Right on, President Bush! Marriage is between one man and one woman. Thanks for taking this stand. It is the only legitimate stand to preserve the core of human society as we know it in the West. Stay the course and the American people will back you. Ignore the interest groups sponsoring a different agenda.
Let the Dems who want it have that issue. It will guarantee you four more years as President.
+++++++++++++++
excerpt...
"Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, many of your supporters believe that homosexuality is immoral. They believe that it's been given too much acceptance in policy terms and culturally. As someone who has spoken out in strongly moral terms, what's your view on homosexuality?
A. Yeah. I am mindful that we're all sinners. And I caution those who may try to take a speck out of their neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. That's really where the issue is headed here in Washington. And that is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."
July 29, 2003
Role of the Judiciary in America and Vermont
A cogent and correct view of the role of the judiciary in America. How far we have strayed from founding principles. Thanks, Glenn Foster, for reminding us of our heritage and the wisdom of our country's founders!!
++++++++++
Burlington Free Press July 29, 2003
"The Federalist is the most thorough explanation of the principles upon which our republic was founded. The Federalist is a collection of papers written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton explaining the rational behind their design for our government. Madison and Hamilton were instrumental in writing the American Constitution, while Jay was the first chief justice of the Supreme Court.
The recent pronouncement by Gov. Jim Douglas that we need less activist jurists is a welcome one, firmly rooted in the text and intent of these founding figures, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, and those in every state ratifying our Constitution. Those who think otherwise have a vision different from those who wrote and approved the Constitution or simply don't understand it.
Kimberly Cheney pronounced (with reference to nothing), 'Courageous judicial action is a vital part of our American system' (Free Press, July 14). However, even a cursory review of The Federalist will clearly show that the court has (or should have) a relatively minor role in defining what laws the public is subject to.
Hamilton states in Federalist No. 78, 'the judiciary is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power.' He concludes that, 'the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution.'
A far cry from the judicial activism lauded by those who jump for joy whenever a new right is finally 'discovered' after more than 200 years. These same people are generally members of a faction that fail to get the majority of the people to agree with their agendas. Too often, however, some court somewhere will take up their cause in the absence of a willing majority.
Cheney cites the failure of the Vermont Legislature "for over 100 years" to correct the perceived problem with education as justification for the courts to impose what ended up being Act 60. There is a very good reason the Legislature "failed." The people didn't want it. How can the power of five people (the Vermont justices) rightfully usurp what has been the will of the majority "for over 100 years"?
"All legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." So states the very first sentence of the Constitution's Article 1. The power to impose laws on citizens rests solely with elected representatives put there by those citizens.
Supreme Court justices are not elected. It is very dangerous to a free society to permit a small handful of people, rather unaccountable to anyone, to have such powers. It is sad, if not frightening, that many have lost sight of that fundamental concept.
If it was important enough to the people of Vermont to dictate school spending to the extent the Brigham decision effectively did, or to grant civil unions to unconventional couples, than their wishes would have been borne without court intervention.
Some say that because the people did not wish those things, the courts must step in and act; the court must do what the elected bodies have refused to do. No clearer example can be made that we have abandoned the founders' design.
It is high time we returned to our fundamental principles of a government for and by the people. Gov. Douglas has taken a first bold step in that direction.
Glenn Foster is a resident of Newport Center.
++++++++++
Burlington Free Press July 29, 2003
"The Federalist is the most thorough explanation of the principles upon which our republic was founded. The Federalist is a collection of papers written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton explaining the rational behind their design for our government. Madison and Hamilton were instrumental in writing the American Constitution, while Jay was the first chief justice of the Supreme Court.
The recent pronouncement by Gov. Jim Douglas that we need less activist jurists is a welcome one, firmly rooted in the text and intent of these founding figures, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, and those in every state ratifying our Constitution. Those who think otherwise have a vision different from those who wrote and approved the Constitution or simply don't understand it.
Kimberly Cheney pronounced (with reference to nothing), 'Courageous judicial action is a vital part of our American system' (Free Press, July 14). However, even a cursory review of The Federalist will clearly show that the court has (or should have) a relatively minor role in defining what laws the public is subject to.
Hamilton states in Federalist No. 78, 'the judiciary is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power.' He concludes that, 'the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution.'
A far cry from the judicial activism lauded by those who jump for joy whenever a new right is finally 'discovered' after more than 200 years. These same people are generally members of a faction that fail to get the majority of the people to agree with their agendas. Too often, however, some court somewhere will take up their cause in the absence of a willing majority.
Cheney cites the failure of the Vermont Legislature "for over 100 years" to correct the perceived problem with education as justification for the courts to impose what ended up being Act 60. There is a very good reason the Legislature "failed." The people didn't want it. How can the power of five people (the Vermont justices) rightfully usurp what has been the will of the majority "for over 100 years"?
"All legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." So states the very first sentence of the Constitution's Article 1. The power to impose laws on citizens rests solely with elected representatives put there by those citizens.
Supreme Court justices are not elected. It is very dangerous to a free society to permit a small handful of people, rather unaccountable to anyone, to have such powers. It is sad, if not frightening, that many have lost sight of that fundamental concept.
If it was important enough to the people of Vermont to dictate school spending to the extent the Brigham decision effectively did, or to grant civil unions to unconventional couples, than their wishes would have been borne without court intervention.
Some say that because the people did not wish those things, the courts must step in and act; the court must do what the elected bodies have refused to do. No clearer example can be made that we have abandoned the founders' design.
It is high time we returned to our fundamental principles of a government for and by the people. Gov. Douglas has taken a first bold step in that direction.
Glenn Foster is a resident of Newport Center.
Pentagon Abandons Plan for Futures Market on Terror
A clever 'outside the box' idea, but a bit much for Congress. Betting with odds on the possibility of likely events. What could we have learned from this? DARPA is a clever organization that sponsors many innovative technologies in addition to the research leading to my ability to do this, i.e., the Internet
The Line Between Cost Management and Fraud
If proof surfaces that MCI has been avoiding access charges, they should be severely punished. Defrauding the local telcos of hundreds of millions is illegal and increases rates for local service.
Equally important is the exposing of the frailty of a regulatory scheme of access charges as a way to encourage competition and pay the costs incurred by the local frailty. Access charges is a playground for crooks, given the billions at stake.
Equally important is the exposing of the frailty of a regulatory scheme of access charges as a way to encourage competition and pay the costs incurred by the local frailty. Access charges is a playground for crooks, given the billions at stake.
July 28, 2003
Subpoenas Sent to File-Sharers Prompt Anger and Remorse
If a law is to have any effect, it must be enforced. If not enforced, change it or repeal it. I support the prosecution of those who flagrantly abuse copyright laws.
What is the alternative, some ask? pay for the rights to purchase and use. Stealing is not the answer.
What is the alternative, some ask? pay for the rights to purchase and use. Stealing is not the answer.
July 25, 2003
A Self-described Vermont Environmetalist
Best description I've seen by a 'true' Vermont environmentalist. I must have missed the part about the need for a strong economy. Or is there no need for Vermont's abilty to create jobs and income so folks like this can indulge their passions? Perhaps a trust fund person without financial worries??
++++++++++++++
From Dwinell Political Report:
"There is only one thing that is extreme in this whole discussion, and that is the venom that the Douglas administration and its supporters are spitting at people who care about minimizing our exposure to pollutants in the name of public health and environmental protection. While I drive a high-mileage car, do not have air conditioning in my home, hang out my laundry to dry, grow most of my own food and live with solar panels, I also care about the larger issues such
as how all the chemicals we are using are making people sick. Until we stop poisoning ourselves, we will continue to see increasing health care costs and unnecessary human suffering. If caring about people makes me an extremist, then count me in"
++++++++++++++
From Dwinell Political Report:
"There is only one thing that is extreme in this whole discussion, and that is the venom that the Douglas administration and its supporters are spitting at people who care about minimizing our exposure to pollutants in the name of public health and environmental protection. While I drive a high-mileage car, do not have air conditioning in my home, hang out my laundry to dry, grow most of my own food and live with solar panels, I also care about the larger issues such
as how all the chemicals we are using are making people sick. Until we stop poisoning ourselves, we will continue to see increasing health care costs and unnecessary human suffering. If caring about people makes me an extremist, then count me in"
Vermont Manufacturing Sector Anemic
Certainly not good news for Vermont. Steady decline in manufacturing jobs and IBM is considering moving white collar and engineering jobs offshore. Some of these will likely be from Vermont. IBM is the cornerstone of what's left of Vermont's manufacturing sector. We cannot sustain our public sector spending with this drain of good jobs.
+++++++++++++++
From Dwinell Political Report:
"Jeff Carr said, 'The real threat is the lack of growth in the manufacturing sector. The sectors of job growth are government, education, health services, professional services and retail trade. None of these sectors has significant exports from Vermont to other states or countries like manufacturing does.
'Further, there is spent up demand instead of pent up demand. By that I mean, for example, car dealers have promoted so hard that they have taken demand from the future and brought it into the recent past. Our vehicle fleet is now only 2-3 years old instead of eight years old.'"
Waterbury Companies of Randolph announced that it was closing its doors laying
off seventy employees after operating for over forty years in its plant. "Our
competitors have cut prices. Two of our major customers demanded price
reductions over the long term. The only way to keep customers is by shifting
production off-shore and we made the decision to do that."
An employee was quoted as saying, "You might as well kiss the United States
goodbye because everything is leaving." Another added, "There is nothing else
unless you want to go to McDonalds or Cumberland Farms. You might as well go on
welfare and say the hell with it."
+++++++++++++++
From Dwinell Political Report:
"Jeff Carr said, 'The real threat is the lack of growth in the manufacturing sector. The sectors of job growth are government, education, health services, professional services and retail trade. None of these sectors has significant exports from Vermont to other states or countries like manufacturing does.
'Further, there is spent up demand instead of pent up demand. By that I mean, for example, car dealers have promoted so hard that they have taken demand from the future and brought it into the recent past. Our vehicle fleet is now only 2-3 years old instead of eight years old.'"
Waterbury Companies of Randolph announced that it was closing its doors laying
off seventy employees after operating for over forty years in its plant. "Our
competitors have cut prices. Two of our major customers demanded price
reductions over the long term. The only way to keep customers is by shifting
production off-shore and we made the decision to do that."
An employee was quoted as saying, "You might as well kiss the United States
goodbye because everything is leaving." Another added, "There is nothing else
unless you want to go to McDonalds or Cumberland Farms. You might as well go on
welfare and say the hell with it."
July 24, 2003
The Bill of Non-Rights
Chuckle as truth is mined from cynicism...
* The Bill of Non-Rights *
The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA.
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NO Rights."
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American
means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, too bad!!!!
If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish.
* The Bill of Non-Rights *
The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA.
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NO Rights."
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American
means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, too bad!!!!
If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish.
July 23, 2003
The Garlic Wars
In fifty or less years, China will be the dominant economic power on earth. The US will be the R&D engine for the world, if we get our education act together.
We are shifting so many jobs offshore and importing so many of our people, products and services, that we cannot sustain our position in the world, particulary so as we spend substantial amounts on war, terrorism control and peace.
I don't want to be pesimistic, but that's the trend I see. I believe Ameica's 'glory days' are nearly over.
We are shifting so many jobs offshore and importing so many of our people, products and services, that we cannot sustain our position in the world, particulary so as we spend substantial amounts on war, terrorism control and peace.
I don't want to be pesimistic, but that's the trend I see. I believe Ameica's 'glory days' are nearly over.
The Gorge-Yourself Environment
We are being victimized and lawyerized again! Here's the opportunity for megamillions to line the pockets of lawyers as we are once again protected from ourselves.
+++++++++++
"Trial lawyers met in Boston last month to discuss legal approaches to obesity, including lawsuits against fast-food chains and food manufacturers on grounds like false advertising, failure to provide labeling about caloric content or even fostering food addiction.
At least seven such lawsuits have been filed, with varying success, said John F. Banzhaf III, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University. Professor Banzhaf, who led the way in litigation against tobacco companies, is now channeling similar energy into reforming fast food.
The food industry, however, dismisses such suits as a device to deposit more money in lawyers' bank accounts. The onus for eating healthfully, industry spokesmen say, rests entirely with the consumer.
"If you don't want a large hamburger in a restaurant, usually there is a smaller hamburger," said Steven Anderson, the president and chief executive of the National Restaurant Association. "You can get a grilled chicken sandwich in almost any restaurant I've ever been in. There are the options there and it's for the individual to decide.""
++++++++++++++
+++++++++++
"Trial lawyers met in Boston last month to discuss legal approaches to obesity, including lawsuits against fast-food chains and food manufacturers on grounds like false advertising, failure to provide labeling about caloric content or even fostering food addiction.
At least seven such lawsuits have been filed, with varying success, said John F. Banzhaf III, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University. Professor Banzhaf, who led the way in litigation against tobacco companies, is now channeling similar energy into reforming fast food.
The food industry, however, dismisses such suits as a device to deposit more money in lawyers' bank accounts. The onus for eating healthfully, industry spokesmen say, rests entirely with the consumer.
"If you don't want a large hamburger in a restaurant, usually there is a smaller hamburger," said Steven Anderson, the president and chief executive of the National Restaurant Association. "You can get a grilled chicken sandwich in almost any restaurant I've ever been in. There are the options there and it's for the individual to decide.""
++++++++++++++
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)