government to create a special task force of corporate law attorneys in every state to prosecute for corporate malfeasance. Civil lawsuits and fines are not deterrents anymore as officers, directors, and executives protect their personal assets simply by purchasing D&O insurance. Jail time, it seems, is the only deterrent for the unscrupulous who have no problem negatively affecting entire markets [as is the case today].

If we were somehow able to limit the standing of shareholder derivative civil suits following criminal indictment ONLY [criminal proceedings perhaps done in a procedural manner similar to something like the Guantanamo Commissions: criminal commission with an expert panel (in lieu of an uneducated factfinder) reviewable by a judiciary] and effect this at the state level in EVERY state [to prevent against the race to the bottom phenomenon-hence the need to for such an initiative to come from the federal level], we might actually have something that could protect Joe-Investor while maintaining a classical liberal identity.

Of course, this is all just ideating "out loud". :)

Pounding Nails In The Coffin Of The Embryonic Stem Cell Debate

Japanese scientists have successfully generated stem cells without the use of a virus carrier. The problem with introducing these genes via virus is that it makes the host more susceptible to tumors and other problems caused by the viral genetic material.

Of course, the Obama manages to get this wrong as well. "I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations." It is apparent that embryonic stem cell research in other nations suffers from the same sort of stigma that it does in the U.S. Consider this:

"[James Thomson] said he's amazed at how quickly scientists have begun exploring the use of the reprogrammed skin cells he reported on last year. "People are jumping in very rapidly, much more rapidly than they did 10 years ago" after the initial discovery of embryonic stem cells, Thomson said.

In all, 812 labs in dozens of countries have requested the materials needed to reprogram ordinary cells into iPS cells, said Addgene, a Massachusetts-based repository for research supplies. By contrast, a half-dozen or so labs started working with embryonic stem cells in the months after his landmark 1998 paper, Thomson said."

Obama also said, "However, embryonic stem cells remain the 'gold standard,' and studies of all types of stem cells should continue in parallel for the foreseeable future. ..."

While Thomson, the man responsible for discovering these non-embryonic pluripotent stem cells, has called embryonic stem-cells "the gold standard", he did so not because of known limitations on non-embryonic stem-cells. Wouldn't a prudent compromise be to exhaust all non-embryonic stem cell avenues before having to rely upon those harvested from human embryos? The reason embryonic stem-cells are deemed "the gold standard" is because they are easier to work with and known because a handful of researchers have been working with them for the past ten years. Look at the sheer increase in interest in non-embryonic stem-cell research. Imagine what that many more scientists working on this could discover without having to further impede on the sanctity of a human life.