As I think our nearly two-year long Presidential election campaign is ridiculous, I have been avoiding most of the news reports of the candidates in both parties so far. Maybe this winter I'll start paying attention and decide on a candidate to favor with my vote.
However, one bit of news caught my eye the other day. Hillary Clinton has announced that, if elected, she will appoint her husband Bill as her ambassador to the world. No one can object to such an appontment as nepotism, given his qualifications. I can think of no one better equipped to repair the horrifying damage that the Bush Administration has wreaked on the US' reputation and relationships with other nations. Besides being a President with an effective foreign policy, Bill was very popular with the leaders and peoples of other countries and was trusted as an honest broker in long-lasting difficult disputes, such as Ulster and the Middle East.
In fact, I think the other Democratic candidates should go Hillary one better and promise to make Bill Sec'y of State. Heading up State would put him in the best possible position to heal our relationships with other countries, put our foreign affairs in extremely capable hands, and leave the new President free to address our most pressing domestic problems, which are legion due to the incompetence and malfeasance of Geo W Bush.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
First Ducklings of the Season
I looked out my dining-room window yesterday and was delighted to see the first clutch of ducklings to visit my yard this year. [Click pic to enlarge.] What was especially intriguing is that the Mama Mallard watching over her five little ones was accompanied by a drake who shared scout duty with her. Ordinarily, mother ducks don't like even other ducks to get near their little ones, so it was a first for me to see a pair taking care of the ducklings. Clutches usually lose most of their ducklings to predators as the season goes along, Maybe these five will all live to adulthood with the help of two guardians.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Straights Have No Right to Judge Gays
I noticed this morning on the local newspapers’ net forum a thread on Tim Hardaway, to whom I awarded a Chutzpah Prize yesterday. While some writers condemned his remarks, others – particulary some strait [sic] men – didn’t see "I hate gays" as that terrible. A number who claimed that they weren’t bigoted or homophobic remarked that gay men made them “uncomfortable” and that they disapproved of the "gay lifestyle."
Now this is one of my pettest peeves. Given the general social disintegration in which we all live and participate, for anyone to single out gay people as particularly objectionable annoys me to the max. So I responded with the following comments. Mind you, I’m not really judging heteros as any better or worse than homos, just trying to point out the ludicrous hypocrisy of the straights who sit in judgment of gays:
As for the straight guys who disappove of the gay lifestyle, let me remind you what the straight lifestyle is nowadays. Most men and women have had sexual relations with multiple partners before marriage, including one-nite stands. Many couples cohabit for years before marrying. Some even have one or more children who act as flowergirl and ringbearer at the big white wedding they eventually have.
The average length of an American marriage "til death do us part" is seven years. Roughly half of first marriages end in divorce. Many – perhaps most -- divorces and remarriages are the result of adultery committed by one or both marrieds. Some couples are in second, third, fourth, or later marriages -- all “til death do us part.’ [Entertainment Weekly routinely follows wedding announcements with "It's his third and her second marriage. He has two children from previous marriages."]
Nearly half of children live with only one parent, and many receive little or no child support from their noncustodial parent. Others live in "joint custody" arrangements that put them in each parent's home at different times. Large numbers of families are “blended,” with children of various combination of parents. Stepchildren and half-siblings abound.
Fornication galore before marriage, adultery during, breaking of solemn vows, disintegrating and compound-complex families, abandonment of children, etc etc. Hardly anyone has failed to commit one or more of these offenses against “traditional sexual and marriage morality.” Why on earth so many straits who lack any “family values” think they have a right to sit in judgment on the "gay lifestyle" totally eludes me.
On another note, this marks my 100th Kibble post! Congratulations to me and a pat on my baldpate.
Now this is one of my pettest peeves. Given the general social disintegration in which we all live and participate, for anyone to single out gay people as particularly objectionable annoys me to the max. So I responded with the following comments. Mind you, I’m not really judging heteros as any better or worse than homos, just trying to point out the ludicrous hypocrisy of the straights who sit in judgment of gays:
As for the straight guys who disappove of the gay lifestyle, let me remind you what the straight lifestyle is nowadays. Most men and women have had sexual relations with multiple partners before marriage, including one-nite stands. Many couples cohabit for years before marrying. Some even have one or more children who act as flowergirl and ringbearer at the big white wedding they eventually have.
The average length of an American marriage "til death do us part" is seven years. Roughly half of first marriages end in divorce. Many – perhaps most -- divorces and remarriages are the result of adultery committed by one or both marrieds. Some couples are in second, third, fourth, or later marriages -- all “til death do us part.’ [Entertainment Weekly routinely follows wedding announcements with "It's his third and her second marriage. He has two children from previous marriages."]
Nearly half of children live with only one parent, and many receive little or no child support from their noncustodial parent. Others live in "joint custody" arrangements that put them in each parent's home at different times. Large numbers of families are “blended,” with children of various combination of parents. Stepchildren and half-siblings abound.
Fornication galore before marriage, adultery during, breaking of solemn vows, disintegrating and compound-complex families, abandonment of children, etc etc. Hardly anyone has failed to commit one or more of these offenses against “traditional sexual and marriage morality.” Why on earth so many straits who lack any “family values” think they have a right to sit in judgment on the "gay lifestyle" totally eludes me.
On another note, this marks my 100th Kibble post! Congratulations to me and a pat on my baldpate.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Awarding the Chutzpah Prize
'Chutzpah' is defined as the quality displayed by the young man who murdered both his parents, than threw himself upon the mercy of the court because he was an orphan. From time to time, I may acknowledge someone whose behavior deserves a Chutzpah Prize.
Former NBA player Tim Hardaway, interviewed on his reaction to the coming-out of former NBA star John Amaechi, remarked: "You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people,'' he said in the interview. "I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States.''
Hardaway's comments were rebuked by NBA Commissioner David Stern, who banned him from the All-Star Game festivities. Even the anti-gay Concerned Women of America accused Hardaway of going too far in expressing hatred.
Overwhelmed by this disapproval and the crush of press attention, Hardaway complained that he wanted people to "respect my feelings."For demanding respect for himself after displaying total disrespect for another, I award Mr Hardaway a well-deserved crap-encrusted Chutzpah Prize.
Former NBA player Tim Hardaway, interviewed on his reaction to the coming-out of former NBA star John Amaechi, remarked: "You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people,'' he said in the interview. "I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States.''
Hardaway's comments were rebuked by NBA Commissioner David Stern, who banned him from the All-Star Game festivities. Even the anti-gay Concerned Women of America accused Hardaway of going too far in expressing hatred.
Overwhelmed by this disapproval and the crush of press attention, Hardaway complained that he wanted people to "respect my feelings."For demanding respect for himself after displaying total disrespect for another, I award Mr Hardaway a well-deserved crap-encrusted Chutzpah Prize.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Eliminating the Frankenstein Veto
When Wisconsin’s Legislature and citizens in 1930 amended our state’s Constitution to widen the Governor’s veto power, they set in motion a series of events they undoubtedly never foresaw. Until then, the Governor could either sign or veto a bill. The amendment permitted a Governor another option in the case of appropriations bills – he could veto them “in whole or in part.” (Art V, sec 10) This seemingly innocent change has managed to upset the balance of powers inherent in Wisconsin’s system of three branches of government.
Wisconsin governors used this ‘partial veto’ power – the strongest of any state governor -- appropriately until Governor Patrick Lucey. Since him, we have had governors cross out numbers and write in new ones, cross out letters in words to form new ones, and cross out words in a series of sentences to create new law out of whole cloth. Our Supreme Court has refused to curb these abuses, asserting that the Legislature’s power to override is the appropriate remedy. Unfortunately, the Governor’s party in the Legislature refuses to override, with the result that these abuses go unchecked.
One successful attempt has already been made to amend our Constitution to eliminate the so-called ‘Vanna White veto.’ In 1990, the provision was added that “the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill.”
The most audacious veto since then was perpetrated by Governor Doyle. He vetoed whole sections of the 2005 budget bill, retaining only a number here and a word there, to create new language that diverted money from transportation and health care to increase school aids by over $400 million more than the Legislature had appropriated!
The Legislature approved an amendment last year to eliminate this ‘Frankenstein veto’ by disallowing the creation of a new sentence from a series of others. The Assembly approved it again this year for placement on the April 3 ballot. Unfortunately, Senators Fred Risser and Judy Robson have refused to advance the amendment in the upper chamber.
I am of two minds about this amendment. The Frankenstein veto is a gross abuse that should be eliminated, but the amendment doesn’t go far enough. A Governor can still veto a ‘not’ to change a prohibition into a requirement! He can still veto parts of a limited tax exemption to broaden it and increase its fiscal effect, as Tommy Thompson did several times. I am sorry to say that, when I worked in the State Budget Office, I was the architect of some of these outrageous vetos. I hope now to atone by supporting a more comprehensive approach to resolving this problem.
What we really need is an amendment that allows the Governor to veto only whole sections of an appropriations bill or, at the very least, only whole sentences. Anything more allows the Governor to continue the practice of being, in effect, a third house of the Legislature capable of thumbing his nose at the other two and rewriting legislation to suit himself.
Wisconsin governors used this ‘partial veto’ power – the strongest of any state governor -- appropriately until Governor Patrick Lucey. Since him, we have had governors cross out numbers and write in new ones, cross out letters in words to form new ones, and cross out words in a series of sentences to create new law out of whole cloth. Our Supreme Court has refused to curb these abuses, asserting that the Legislature’s power to override is the appropriate remedy. Unfortunately, the Governor’s party in the Legislature refuses to override, with the result that these abuses go unchecked.
One successful attempt has already been made to amend our Constitution to eliminate the so-called ‘Vanna White veto.’ In 1990, the provision was added that “the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill.”
The most audacious veto since then was perpetrated by Governor Doyle. He vetoed whole sections of the 2005 budget bill, retaining only a number here and a word there, to create new language that diverted money from transportation and health care to increase school aids by over $400 million more than the Legislature had appropriated!
The Legislature approved an amendment last year to eliminate this ‘Frankenstein veto’ by disallowing the creation of a new sentence from a series of others. The Assembly approved it again this year for placement on the April 3 ballot. Unfortunately, Senators Fred Risser and Judy Robson have refused to advance the amendment in the upper chamber.
I am of two minds about this amendment. The Frankenstein veto is a gross abuse that should be eliminated, but the amendment doesn’t go far enough. A Governor can still veto a ‘not’ to change a prohibition into a requirement! He can still veto parts of a limited tax exemption to broaden it and increase its fiscal effect, as Tommy Thompson did several times. I am sorry to say that, when I worked in the State Budget Office, I was the architect of some of these outrageous vetos. I hope now to atone by supporting a more comprehensive approach to resolving this problem.
What we really need is an amendment that allows the Governor to veto only whole sections of an appropriations bill or, at the very least, only whole sentences. Anything more allows the Governor to continue the practice of being, in effect, a third house of the Legislature capable of thumbing his nose at the other two and rewriting legislation to suit himself.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Happy Valentine's Day!
The feather heart above greets visitors to my place in the front door window. Inside the foyer is this decorated Norfolk Pine. Friends and neighbors know beyond doubt that they've been Valentine'd!
And what would Valentine's Day be without a bit of man-flesh? Below we have Eric Mabius of TV's "Ugly Betty." I have no idea how I've failed to offer him up as 'beefcake' yet this TV season, so I hope to atone for my sin against Cupid and St Valentine by posting this pic now [click to enlarge].
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The Progressive Plan to Exit Iraq
While the US Senate allows the Republican minority to use the cloture rule to prevent a vote On a nonbinding Iraq War resolution, and the House dithers over what exactly to say to our warmongering President, one group of anti-war Congress-members has stayed faithful to their principles.
Many of them voted against the Iraq War resolution in 2002 and have since opposed permanent US military bases in Iraq. They have been proposing that the US exit our unwinnable war for several years. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, which I am pleased to say includes Wisconsin’s own Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore, has now put a cap on their continued opposition to the war with a detailed policy statement:
"Over the last four years, the insurgency in Iraq has strengthened and sectarian violence has increased. Furthermore, the current situation on the ground in Iraq is grave and rapidly deteriorating. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has determined accordingly that a predominantly military approach is no longer a viable solution to stabilizing Iraq.
"We are committed to bringing all of the U.S. troops and military contractors in Iraq home in a six-month time frame as part of a fully funded redeployment plan.
"More specifically, we oppose sending additional U.S. troops and military contractors to Iraq and favor binding votes to block President Bush's escalation of U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
"We believe all appropriations for U.S. military involvement in Iraq must be for the protection of our troops until and during their withdrawal within six months of the date of enactment of this limitation and accelerating the training and equipping of additional Iraqi security forces during that six-month time frame. The president has left the Congress few alternatives other than to use the power of purse spelled out in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution to curtail U.S. military operations in Iraq.
"Finally, we are opposed to establishing any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, support rescinding the president's Iraq war authority, and support greater diplomatic and political engagement in the region, while ensuring that the Iraqi people have control over their own petroleum resources."
The Caucus members are unquestionably right that a “military approach is no longer a viable solution to stabilizing Iraq.” Over 78% of Iraqis believe that our forces cause more violence than they prevent. Nearly 75% of Baghdad residents feel they would be safer if the US soldiers who ‘protect’ them weren’t there. The ongoing struggle for power between Sunnis and Shias is only complicated by the insurgency against American troops. Clearly, US withdrawal from Iraq is more likely to decrease than to promote violence.
So kudos to these representatives in Washington who have heeded the message sent by the American people in the recent election. They at least have the guts to stand up and say what needs to be said on our behalf. If only the rest of our Congress were as willing to do the task required of them in these difficult times.
Recent Land of Free posts: Free Kitties, Lincoln Quotes, First Amendment
Many of them voted against the Iraq War resolution in 2002 and have since opposed permanent US military bases in Iraq. They have been proposing that the US exit our unwinnable war for several years. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, which I am pleased to say includes Wisconsin’s own Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore, has now put a cap on their continued opposition to the war with a detailed policy statement:
"Over the last four years, the insurgency in Iraq has strengthened and sectarian violence has increased. Furthermore, the current situation on the ground in Iraq is grave and rapidly deteriorating. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has determined accordingly that a predominantly military approach is no longer a viable solution to stabilizing Iraq.
"We are committed to bringing all of the U.S. troops and military contractors in Iraq home in a six-month time frame as part of a fully funded redeployment plan.
"More specifically, we oppose sending additional U.S. troops and military contractors to Iraq and favor binding votes to block President Bush's escalation of U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
"We believe all appropriations for U.S. military involvement in Iraq must be for the protection of our troops until and during their withdrawal within six months of the date of enactment of this limitation and accelerating the training and equipping of additional Iraqi security forces during that six-month time frame. The president has left the Congress few alternatives other than to use the power of purse spelled out in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution to curtail U.S. military operations in Iraq.
"Finally, we are opposed to establishing any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, support rescinding the president's Iraq war authority, and support greater diplomatic and political engagement in the region, while ensuring that the Iraqi people have control over their own petroleum resources."
The Caucus members are unquestionably right that a “military approach is no longer a viable solution to stabilizing Iraq.” Over 78% of Iraqis believe that our forces cause more violence than they prevent. Nearly 75% of Baghdad residents feel they would be safer if the US soldiers who ‘protect’ them weren’t there. The ongoing struggle for power between Sunnis and Shias is only complicated by the insurgency against American troops. Clearly, US withdrawal from Iraq is more likely to decrease than to promote violence.
So kudos to these representatives in Washington who have heeded the message sent by the American people in the recent election. They at least have the guts to stand up and say what needs to be said on our behalf. If only the rest of our Congress were as willing to do the task required of them in these difficult times.
Recent Land of Free posts: Free Kitties, Lincoln Quotes, First Amendment
Monday, February 12, 2007
So What If It's Natural?
A new pet store has opened in Madison that sells only ‘natural pet products,’ including ‘natural’ pet foods. Personally, I’ve never been able to jump on the ‘natural anything’ bandwagon. Something natural can hurt you plenty: think of deadly nightshade, Salmonella, or nasty strains of E. coli. Manufactured drugs can have bad side-effects, but so can many herbs. On the other hand, artificial additives can prolong the shelf-life of many a product that would have to be thrown away if spoiled or would make you sick if eaten. Natural vs artificial is a false dichotomy that means little or nothing.
One Monona dog owner was quoted as saying: “Just like people should eat natural and direct from the garden, animals should too. Commercially prepared food has a lot taken out of it, and I believe that's true for animals as well."
I checked my canned cat food and kibble and found all genuine animal and plant parts plus a lot of added vitamins and some preservatives. I’m not sure what, if anything, “was taken out.” As for eating direct from the garden, I have to admit I’ve always wondered about the flavors of cat food: tuna, chicken, whitefish, shrimp, salmon, beef, turkey, veal pate even – almost any kind of meat, fish, or fowl consumed by humans but not available to companion animals in the wild.
Maybe our new ‘natural pet food’ store will offer instead canned mice, chipmunks, squirrels, sparrows, chickadees, and bunnies. I wonder how many pet-owners would buy ‘natural’ foods made of the same critters that cats kill and eat in the yard. Not very many is my guess.
And, of course, I won’t even mention the indelicate subject of the natural flavors such as vomit and feces that would have to be included in dog food to be truly authentic and ‘natural.’
One Monona dog owner was quoted as saying: “Just like people should eat natural and direct from the garden, animals should too. Commercially prepared food has a lot taken out of it, and I believe that's true for animals as well."
I checked my canned cat food and kibble and found all genuine animal and plant parts plus a lot of added vitamins and some preservatives. I’m not sure what, if anything, “was taken out.” As for eating direct from the garden, I have to admit I’ve always wondered about the flavors of cat food: tuna, chicken, whitefish, shrimp, salmon, beef, turkey, veal pate even – almost any kind of meat, fish, or fowl consumed by humans but not available to companion animals in the wild.
Maybe our new ‘natural pet food’ store will offer instead canned mice, chipmunks, squirrels, sparrows, chickadees, and bunnies. I wonder how many pet-owners would buy ‘natural’ foods made of the same critters that cats kill and eat in the yard. Not very many is my guess.
And, of course, I won’t even mention the indelicate subject of the natural flavors such as vomit and feces that would have to be included in dog food to be truly authentic and ‘natural.’
Today's Photo -- My Philosophy of Life
This dog agrees with my general philosophy that life is like a jar of peanut butter. No matter how empty it may seem, there's always enough PB left for one more slice of bread or at least a cracker -- or swipe of the tongue.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
I Blog, Therefore I Am
I blog, therefore I am spending way too much time at my computer. Of course, the only unreasonable and insane response to such a situation is to add another blog to my daily tasks.
So today I announce my new blog Land of the Free. My long-time faithful readers [and I know who you are and love you for it] will know that my first blog, On the Contrary, sported an ornery view in contrast to the usual center-left party-line on the issues of the day. Technical problems that I couldn't resolve put an end to OTC. So I decided to create Kibble to give me the opportunity to post on a wider range of topics of personal interest but with even more bite than OTC. I've enjoyed that very much and intend to keep that the focus of Kibble. Before the November election, I started to add some political topics and will continue some political discussions on Kibble.
As I have approached many political topics both here and in forums of local newspapers and in talks with friends, I have come to the realization that one major approach dominates much of my analysis of public policy. Time and again I find myself opposed to proposed legislation because it conflicts with the basic principles of Jeffersonian libertarianism. [See quote at top of sidebar.] I want to focus my attention and evaluate issues in a way that maximizes individual liberty and minimizes unfortunate and unnecessary interference by the commonality in the exercise of such liberty.
If you wish, Land of the Free offers the opportunity to subscribe via e-mail just as Kibble does. If you already subscribe to Kibble, you won't need to subscribe to L0F. Every few days, I will list links to my latest L0F posts in Kibble and those will appear in the Kibble emails. If an L0F topic interests you, you can just click on the link.
I hope you will take a look at Land of the Free. Unlike Kibble, L0F will allow reader comments on posts, and I hope to promote more discussion that way. The use of topic tags will also make it easier for readers to locate posts on political topics of interest to them.
Latest L0F Posts: No Religious Test, Spanking Ban, Stupid Laws
So today I announce my new blog Land of the Free. My long-time faithful readers [and I know who you are and love you for it] will know that my first blog, On the Contrary, sported an ornery view in contrast to the usual center-left party-line on the issues of the day. Technical problems that I couldn't resolve put an end to OTC. So I decided to create Kibble to give me the opportunity to post on a wider range of topics of personal interest but with even more bite than OTC. I've enjoyed that very much and intend to keep that the focus of Kibble. Before the November election, I started to add some political topics and will continue some political discussions on Kibble.
As I have approached many political topics both here and in forums of local newspapers and in talks with friends, I have come to the realization that one major approach dominates much of my analysis of public policy. Time and again I find myself opposed to proposed legislation because it conflicts with the basic principles of Jeffersonian libertarianism. [See quote at top of sidebar.] I want to focus my attention and evaluate issues in a way that maximizes individual liberty and minimizes unfortunate and unnecessary interference by the commonality in the exercise of such liberty.
If you wish, Land of the Free offers the opportunity to subscribe via e-mail just as Kibble does. If you already subscribe to Kibble, you won't need to subscribe to L0F. Every few days, I will list links to my latest L0F posts in Kibble and those will appear in the Kibble emails. If an L0F topic interests you, you can just click on the link.
I hope you will take a look at Land of the Free. Unlike Kibble, L0F will allow reader comments on posts, and I hope to promote more discussion that way. The use of topic tags will also make it easier for readers to locate posts on political topics of interest to them.
Latest L0F Posts: No Religious Test, Spanking Ban, Stupid Laws
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
