Saturday, July 19, 2003


I can now be found at http://blatherreview.mu.nu

Remember, there is no "www" in that URL!!

I now have Comments that can actually be read (and that post from top to bottom, as they really should...).

Friday, July 18, 2003

Welfare as Matchmaker: sound investment or Big Brother bloats up?

The Bush Administration has some good intentions, and is pushing an initiative to promote marriage among Welfare recipients as part of an overhaul of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. See a news item here.

The bill would earmark $300 million to do...er...what exactly?

"The Administration is vague about what the money would go for, but says it would help couples that are already interested in marriage, perhaps through financial incentives or by offering counciling."

So, we're going to pay people, with public funds, to get married? Or, perhaps, just council them into it? Hmmm. The obvious question is; "Why would the Federal Government have any business even CARING about who gets married and who doesn't?" The obvious answer is: "Because it spends our money."

This is yet another illustration of how the self-appointed "social engineers" in Government rationalize their ever-more pervasive presence in our lives; Since the Government is paying for it, the Government must regulate anything that effects the bottom line. And that means regulating our Choices.

Since the Government offers to provide a healthcare program, It has the authority -- nay, moral duty -- to levy fines, in the form of taxes, on our personal choices about what we eat, drink, smoke, etc.
Since the Government offers so generously to send the States' they're own money back for the funding of roads and bridges, It has the Power -- nay, moral duty -- to extort the States into writing speed limit laws and "National Drinking Age" laws.

In this case, the Marriage Initiative in the revamped Welfare Reform Act, it's a little more subtle (participation would be, presumably, voluntary for couples already interested in marriage), but the principle at it's core is the same thing: the Fed's assumed Authority to regulate whatever effects It's bottom line.

While touting the initiative's well-intentioned goals, Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa), said, "The fact of the matter is, marriage is very important tool for economic survival."

Of course. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all parents were also spouses! The kids have a family that is whole again! Yes, yes, yes, that's all well and good. But do the keepers of the Public Purse really believe that marrying for money...a more secure financial situation... is something that single mothers and fathers have never thought about before? "Wow, I wont be so broke if I got married? That's amazing insight Mr Government Counsellor! And thanks for the check!"

The extortion, as usual, is directed at the States:

"The Government would spend $300 million per year on programs promoting marriage. That includes $200 million in federal dollars, and $100 million States would have to spend in matching funds."

(((Actually, since I haven't seen the actual text of the bill that passed in the House, I'm having trouble figuring out how the extortion will be enforced.
The "national speed limit" and "national drinking age" are enforced by threatening any State that refuses to write the neccessary laws with requiring that their Highway funds by directed at promotional campaigns against drinking and driving and speeding and thinking. If a State refused to budget for the Marriage Initiative matching funds, would they then have to re-direct their Welfare funds to...er...a promotional campaign tauting the benefits of marriage? I'll have to look into that...)))

There's a very simple Law of Good Intentions; good intentions aren't enough. Throwing our good money into this proposed program -- whose promise of any meaningful success is, it seems to me, anemic -- is a classic example of why our personal and State sovereignty is being co-opted and centralized at the "top"; the Constitution is not respected when it's in the way of "progress".

In Politics; poll results are the only results that matter.

Wednesday, July 16, 2003



Tuesday, July 15, 2003

<---WOO HOO!!! I did it...thanks to Susie!!!! Now all I gotta do is figure out how get "comments" and I'll be in blogosphere central....
Hey, check this out: Liberal Assclown

FrankJ, I know you specified that we should put the link on the main page and not in a post. I gave up my cool template for one that had a "Links" list, but I can't figure out how to add a link; my blogger "help" button doesn't work!!! Grrrrr!!!! and I hate this template...

Perhaps having a working blogroll is a feature I'd have to pay for....just like adding "comments" and stuff. If I knew I'd have any traffic other than my close friends and family I'd not only start blogging again, I'd pay for the comments and links features. So, come on...let me slide on this one!! ( After all, the post will still be here in a weeks time..)

Sunday, April 20, 2003

The Slippery Slope Of Being Human

Mavra Stark, NOW's Morris County, New Jersey chapter President, has expressed some concerns over charging Scott Peterson with the murder of his and his dead wife Laci's eight-month old fetus. A Bergen Daily Record article about this can be read by clicking HERE.

As Ms. Stark states her concern; "If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder." "There's something about this that bothers me a little bit," Stark said. "Was it born or was it un-born? If it was un-born
then I can't see charging (Peterson) with a double-murder."

The issue is abortion rights, and how "elevating" an un-born fetus to a status whereby it's intentional demise (by a third party--mother exempted presumably) could bring a murder charge upon the person(s) responsible for it's death. If the killing of an eight month old fetus is be considered murder, is that only the first step in the slippery slope toward calling all abortion murder?

The legal and philosophical questions can give you a migraine. Roe vs Wade guarantees an abortion on demand to any woman during the first trimester of her pregnancy. After that a State can write it's own laws regarding the status of the fetus. One State can outlaw any and all abortions after the first 90 days, another can legally protect any and all abortions right up until the actual birth of the child. Since the Federal government doesn't recognize a person as a citizen or non-citizen until they're born, the States are free to put whatever restrictions on abortion they see fit.

According to the linked article, "Under California law, murder charges can result if the fetus is older than seven weeks." This is either a misprint -- as seven weeks falls well within the first trimester wherein Roe vs Wade has operatively ruled that a fetus is not a person entitled to any legal protection whatsoever -- and it should read "seven months", or, the California laws allow the fetus to be protected if the mother is not the one responsible for the loss.

Assuming that the language in the article is accurate and the latter interpretation is correct, the legal and philosophical gymnastics inherent is fashioning coherent abortion law is at the heart of the Peterson double-murder debate. When is a fetus a person, and who is to decide that? One six month old fetus is not a person because it's mother decides it is not a person. Another six month old fetus is a person, because it's mother decides that it is.

That's all well and good for many Americans, it seems like an acceptable compromise between our conflicted thoughts and feelings about the issue. But when the subjective individual decisions on the status of a human is codified into law there is a curious problem: equal protection doesn't extend to the un-born. If the legal status of the fetus is settled by the whim of the mother, then it's not the fetus' rights that are being protected; it is the mother's. But, then, if the fetus has no such inalienable rights, it can have no such status that the mother might claim it to have. A would-be "murderer" is at the mercy of the Rule Of Fiat, not the Rule Of Law. But it's the Law that allows this to be! Oy, my brain hurts!

I believe that NOW, at least as evidenced by Marva Stark, is in favor of legal abortions right up until birth since she also said:

"He (the 8 month old male fetus) was wanted and expected, and she (Laci Peterson) had a name for him (Connor), but if he wasn't born, he wasn't born. It sets a kind of precedent."

She is clearly in favor using only the Federal government's criteria for deciding upon the status of the un-born: If it ain't born it ain't a person, and has no legal status and no right of protection under the law. She (and presumably NOW) opposes any restriction on abortion on demand through the entire nine month term. State laws that put restrictions on abortion after the first trimester that are actually enforced represent a "kind of precedent" that she fears will lead to the spread of more restrictions, resulting in the those rights only guaranteed by Roe vs Wade....and then that will fall as well.

Not for nothin', but I think that opposing the double-murder charge for Scott Peterson is evidence that Stark is a bit paranoid. It's kind of like a pro-2nd Amendment guy saying "If they take away our anti-aircraft missle launchers then our shotguns are next!" One shouldn't be so worried about the slippery slope of vanishing rights that one supports infanticide to defend one's privacy.

Well, I think Ms. Stark is aware of that as she did qualify her understandable concerns with the caveat, "it's just something I've been ruminating on." I've been ruminating on it, too...and now I need some Advil.

Saturday, April 12, 2003


I just want to say, for the record, in writing, on this date, that I know who "Deep Throat" was.

Yep, figured it out years ago. It was easy, too. All I did was read Woodward and Bernstein's All The President's Men, take note of what information D.T. provided, and see who among the cast of characters could have had that knowledge.

Strangely, Bob Haldeman said he did the same thing, and came up with a man who I've never heard of--and can't remember now. But, how could he have missed it? IT'S SO OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!!

So, here's the answer: Deep Throat was Fred LaRue.

Who? Fred LaRue! He was an assistant/deputy/under-Attorney General under John Mitchell. It's been years since I first figured this out (I believe it was 1992), so I don't recall exactly what the details of the "smoking gun" were; but it had to do with a meeting in Key Biscane (sp?). Deep Throat provided details of a meeting attended by 3 or 4 people; Nixon, Mitchell and LaRue (there may have been Al Haig, or someone).

So, there you have it. And when LaRue dies and Woodward and Bernstein announce that he was Deep Throat, you can say; "Duh! Knew that already, guys! Blathering Bob told me!"

Tuesday, April 01, 2003


So, while the Fedayeen Saddam is shooting villagers who refuse to take up arms against the coalition, and as examples to others, and as husbands are held hostage while their wives and children are being driven in a van through military checkpoints, and all other manner of torture and terror are being inflicted on Iraqi soldiers by their own fellow soldiers; our Navy Seals and Army Rangers are risking their lives to save one of their own.

Note on intelligence: Not only did they know what building she was in (a hospital?), they knew what room she in! If you're Saddam Hussein (and you are alive), and watching this, you gotta pretty damn worried about what our guys know about your whereabouts!

For a peek into what Saddam is really thinking these days, check out his weblog by clicking HERE.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?