Saturday, November 15, 2008

Ringing Alarm Bells

This article from the AP seems reasonable enough but it is ringing my alarm bells.
Lines like:
"To that end, the leaders called for such mundane things as "supervisory colleges" where financial regulators can compare market notes across countries, better cooperation between nations on regulations, the eventual standardization of accounting rules governing how companies can value potentially tricky assets, and new attention to credit-rating agencies."

"None of the items was splashy, and most would be understandable to few outside of financial experts, but officials argued they have far-reaching potential."

But this gives me hope:
"The inclusion of the developing nations was demanded by Bush, in part in hopes they would act as a brake on European desires for tough new regulations of financial firms or products. But the decision also was hailed as necessary to the effectiveness of such a meeting, because the financial crisis that began in the U.S. had spread to the poorer nations."

As much as President Bush has been vilified by both the right and the left, he does have a few conservative principles left.

But we have to be careful, "mundane" things like "supervisory colleges" can slip under the radar and then next thing you know, our financial and business regulations are being written by a supranational organization that does not have our best interests at heart.

Paranoid? Yes, but just because they're not all out to get you, still leaves the door open for the few who really are out to get you.

A History of Failure

A history of failure does not create a future of success.

As I have stated several times on this young blog, Liberal ideas rooted in the socialist/communist ideology will fail because they are paper-based, not reality based.

Yet we keep hearing the same old tired ideas brought up again and again as "new" solutions. Some "problems" will never go away.

There are always people who want the freedom to live their lives exactly the way they want to live their lives. Not the way a bureaucrat hundreds of miles away wants them to live their lives.

And no government based on socialism's central-command-and-control ideology has ever solved local problems better than the locals do.

Every socialist solution to a problem fails. But certain politicians still try to push these old ideas on the American people.

Universal Health care? Failed. And by fail, I mean does not function as promised. Yes, everyone in Great Britian has "health care" but it is crap and once you hit a certain age, you don't get it anymore (for all intents and purposes). The American system, as problematic as it can be, is better.

Nationalized Industries? Just saying those two words together is to answer the question. Does Not Work.

Unions? A good idea once but now an example of what not to do. Yes, they once protected workers but now their leaders are usually symbols of corruption and exploit their union members to gain political power and cronyism.

That's three pretty big examples. I'm sure others will come up in the next four years.

(Here's another, in certain French courts the Prosecuter is also the Judge.)

(Oh, and another - once you hit 75 in Great Britian, if you have a state pension it is converted into an annuity whether you want it to or not.)

If Conservatives do not speak up and point out these Liberal failures for what they are, history will repeat itself yet again.

And who wants to live through that?


Now cities are asking for federal money.

No. No more handouts for corporations, for cities, for banks.

Steven Malanga in City Journal has a terrific article about why giving Cities federal monies is a bad idea. It has failed in the past, will fail now, and will always fail in the future.

(By the way, City Journal is an amazing publication. It should be required reading for everyone - Liberals and Conservatives. Get yourself a subscription and see for yourself.)

Here's one of Mr. Malanga's outstanding points:

"Nothing could be more misguided than to renew this “tin-cup urbanism,” as some have called it. Starting in the late 1960s, mayors in struggling cities extended their palms for hundreds of billions of federal dollars that accomplished little good and often worsened the problems that they sought to fix. Beginning in the early nineties, however, a small group of reform-minded mayors—with New York’s Rudy Giuliani and Milwaukee’s John Norquist in the vanguard—jettisoned tin-cup urbanism and began developing their own bottom-up solutions to city problems. Their innovations made cities safer, put welfare recipients to work, and offered kids in failing school systems new choices, bringing about an incomplete, but very real, urban revival."

I deeply believe that we can replicate that "bottom-up solutions" idea not just for all struggling cities but also for corporations and industries.

The lesson CEOs, Business Leaders and Urban Politicians would learn would be invaluable - GROW UP. Bailout one company and they all want to be bailed out. It's like giving one child an ice cream and expecting their brothers and sisters to be quiet.

Good luck with that.

But this is one Genie that can be pushed back into the bottle. All we have to do is spank our politicians has hard as possible, repeatedly, until they get the message.


Creative solutions that do not involve taxpayers throwing money into a deep black hole, those are okay.

But no more handouts. A history of failure does not create a future of success.

Almost Respected The French

So I found this article in The Australian about how French President Nicolas Sarkozy successfully negotiated a cease-fire between Russia and Georgia and was beginning to almost respect the French.

Afterall, according to the article, Russian President Putin was threatening to hang Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili "by the balls". A pretty serious (and kinda gross) threat. Such language wasn't going to bode well for Georgia.

So as I read on, I was getting more and more and unusually impressed with the French for what they did to quell a pretty nasty international event.

Until I read the last bit, President Sarkozy was describing the incidents and the negotiations "after receiving an annual Political Courage Prize from a French review."

Ahhh, what a surprise. The French have a "Political Courage Prize" and they gave it to a French politician. (snigger)

While President Sarkozy may well deserve a prize, I no longer have to worry about respecting the French.


According to this article from AP, Obama has gotten more threats than any other President-elect.

I in no way support Obama and I believe that if investigated, they will find his campaign engaged in online donation fraud. That said, he will become our President and I honor the office if not the man.

The FBI is taking these threats very seriously and investigating them. But I wonder, did they do the same for President Bush?

Liberals screamed some pretty hideous threats at President Bush over the past 8 years, did the FBI investigate any of these?

Did any "Investigative Reporters" step up and investigate these threats?

What FBI investigation was launched in response to those hateful pictures of McCain by that female photographer or all those pictures of Palin with a gun to her head?

Did they get investigated?

How come the death threats and hateful letters conservatives and libertarians receive don't get investigated?

My husband and several of his co-workers receive some pretty nasty stuff regularly and they generally choose to ignore them.

I don't agree with this policy. I firmly believe in Name and Shame. Conservatives can't talk to Liberals any more without being subjected to spittle-covered ad homenin attacks. The slightest disagreement with a Liberal provokes vicious screams against you. It is tedious.

Like a toddler who pitches a fit because he isn't getting his way, Liberals need to be held responsible for their actions. Pitch a fit, get your name in the police report or posted online. Conservatives should use their camera phones to record and post every last incident until Liberals realize what idiots they look like when they act this way.

As for Obama, relax. No matter what happens, you won't be as badly treated as Bush was - especially if the media have any say in it.

If They Speak French, Don't Trust 'em.

As a general rule, if you must use a French phrase to express your meaning, you aren't thinking hard enough.

The Economist has a profoundly insulting article online discussing the "decline" of the Republican party. Describing it as a party that lost the "battle of the brains".

Joe Biden? (snigger) Really, Economist? You're going to argue the battle of the brains with Joe Biden on your side?

Not a smart move.

But you know a writer is an intellectual sinkhole when he quotes French socialist Julian Benda as he did here; "Conservative intellectuals are also engaged in their own version of what Julian Benda dubbed la trahison des clercs, the treason of the learned."

What is the point of referencing a French socialist when discussing American conservatism. Are you really expecting this to add gravitas to your ability to describe the GOP?

Not very bright.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Powerful Broads

Men such as Tom Delay are referring to Nancy Pelosi as "the most powerful speaker in a generation".

That might well be true of the Senate or the Congress but given the extraordinarily low approval rating of Congress these days, is that so much to be proud of?

Unlike Gov. Palin, Pelosi has money - that damn pearl necklace of hers could pay off our mortgage. But is that power?

Well, yes. Thanks to Obama's win, Pelosi and Reid will have a lot of power - at this moment in time. But it isn't going to last.

History is the Liberal's enemy because they tend to repeat it. All of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid ideas for America are retreads of failed liberal/socialist policies.

Liberals rarely have any new ideas. Their socialist foundation-ideology actually demands a bit of failure so that they can claim their idea would work if they just had a bit more time, another chance. The idea fails again but the same pleading continues. No matter how repeatedly their ideas are proved wrong, Liberals will beg for another chance because this time its different. Yeah, right.

This is where Conservatism shines. Our ideas are grounded in reality and experience. Conservatism is not what might work but what did work. If its not broke, don't fix it. And build upon your success.

Liberalism is let's smash everything and then fix what's left. And the mess liberalism leaves is worse than what was broken before.

My husband wrote a book, "The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You To Know About Because They Caused Them." I helped him (a tiny little bit with it).

The points he makes in his book can be extrapolated to pretty much every other liberal/socialist policy. Top of mind example, the "sexual revolution" hasn't exactly been the success Liberal women wanted - given that men seem to have treated the "sexual freedom" inherent in the "revolution" as a get-out-of-responsibility-free pass/all-you-can-get buffet.

I will post in detail about Liberal failures in ethics, science, and policy but for now, I have to say that I personally believe Harriet Tubman had far more "influence" in American politics than Nancy Pelosi ever will.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Looking For Leaders In All The Wrong Places

Kathleen Parker is upset that she got yelled at for her positions on the election - particularly her comdenation of Gov. Palin.

She seems disappointingly unable to understand Sarah Palin's appeal to less rarified conservatives. And in the artcle link to above is taking a slightly smug, I-told-you-so attitude.

I am always surprised by intellectual shallowness on the Right as it is so typically a Left failing.

What Parker fails to understand is that she doesn't get free speech coverage exactly. She and all pundits/think tankers/journalists are in a position of Intellectual Leadership. We all have the right to our own opinion but very, very few of us get the sort of megaphone access to an audience that such Intellectual Leaders do.

Such people are in positions of authority and do not always have the luxury of being able to say exactly what they want whenever they want.

The brain-mouth filter has to be in place. Having seen the grass-roots of support for Palin, Parker could have continued the express her doubts about Palin but in a way that the enthusiastic crowds could accept.

But Parker and others decided that they were correct and we were wrong and hammered away at Palin in the best Leftwing tradition.

Then they act wounded when they get a few angry emails.

Get over it. You are in the public eye and help shape conservative opinion. It is a responsibility and a priviledge to be an Intellectual Leader.

And as an Intellectual Leader - like Political Leaders or Business Leaders - you can say what you want but not necessarily how you want to say it. Modulation is part of leadership.

Kathleen Parker is not a leader we need to follow. Gov. Palin, however, will be someone to watch.

Being is different than Wanting

This from the excellent Jim Geraghty at NRO Campaign Spot.

"All Statements From Barack Obama Expire... Or Just Disappear Entirely"

Apparently Obama is realizing the difference between wanting to be President and having to actually BE President. Since being briefed, many statements on his transition website have been pulled.

He hasn't kept a campaign promise yet (didn't he say he wasn't even going run in his first Senate term?).

A glimpse of our dismal future?

Good Food First

Yes, I realize I'm taking the microcosm of a single second grade class from one elementary school in Northern Virginia and blowing it up but tough. I've seen enough school lunches packed by well-meaning parents to know this is a real issue.

Your children are not eating well and its your fault.

Once every week, I eat lunch with my daughter in her school cafeteria. We get "Hot Lunch" and she just loves having mommy join her (enjoy it while it lasts, right?).

Every single time I go, I see boys and girls making terrible food choices, whether it is choosing the junkiest food possible from the cafeteria or eating the junkiest food first from their lunch box.

Just today I watched a young girl eat a ziploc bag of cheese puffs first then take about six nibbles from a meat and cheese on white bread sandwich.

That was it.

She drank a little from her juice box but was too busy poking her girlfriends to eat the fresh orange or finish her sandwich. What was not eaten was thrown in the trash so her parents will never know.

I've seen kids select PBJ sandwich, jello, frozen icee, and juice box for lunch. Sugar, sugar, and sugar. All paid by faux "credit cards" the school encourages children to use (!), cards that the kids seem to believe are "free". How's that for developing fiscal responsibility?

I know parents mean well but I have never seen a child eat a sandwich, fruit cup, yogurt cup, box of raisins, salty snack, and pouch of fruit juice in the 20 minutes allotted for lunch time. Never. It's just too much and given so much choice, the kids don't make good ones.

Not only are parents packing too much lunch. It's junk stuff too. Convenience food with little or no nutritional value. It takes no time at all to throw a whole wheat bread sandwich and an apple into a lunch bag. Fill a thermos with milk and you save $3 a week on milk alone. The kids don't need to eat much more than that, I promise you.

Don't believe me? Check with your school and see if they allow parents to come in and eat with their kids. Doing it just once is a real eye opener!

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Who Cares About The Metro-Con?

John Derbyshire is a man I respect but his latest on NRO implies that the "metro-con and his guns'n'Bible country cousin" can't live together under Conservatism's big tent.


That implies there is a difference but if the argument is framed correctly there is no reason why the urban conservative and the rural Conservative can't shake hands.

Conservatism isn't regionalism. Conservatism is small government, low taxes, and freedom. Who can argue with that except socialists, communists, and fascists?

Conservatism is the freedom to innovate whether it is a new planting technique or a new software program.

Let me give you an example.

My husband has a cousin who was an excellent Urologist for the NHS in the UK. She won an award which involved a lifetime yearly income to her for her work. She is that good.

But she no longer practices medicine because in the Nationalized Healthcare System of Britain she had to determine who had access to dialysis. She had to decide between the 18 year old and the 65 year old. And inevitably she had to defend her choice in court.

But why did she have to decide? Because under nationalized healthcare systems problems are not solved, they have more bureaucrats thrown at them. In the area of Britain this doctor lived in there was only one dialysis center serving tens of thousands.

I can think of three in my ten mile radius - two are independent private facilities. Without the option of private entrepreneurs filling a need, dialysis patients must wait for access to the machines.

Under nationalized healthcare, a dialysis patient who get bumped by someone younger or fitter well, that's just proper allocation of resources (aka rationing).

Under private healthcare, an independent entrepreneur can open a free-standing urology center and work with insurance companies to offer dialysis to just about anyone.

The avoidable life-and-death decisions my husband's cousin had to make thanks to government-run healthcare was so difficult she no longer practices urology. She teaches.

So Britain lost an award-winning physician and anyone over 65 who needs dialysis still faces a death sentence.

And that's why Conservatism must find the big tent. Because socialism is just that scary.


Yes, I just trashed environmentalism in one post and cited an all-inclusive for environmentalism in the next.

What gives?

Well, first of all - the authors of the "environmental" books are trashing the lies and failures of unexamined environmentalism and promoting positive, conservative solutions to environmental problems.

So I'm covered there.

As far as FDR Pebbles is concerned... A lot of their environmentalism involves water conservation which is important to me. I believe proper and responsible water conservation is far more important and relevant than recycling glass or plastic (compete waste of time, resources and energy) or using clothe diapers (causes more harm than good).

So I hope that explains it.

Vacation Nannies

Three years ago, we had the opportunity to go on our first adult(family) vacation.

What do I mean?

Well, for all our my husband and my adult lives we vacationed by visiting family members. Stayed with parents, visited relatives. You know the drill.

And while it was nice to take the kids to England to meet the relatives, going in summer when the sun and our son rose at 4am was NOT a vacation.

So, when I stumbled across this all-inclusive resort in Jamaica that featured Vacation Nannies who watched your kids for you during the day, well, I actually drooled a little.

FDR Pebbles was build in 2000 by Frank D. Reece who claims credit for creating the concept of the Caribbean all-inclusive.


This idea is brilliant. His resort is green certified (if you care), small (3 acres), and locally owned. The guest to staff ration is one to one. The both times We've visited, we met locals at the resort. By local I mean actual Jamacans like a lovely couple from Kingston and one of the first female Supreme Court Justices of Jamaca (and her cousin from Brooklyn). Yes, it is more rustic than Club Meb but Oh-My-Goodness do I love those Vacation Nannies!

Our Vacation Nanny took control of the kids from 9am to 4:45pm. The kids loved both of them - Shafay and Ty Cia. Unlike all-inclusives that have "kids clubs," this is not vacation daycare. If the kids want the beach, they get the beach. Bored with the beach, they can go to the kids' center or the pool. Our Vacation Nanny is there to entertain them. I could go on and on but my review says it all.

There is no vacation for mom's when kids come with you unless you are at FDR Pebbles. And the clincher? After 5pm, you can arrange for your Vacation Nanny to babysit your children for $4 an hour. We had six "date nights" in a row both times we went.

Finally, everything is included. Glass Bottom boat trip? Included. Wine or beer or cheese, milk, cereal, fresh fruit, soda in your hotel room fridge? Included. Know how to SCUBA dive?, one free tank dive a day. Included. Want to learn how to SCUBA? Lessons and a tank dive included. Historic tour of Falmouth including oldest church in Jamaica and stop at shops? Included. Included. Included.

As soon as we have the money, we will be going again to FDR Pebbles. My son asks if we are going to Jamaica everytime we drive by an airport. I ask my husband when we are going to Jamaica every time we put the kids to bed. It was spectacular.

I had the best prices booking through expedia and however you get there, if you're a parent who wants family vacation with guilt-free time off from the kids, FDR Pebbles is perfect (just don't expect perfection, it has some rough edges but who cares - VACATION NANNIES!).

Book Plugging

One of my husband's co-workers has published a book.

Chris Horner's book "Red Hot Lies" is his follow up to "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism". I've read the second but haven't gotten the first yet. But I expect great things.

Why is Red Hot Lies important? Because this is what Conservatives are fighting. The lies, deceptions, and exaggerations the Left inflict on us all via the mainstream media.

From the book flap of Horner's book:
"From the Inside Flap
Liars--Al Gore, the United Nations, the New York Times. The global warming lobby, relentless in its push for bigger government, more spending, and more regulation, will use any means necessary to scare you out of your wits--as well as your tax dollars and your liberties--with threats of rising oceans, deadly droughts, and unspeakable future consequences of "climate change." In pursuing their anti-energy, anti-capitalist, and pro-government agenda, the global warming alarmists--and unscrupulous scientists who see this scare as their gravy train to federal grants and foundation money--resort to dirty tricks, smear campaigns, and outright lies, abandoning scientific standards, journalistic integrity, and the old-fashioned notions of free speech and open debate. In Red Hot Lies, bestselling author Christopher Horner--himself the target of Greenpeace dirty tricks and alarmist smears--exposes the dark underbelly of the environmental movement. Power-hungry politicians blacklist scientists who reject global warming alarmism. U.S. senators threaten companies that fund climate change dissenters. Mainstream media outlets openly reject the notion of "balance." The occasional unguarded scientist candidly admits the need to twist the facts to paint an uglier picture in order to keep the faucet of government money flowing. In the name of "saving the planet," anything goes. But why the nasty tactics? Why the cover ups, lies, and intimidation? Because Al Gore and his ilk want to use big government at the local, state, federal, and global level to run your life, and they can brook no opposition. But the actual facts, as Red Hot Lies makes clear, aren't nearly as scary as their fiction."

And while you're checking that book out, look at my husband's book. "The Really Inconvenient Truths - Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You To Know About Because They Caused Them". This is what happens when Leftwing policies are enacted and never challenged. While it only focuses on environmental issues, social, political and economic costs are impacted as well. (I helped with it a little.)

When Leftwingers are let loose, so is all hell.

An Otherwise Excellent Post

Mark Steyn is someone I respect and his post on NRO today is pretty good but one of his initial premises is wrong.

He states: "Even in America, federal spending (in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars) has gone from $600 billion in 1965 to $3 trillion today. The Heritage Foundation put it in a convenient graph: It's pretty much a straight line across four decades, up, up, up. Doesn't make any difference who controls Congress, who's in the White House. The government just grows and grows, remorselessly."

I need to know, does these numbers reflect the amazing growth in population between 1965 and now? If no, then Steyn's argument about government has a serious flaw. If yes, then oh-my-goodness we are in trouble.

Any comments?

Jonah Shout Out

I'm a huge fan of Jonah Goldberg of NRO and Liberal Fascism fame.

His response to a free market debate on NRO is valuable. The money quote is:

"As Milton Friedman put it, "A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. "

"In other words, even if your description of the free market as morally neutral is correct, interference with the free market is not necessarily morally neutral. (similarly, voting may be morally neutral, but abolishing voting would not be a morally neutral act). So, whether you're right or not, the case for defending the free market is not purely a matter of empiricism. It is a moral obligation for those eager to defend freedom."

Conservatives need to remember this. Freedom is letting a person get what they think is best for them, rather than what socialists of Obama's ilk thing is best for them.

Young people bedazzled by empty rhetoric need to realize that the main problem with socialism is the absolute lack of choice involved with socialism. You don't get to choose whatever you want, only the choices made available to you by the elites.

The free market is not perfect but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the free market is the worst of all economic policies, except for all the rest.

If you believe in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, then the idea of elites deciding what you want must be fought at every turn.

I Voted For Vice President

My three heroes are:
Helen Keller
Rosa Parks
Margaret Thatcher

Helen Keller displayed remarkable grace in her fight to survive and succeed in society.

Rosa Parks did what Dr. King suggested when he said, "There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, popular, or political; but because it is right." Something many Conservatives should start doing if they want to regain our trust.

But Margaret Thatcher is special. She was the first elected woman of a major developed country. As John O'Sullivan wrote in his book, The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister, Thatcher helped bring down the Soviet Union.

And she is a righteous, kick-ass babe.

Margaret Thatcher graduated from college and became a chemist. She married and had children. Then she went into politics. She lived in the real world first. And when she became Prime Minister, the machismo Argentinians thought they could pick a fight with a broad and get away with it. HA!

Despite all the gloriousness that is Madame Thatcher, she was still denigrated by the chattering classes in Britain. Even terms like "handbagging" are subtle putdowns. The Iron Lady was still just a lady, not a Prime Minister. And when they decided she "looked tired", they tossed her out.

This is the shame of politics. A woman like Thatcher who towers over the 1980s and early 1990s along with Reagan and - who else?, is still vulnerable to such nonsense.

Now, threatened by the realization that their influence is negligible at best, the Conservatives like David Frum, David Brooks, and McCain staffers are shredding Gov. Sarah Palin. The woman whose very presence on stage gave McCain even a fighting chance.

Let's face it, Obama's grotesque online donation fraud enabled his campaign to outspend McCain by an order of magnitude and yet Sarah is blamed for McCain's inability to realize he was being manipulated into a position of weakness? I loved McCain's honor but deplored the lack of fight.

David Brooks' column in that rag of a paper, The New York Times, simplistically boils conservatism down to Traditionalists and Reformists. He claims Palin is a Traditionalist. I say Gov. Palin is whoever she damn well pleases she is.

Brooks thinks the Conservative party must "reform" to be "modern" without ever seeing the oxymoron, the fallacy, the stupidity of such a statement. The very nature of conservatism is to conserve, to value tradition. We might update a little. But modernize? We just came from 8 years of "modernized" conservatism and a failed "modernized" conservative candidate. Any more modern and we'd be liberals.

NO! NO! No Thank You, Mr. Brooks.

William McGurn at the Wall Street Journal defends Sarah Palin. Part of his remarks are "In the treatment of Mrs. Palin by some of the McCain staff, there is the clear whiff of condescension. That's something a sitting American governor might understandably find hard to stomach coming from a bunch of young professional Republicans who have never themselves run for office. Ultimately, of course, this will all pass. And if Mrs. Palin goes back and continues to do a good job as governor of Alaska, these attacks will likely only reinforce her outside-the-Beltway credentials to rank-and-file Republicans."

I voted for Sarah Palin because she was the only one in the race with executive experience as well as REAL WORLD experience. She was self-made and owed NO ONE her political position.

And that's what scared the Washington Conservatives most. Sarah Palin is an Untouchable. No one has any political hold over her and she is free to do whatever she believes is right. Plus she's a chick and that scares both conservatives and liberals.

Back to basics is what is called for here. Conservatism is about seeing what worked. What tools were useful and what tools broke when handled. Conservatives build to last. The Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, these were built to last. Not change at every set back or because there's a new generation in town.

Conservatives need the breath of life (not fresh air, life) that Gov. Sarah Palin brings to our ideology. She was thrust into a Presidential race and with almost no prep, nearly saved McCain's candidacy.

Imagine what she could do for us and Conservatism in four years!

Monday, November 10, 2008

Four More Years

Keith Olberman gets four more years of relative obscurity.

Sure, the election brought him coverage but who cares?

According to AP, "The size of his audience has more than doubled, from an average of 776,000 in October 2007 to nearly 2.2 million this October, according to Nielsen Media Research."

O'Reilly on Fox News still has 4 million viewers a night and trust me, Olberman will not sustain his numbers they way Bill O'Reilly keeps his. (Disclosure - I don't watch either).

I don't like blowhards - unless it is me.

Marriage will survive

Andrew Stuttaford over at NRO is concerned about the tradition of marriage between a man and a women continuing.

I am not the least bit concerned.

Marriage evolved in human relationships as a social contract between men and women for both sex and the raising of children. It may have started out as "she's mine, don't touch" but it has evolved.

I would never ever deny anyone the chance to form a union with someone they love. Never. But marriage is between a man and a woman.

And I'm not the only one saying that. The under-30s might think marriage is more "open" but they grow up as Andrew states.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that blacks and hispanics voted for Obama but against gay marriage. Why? Because marriage cuts across all of human existance, all cultures, and all races.

All the damage Baby Boomers have done to their own marriages and children has not destroyed marriage. Children of divorced parents are burnt, cautious, and afraid but they still desire marriage and family. It is the human condition. The under-30s are naturally skeptical of a relationship that caused them so much harm in their childhood but eventually they will find someone they love so much, they will want to make the formal bind and have children.

Gay marriage is love but it only goes halfway as far as marriage is defined by human anthropological tradition. Again, I will never deny love. All forms of love are wonderful. Love is wonderful.

But marriage is more than love. Love is only part of marriage, the other part is children and the future of humanity. Because without children there is no future of humanity. And all homosexuals came from the marriage of a man and a woman (consecrated or not).

From a reproduction position alone, homosexuals must recognize that for the vast majority of them, marriage "made" them. So why is it so hard to acknowledge that marriage is a separate form of relationship reserved exclusively for a man and a women? I don't deny their love, I certainly don't deny my love for my husband but why should my marriage be demoted to a union for their sake? Especially when, quite frankly, there are more of us then them?

Marriage is sacred because it is universal. Youth is univeral too. They'll come around.

For those who protect us

Growing up, my mother always had me say a prayer whenever an ambulance went by for the people in the ambulance. But she never told me what to say so I always felt a bit at a loss.

After the birth of our first child and shortly before September 11th (very bad day for me), I wrote my own prayer. Now both our children, my husband and I say this prayer every time we see a siren whether it is on an ambulance, a fire truck or a police car. I share it with you as I once did on my husband's blog The End of England's Sword (now defunct).

Dear Lord,
Please Bless, Guide, and Protect the brave rescuers we see go by.
And please give Faith, Hope and Strength to those who are waiting for them in need.

Just wanted to share.

Tag 'em

Talking with a bunch of moms, I suggested that we put GPS tags under the skin of our children (they can come out after they graduate college). My idea went over quite well.

Parent's (like dog owners) would be able to track their children where they are. Yes, it's Big Brother (Big Mother?) but who cares? There is not one thing I wouldn't do to protect my kids. Not one thing.

Would my teenagers hate it. Yup. But parenting is using every gosh darn tool available to them to keep them safe until they are responsible adults. I think this would be an excellent tool.


Then Act Like One

If I hear one more conservative pundit say "conservatives are the adults at this party" (or a similar thought), I'm gonna haul off.

Adults don't keep quiet when the kids misbehave or act up. They charge into the fray and settle the kids down (shouting may be involved). Then they ask questions and make decisions.

When have conservatives done that lately?

(For example, the conservative adults of those sixties baby boomers just let the kids run riot. Now we are still dealing with the results of that infantile rebellion. Maybe its too freudian but perhaps when teenagers are allowed to "rebel" successfully, they never grow up.)

If we're going to act like the conservative adults we should be, then we have to agree on a few basic principles. I have some suggestions. See my posts "What's Next For Conservatism?" (yes, I know its long, deal with it) and "25 Things I'd Do If I Ran The Country."

Dr. Martin Luther King once said, "There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, popular, or political; but because it is right."

THAT'S what adults do.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

What's Next For Conservatism

When you get right down to brass tacks, liberals and ALL left ideologies are paper-based. They are simply ideas and theories that are never going to actually work because they are not grounded in reality, facts, or proper science. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, they are expanded versions of Rousseau's fever dream.

Conservatism is based on the cumulative knowledge of experience, tradition, and reality. Science and facts are guideposts for conservatism because they are foundation stones to civilization and are to be treated with respect. Unlike liberal ideologies which has a history of abusing science by twisting it into a terrible tool like eugenics to further ideological goals.

Yes both right and left have committed wrongs but when you compare the list of atrocities committed by both sides in say the last 300 years, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism easily win the title Biggest Destroyers of Life and the Mind.

Because liberalism is based on a theory which can never be proven (a good thing for liberals since this means they can constantly blame something else for their failures), their leftwing theories have become articles of near-religious faith. Only their belief supports their theories because the facts simply do not. This explains the Liberal rejection of science and facts when confronted because science and facts tear their arguments apart instantly.

And this explains the Left's twisted use of science and facts when they cherry-pick data to support their arguments (arguments which instantly fall apart when confronted non-cherry-picked data). It is almost a guarantee that when someone immediately reacts with a savage ad hominem attack when presented with a fact, that person is a liberal.

Look at political solutions. Look at social and energy programs. Look at the environmental movement. Every single liberal solution has failed. Johan Goldberg was right in Liberal Fascism. Iain Murray was right in The Really Inconvenient Truths. And Bjorn Lomborg was right in The Skeptical Environmentalist. Liberal policies and liberal thinking can not stand because their foundation is not the stones of science, tradition, and facts but the paper of theory and wishful thinking.

The Left hates us not because they are better (they are not, they are name-calling meanies). The Left hates the Right because we are right. Conservatism has real tools made from real history and real science. The Left has some theories and a history of failure.

The way forward is to constantly hammer these facts home to people.

Conservatives have been responding courteuously into the face of a screaming mob. We don't have to be rude but we've got to be better and louder than we ever have before. We have to grab these liberals by their scruffs and drag them into the court of public opinion for a real fair trial of their ideas and methods. Liberals should now be held accountable for their actions. Their actions in government, their actions in the street, their actions in the press. We conservatives can not win this arguement if we stand around wringing our hands and playing the blame game.

We must do this because it is our fault.

We allowed the liberals to take over our foundation institutions, the schools, the press, local government. All of which has put liberals in positions of power their ideology does not merit. And worse, we knew they were doing it - "the long march". They told us what they were doing. We knew it and we let it happen because conservatives put too much faith in our example being the guide.

Well, an example is only as good as it is known. We now need to hold up our good examples of decency, intellect, and tradition so that everyone can see them. We need to change our tactics and start shouting "We're loud, we're proud, and we're here." (yes, I know what I am stealing.)

Conservative values are core values.

They are the instinctive reactions to human experience - purified by tradition, religious faith, science, justice, and the rule of law. We need to be proud of our values and articulate them in ways everyone can understand. We need to be loud and clear. And we need to be here, in the present with an eye to the future.

The past will always be with us as part of our creation but we need to always be working to make our present and future better. Let's keep the foundations of science and tradition bright and clean and a shining example to everyone about what's right with modern life.

By press hook and by fraud crook, the liberals have won this election cycle. Let's lay the groundwork for not only the next election cycle but the next 10 election cycles. Let's start our own long march through institutions.

Obama wants mandatory community service. Fine. Let's set up community organizations that promote conservative values and have the kids volunteer for those. Let's fight to keep church volunteer programs part of the community service.

Let's work on explaining to Alumni why their old schools may be hurting our children's futures and maybe their donations should go to better things.

Let's hit Liberals where it hurts, in their collective guilt by pointing out the harm their ideologies do.

Let's expose the press for what it is, not a free press but slavishly devoted to liberal ideologies. Let's demand better from our newspaper editors by supporting honest local papers and electronic journalists, rather than the urban junk-bond papers of little note. We are in the Information age with an all access pass. We no longer need newspapers to dig up information for us, we have the internet, bloggers, and fellows like Stanley Kurtz for that. Let's fight the press by becoming the press and getting the good and honest words out.

Let's take the fight back. Because it's a good fight. And it's the right fight.

Utopia is a joke

Along with everything else, why do these liberal Useful Ignorami fail over and over and over and over again to pick up a damn history book or look beyond their own constituencies to see that their latest brave new idea is the same old tired policy that failed in another place.

This second bill of rights nonsense is case in point.

Did any liberal politician attend an elementary social studies course? Is any politician smarter than a 5th grader? This second bill of rights is a bill of positive rights that make unfulfillable guarantees And the EU already tried it and even in that bastion of (failed) socialism, their positive bill of rights failed.


And that brings me to socialism. The American Bill of Rights (Thank you Mr. George Mason) is a bill of negative rights which stop the government from interfering, stops government from deciding what we can and can not do. So negative rights are really quite positive.

Limiting government’s ability to muck about in our lives is America’s great promise. It is the guarantor of the American Dream. It is what provides all Americans and those who come here with that great American Second Chance. That opportunity to start again which makes America and Americans so successful.

Socialism and communism attempt to make a paradise for workers, a utopia. But there can be no utopia (leftwing - communistic, socialistic, fascist or a rightwing).

All utopias are impossible because even if the fallen nature of man was perfected and government was perfect, we’d still have nature. The very physical world we live is chaotic thanks to the uncontrollable-by-man Weather.

Some years have perfect growing seasons, some years have horrible growing seasons. And how would any utopian society deal with a drought and famine? Some would eat. Some would starve. And some would starve to death. Don’t believe me, ask a Soviet Union survivor if food was always plentiful, available, and affordable.

No one can control the environment, so the idea of utopia is a joke.

Socialism and Marxism are based on the idea of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” Sounds kinda reasonable at first until you see it put into action.

Again, who decides how the wealth is spread around (Hmmm, Mr. Obama)? In every socialist country, you see the elites “needs” are always fulfilled before anyone else regardless of what the elites' abilities actually are. It is the Factory Manager in Communist and Socialist countries that get the extras, not the Factory Workers.

A worker gets the one bedroom apartment for his family of five while the Communist Party Apparatchik/Socialist Government Manager gets the villa by the lake.

Prove me wrong. Show me a legitimate socialist government anywhere in the world where the workers are treated better than the elites? Show me a European socialist government country whose leaders trust the system enough to put their kids in public schools with no additional private tutors. Show me a major American Union that hasn't had its leaders helping themselves to the pot.

My husband left the UK for the US with nothing but a suitcase and me waiting for him. He has gone farther on his own merits here in America than he ever could in the UK. (He didn’t get much help from me.) He is an only child but his elderly parents urge him to stay in the US because he is doing so much better.

If anyone knows the evils even a relatively benign form of socialism in Great Britain can do to a society it is my husband and his family. Universal Healthcare, bah – talk to my husband’s cousin the urologist about universal healthcare but only if you want to weep. Universal healthcare consigned my mother-in-law to a lifetime of crippling pain.

I always plug Jonah Golberg’s book Liberal Fascism for while it is primarily about socialism here in the US, its lessons are lived more deeply in the EU. And all Americans should be terrified of any politician who promotes the failed socialist ideas of Europe and the EU. Europe is not evil but its socialism is depressing. It depresses jobs, it depresses opportunities, and it depresses the people.

It is not fair to say the people of Europe are the ones that stayed, the ones who didn’t want to lose their place in society by taking on the risk of freedom in America, But fair or not, it is kinda true. If you are afraid of risk then you will find solace and reassurance in the false promises of socialism/communism. Never forget that with leftwing ideologies like socialism, you will find your place but never be allowed to leave it.

A modern feudalism has taken root in Europe and wasn’t that feudalist thinking and the desire for (religious) freedom things that drove Europeans to America? And still drives people from all over the world to America today? Drives them towards freedom, second chances, and the American Dream.

When given the opportunity to create any sort of government they wanted, our Founding Fathers chose this one. A new government never before seen on Earth with new freedoms and a bill of rights, born of the Magna Carta but uniquely American.

Now under the cover of a “historic” presidential campaign, a deceptive press, and what increasingly seems like a manufactured financial crisis, the liberal useful ignorami are promoting the destruction of over 200 years of unique freedom and unprecedented wealth creation to create a false liberty under the guise of a positive bill of rights. This is an utopian joke – no, worse a pun.

A New Secular Prayer

Our Obama
Who art in Washington
Hallowed by thy Name

Thy Presidency Come
Thy Will be Done
In Congress
As it is in The White House

Give us this day
Our Daily Bread
And forgive us our Trespasses
As we destroy those
Who’ve trespass against you.

And lead us not into capitalism
But deliver us from freedom

For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory
Now and forever


25 Things I Would Do If I Ran The Country…

In no particular order

1) Education is a state right. Local property taxes pay for local schools. The Federal government should butt out, therefore I would abolish the department of education.

2) If the president has term limits so should all members of Congress. Our government was built on a system of checks and balances. There is a check on the office of the presidency which needs to be balanced by a check on the legislature. 3 terms in the House, 2 terms in the Senate offers a person a 24 year career in politics. That’s long enough.

3) Congress can no longer vote itself raises. Individual Senators and Representatives should appeal to their constituents for pay raises and have it put to a vote or referendum accordingly.

4) Line by line veto to eliminate pork.

5) Ditto Ear marks.

6) Emergency spending bills are only allowed during natural disasters or within 3 – 6 months of an aggressive attack on American soil or overseas bases. Otherwise, the department in question (I’m looking at you DoD) has to get the monies from its existing budget.

7) ALL laws passed must clearly state its intended effect/goal and a review of its effectiveness evaluated by an independent government office, the GAO, for instance after five years. If a law is found lacking by the specified measure, the law is automatically returned to Congress for review – either to be struck down or re-written to address its failures.

8) All government regulations – starting with ones governing business/energy/agriculture – that are over 20 years old must be examined by independent reviewers to determine if said regulation is a help or a hindrance to the business practice and the government’s ability to enforce the regulation. If it fails the test, the regulation is automatically negated.

9) Tax loopholes for individuals and corporations are closed.

10) Tax code must be streamlined until it can be printed on no more than 25 pages in 12pt Times New Roman font. Figure it out.

11) Any Federal agency that is a duplicate of a state function (excepting interstate issues) is automatically eliminated.

12) English is the official language of the United States of America.

13) Our borders are ours to control. All unauthorized entries into the US will be treated as a criminal offense. American citizenship will no longer be extended to children born in the US to illegal immigrant parents under the age of three. They and their parents will be returned to their country of origin where they may re-apply to enter the US.

14) Any business hiring illegal immigrants will face stiff fines and criminal charges.

15) Any persons using false identification will face criminal charges, restitution to the victim, and if illegal, expulsion from the US.

16) Moments of silence are re-instated in schools and government institutions. If you have to put your hand on a bible to swear the truth in court, then God is part of the government.

17) You are the person you chose to be. Victim-statuses in government law will be reviewed as objectively as possible to determine if it helps or hinders various classes of individuals from the handicapped to ethnic minorities to genders to sexual orientation.

18) All treaties between the US and foreign countries will be reviewed. Those deemed unfair to US interests will be renegotiated.

19) Modern developed countries have the ability to defend themselves. We will remove US troops from those countries (I'm looking at you Germany) and relocate to countries with greater need or return the troops home. Many of these overseas bases are now rewards for soldiers rather than actual deployments.

20) Independent reviews will be conducted of every government department starting with the Department of Defense with the intent of eliminating waste and redundancy.

21) Soldiers and government civilians should be making equal pay and receive equal pensions. Saleries either drop or rise but soldiers and civilian workers across all departments of the federal government will be equalized.

22) If you bring a lawsuit to court and you lose, you must pay the defendant’s legal fees.

23) We’re building more nuclear power plants, drilling off shore, and drilling in Alaska. Get over it, we need the energy. The money from taxing the positive economic growth caused by abundant energy can go to research to develop realistic and affordable new energy sources.

24) All government subsidies to corporations and businesses will be reviewed and most likely stopped. The taxpayer should only pay for the goods and services they buy directly. Subsidies are forced gifts from the taxpayer to well-represented-by-lobbies corporations (sugar lobby) via the government. It is theft, wrong and largely unnecessary.

25) Any charity that makes more than $50 million in donations a year, loses its tax-exempt status and is shifted into a slightly progressive taxation rate. (Income from investments, etc. doesn’t count.) Donations to the charity are still tax-exempt, just the charity's total income is taxed. Any charity caught funneling its donations into other charities or shell companies to hide its income will be shut down.

My Review of Goldberg and Stewart

Into The Shallows

Jon Stewart’s interview of Jonah Goldberg reveals a real problem with the liberal movement today – intellectual shallowness. Mr. Goldberg has written a well-researched book with the admittedly provocative title “Liberal Fascists”.

Now as a registered democrat (but not necessarily a practicing one), I am finding this book both fascinating and uncomfortable to read. To be presented with a new look at the historical origins of so many liberal ideologies using original newspaper articles and letters is wonderful. But to discover that many of these ideas have fascist and communist origins and to learn that these ideas under the more benevolent guise of socialism are still current today is squirm inducing.

Mr. Stewart doesn’t want to acknowledge history. He and his ilk want to continue to pretend that The Left is untainted by its ancestry. And his attack on Mr. Goldberg reveals a hollowness that is disappointing. Mr. Goldberg is not calling liberals fascists. Indeed in his preface he makes that perfectly clear. He is simply arguing that the liberal high ground is not built upon as strong a foundation as they would like to think. Hitler was a vegetarian. That does not make all vegetarians fascists. Forcing everyone to become a vegetarian, however, is fascist.

The New Left pushes in various degrees a socialist agenda. Socialism by its very nature expects all peoples to do the same thing, to work towards the same goal. It is about the people and not the individual. Depending on how far one is willing to force people to do things determines whether you have mild-socialist tendencies or are a full-blown totalitarian.

Although The Daily Show is a fake news show, Mr. Stewart tries to inject some meaningful exchanges, some make-you-think stuff, into his show. But it is clear he doesn’t want to think about history, doesn’t want to know where his belief system originated. And he is quite willing to knee-jerk react against unpleasant news.

How disappointing from a man who has taken several real newscasters to task for their actions. But it is the shallowness of the response that disappoints me. When Mr. Stewart interviewed Chris Horner about his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Environment, I got a real sense that Mr. Stewart had found the arguments persuasive. Mr. Goldberg’s book cuts a little too deep for Mr. Stewart and he reacts with ad hominen derision instead of a more reasonable response. Perhaps a lack of writing staff is the problem.

Or more likely, perhaps Mr. Stewart, like all newscasters is irredeemably biased towards the socialist tendency of telling us what to think instead of telling us the news. It is this intellectual shallowness that disappoints the most.

It doesn’t feel good, does it Mr. Stewart? For so long, liberals have been allowed to say horrible things about conservatives (thanks in part to rather clever communist propaganda) without anyone checking to make sure those liberal taunts were true or not. Lazy Liberals, unwilling to turn to facts when truthiness is so much easier a weapon to wield.

Tired of being tarred with the Nazi brush, Mr. Goldberg’s book exposes some inconvenient truths about liberals. The polite conservatives are tired of left-wingers screaming nasty lies and fight back with facts, science, and documented history. Mr. Stewart and all liberals in the media should take a long deep breath before arguing with Mr. Goldberg from a false position. Accept that the history of the liberal movement may not be as purely motivated as they believed. That some of their ideas have been badly used. And then argue how to make things better. And not more of the same, intellectual laziness of shouting loudest. We can turn off the TV and go back to reading, you know.

Hearth and Holidays

If the kitchen is the beating heart of the home, then a holiday kitchen represents something even more important, family traditions.

A holiday kitchen is clean but doesn’t smell of chemical. Warm and inviting, holiday scents waft about enticing everyone into the kitchen hearth. My perfect holiday kitchen would meet all my highest home chef standards while setting my guests at ease enough to lick their fingers as they nibble at my table.

And guests come frequently in our holiday kitchen as we start celebrating the holidays by celebrating St. Nicholas Day and other Advent holidays so that our Christmas is more about family than just one day of presents. Much of our holiday activities takes place in the kitchen.

Indeed, Christmas is not the end, but the beginning of the Twelve Days of Christmas which keeps our holiday kitchen quite busy. My favorite is New Year’s Eve when the kitchen is swept clean and filled with pleasures like champagne, canap├ęs, dear friends and we remember the best of the old year while hoping to try our best to do as much good as possible in the new one.

I’ve been cooking since I was five. The kitchen is the central pivot of my life. The holiday kitchen (perfect or not) is the culmination of the year and one of my favorite opportunities to give my children invaluable gifts – family traditions, loving hearts, the warmth of being home for the holidays.

Why Art Let Has Me Down

Since the rise of individualism, art has gotten more and more selfish.

Used to be, an artist created in order to uplift man by depicting a moral story, a heroic message, or a religious theme. Even landscapes and still lifes were rich with messages.

Then with the impressionist movement, individual perspectives and the study of light and color became dominant. But at least, they were working with a unified theory of art and aesthetics.

Nowadays, it is all the individual and how that individual artist is feeling. Shock for shock’s sake and great blobs of art representing the petulant fits of an artist too self-absorbed to think about how he is depicting him or herself.

The petty shoddiness of it all. The sophomoric attempts at originality by being ugly or obscene. That no matter how “cutting-edge” the art is supposed to be, so much seems to be tawdrily about sex. And the more vulgar the sex or sexual display, the better.

How boring. How tedious. How predictable.

And how ridiculous.

An artist’s bad mood smeared on a canvas or fired from a lump of clay is now art. Van Gogh cut off his own ear but you never saw it stapled to a canvas. That’s what made his self-portrait so haunting, you say his coherent worldview in his art and only a glimpse of his inner turmoil. But when you saw that glimpse it was more evocative than any crucifix in urine could ever be.

And how dumb does the modern artist or gallery owner think we are? Paint splashed across a canvas in drizzles and drops may have been original the first time. But only the first time. I always get the impression when I see a Jackson Pollack that he just had this idea one day and when he showed it to the gallery owner, the following response took place:

JP: What do you think?

GO: It’s just paint splatter. How am I going to sell this?

JP: Ummm

GO: I mean it looks okay but it doesn’t say anything.

JP: Ummmm, how about…

GO: Ok, it says movement.

JP: Yeah, yeah, that’s what I meant. I’m trying to convey the chaotic movement of life though time with color and ….

GO: Yeah, yeah, let’s just say it’s a study of movement.

It’s paint splatter. It looks okay once or twice but there is a reason that it is in a museum instead of someone’s home.

Just Getting This Off My Chest

I have the impression that a lot of people voted for Obama, not because they knew anything about the man, but because they wanted to be a part of history and stroke their own egos by taking part.

Let me be clear. You the voter “make history” every time you vote. You are a voter and that is it. Who ever wins this election will be the real part of history. Whether it is first black man, oldest man, or first female VP – they will be the history-makers, the achievers.

You do your civic duty by voting, you do not make history.

I feel this is important to point out because Baby Boomers cut their teeth opposing a war and have not wanted America to win a war since.

Also as my husband points out in his book Really Inconvenient Truths on the environment, if a liberal is proven incorrect on anything, their entire ideological house of cards falls apart. Why? Because most leftist ideology is completely made up theories, the musings of over-educated, under-experienced academics. At least conservative ideology is based in history and facts.

At any rate, Baby Boomers since their births have this overblown sense of their place in history. And now they want it again. Having lived my whole life in their shadow, I just want the Boomers to shut up, sit down, and let someone else stretch their wings for just freaking once.

History is made by those that achieve. You-the-voter don’t achieve the presidency when you vote, you put the person who has earned your trust and faith into office so they can lead the country and they can make history.

I just wanted to make that clear.

Picture I took on Fedex Field

I won a prize from Canon and the NFL - a fantastic camera and tickets to a Washington Redskins game and field access with the team photographer during the game. This is one of the 100s of pictures I took.

Quotes I Like

“A loosening of Morals leads to a hardening of hearts.” Edmund Burke

“Turning the other cheek does not mean letting yourself get slapped around. Forgive but don’t let it happen again.” Me

"If a man is called to be a streetsweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great streetsweeper who did his job well." Dr. Martin Luther King

"There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, popular, or political; but because it is right." Dr. Martin Luther King

"God is not merely interested in the freedom of brown men, yellow men, red men and black men. He is interested in the freedom of the whole human race." Dr. Martin Luther King

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Dr. Martin Luther King

My Future Sleeps

In the skydiver’s position,

Hurtling through sleep,

Hurtling through life,

A tiny sleeping form.

My hand slides beneath

And upon warm skin,

Fingertips brush the steady beating heart.

A fluttering butterfly wrapped in a growing cocoon.

My future, my love, my child.

Welcome workers

I'm curious, they held hearings in Congress recently about a stimulus package in the form of a transportation bill - something about repairing the nation's infrastructure.

Now, from what I understand from the CIS group, illegal immigrants tend to work in construction and service industries. If I am correct, then is there a risk that the passage of this bill will most likely benefit illegal workers and their employers, rather than employ legal immigrants and native Americans? What if any controls are in this bill to prevent such abuses?