Even if you support same sex marriage, you should support Prop 8.

So today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry. Long story made short, the issue is if Proposition 8 (California’s decision to recognize marriage as between one man and one woman) is constitutional or not. Prop 8 was a ballot initiative which means that it originated with the people of the state as opposed to the state legislature. The intent of initiative was to amend California’s constitution to reflect the preference for marriage of a man and a woman. In order for Prop 8 to even be on the ballot, those proposing it had to get ~694,000 signatures (they really got over a million). In order to really understand the broader picture of what this forthcoming ruling means for governmental structure in the broad sense, one must remember that Prop 8 was a measure pushed for by the people of California and then voted on by the people of California. In other words the people of a state decided what their policy was going to be on a particular issue and now the Supreme Court is reviewing the decision of the people of California (the standard should be incredibly high to overturn state law but that is another issue).

It is key to remove emotion from this issue. It is obvious that gay marriage gets many people very animated but in order to preserve our form of government, we must attempt to divorce from the emotional aspect. Let it be known that personally, I could care less who gets married. I do not see same sex couples being recognized by the state as any sort of threat to so called traditional marriage. To be quite honest, I abhor any government intrusion into this purely private institution. But, in the end, a state recognizing or performing same sex marriages does not offend me any more or less than a state doing the same for heterosexual couples.

But, like many other issues before the Court in recent memory, this case is really about the ability of the people of a state to determine their own fate. If the Court decides that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, the Court is effectively saying that states cannot determine what their respective policies on marriage are going to be. Conversely, it means that federal law is going to set the standard for each and every state. This is completely counter to the notion of the states being laboratories and testing grounds to see which policies work and which don’t. This case, while seemingly about marriage, is a litmus test for the health of the states’ rights versus the broadening of federal power. The states, while being originally setup as a barrier between the people and a national government, are increasingly being pushed into complete irrelevancy by the federal thirst for power. If, like me, you believe that centralized power is dangerous and must be prevented at all costs, you have your fingers firmly crossed that Prop 8 stands no matter how morally abhorrent you find it.

As a side note, most people who hate Prop 8 will classify this opinion as bigoted and homophobic (just as Scalia tends to be vilified for much the same reason). However, those in favor of same sex marriage must realize that there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. Taking the shortcut of having a popular state measure overturned in a federal court, while it may suit their goal for the short term, it will prove to be a stepping stone in ending this Constitutional Republic for it will stand for another area of law that is to be dictated at the federal level. Sure, when friendly forces occupy offices at the federal level, federal law will likely benefit you (or not harm you at the very least). But what happens when not-so-friendly folks occupy those same offices? It is only a matter of time, the political pendulum always swings back the other way (even in the case of Supreme Court justices).

The proper way to accomplish the goal of getting rid of Prop 8 in California is to plead your case to the people. The only way to change the currently law in California while preserving the ability of the states to act as a check on federal power is to get rid of Prop 8 at the state level. If you believe as I do, that opposition to same sex marriage is not one that stands up well to the test of time, all you have to do is have some patience and intestinal fortitude. Do the work that is required to convince your fellow Californians that the decision they made in 2008 was the wrong one. But please don’t fall for the promise of a quick fix at the federal level because you will put another brick in the ever growing wall that is the federal leviathan. 

The Damage We Can't Measure

By now we've had enough time to go through all the stages of grief over the Obamacare ruling. We have seen what the tax increases are going to look like once this abomination is implemented but what isn't being talked about are the unquantifiable costs that are bound to follow. There is the obvious cost of conservatives feeling more and more alienated by the professional left that sees us as nothing more than backwards folks who live in flyover-land but there is a much more serious consequence that must be considered; that of young people considering becoming doctors.

I have been talking to a few friends of mine who are thinking about going to medical school in the coming years and all of them are rightfully very concerned with what the ACA will mean for that profession. Most of them are not very political but, when it comes to this one issue, they are forced to be. This law affects every single person who is currently in or thinking about med school as it is a huge investment of both time and money. What the ACA has effectively done is introduce a huge element of uncertainty to the medical community, it has politicized medicine. I don't know about you but I want our best and brightest to enroll in med school but now the smartest people considering medical school are balking at making the investment because the prospect of being a doctor just got a whole lot hazier thanks to this law. Quoting one of my friends considering medical school: 

I love love love medicine. I would love to do surgery...but is it worth it? I don't want the government dictating how I run my practice. It will be a cold day in hell before I go to school for an additional 9 years to have that sh*t happen.  

Now you can try to argue the point of the author here about "the ACA doesn't dictate how doctors run their practices" but that would be missing the point which is that any intelligent person considering med school is trying to make a wise financial investment. The ACA has essentially raised the risk element of that investment to a high enough level that bright potential doctors-to-be are opting for more certain career choices and who can blame them? The effect of this won't be felt in 2013 or 2014 but much further down the line. The end result is a smaller pool of doctors, an overall lower quality of care, and generally less available healthcare for ALL Americans. This runs completely counter to the intentions behind the ACA, which was to provide healthcare to more Americans. I think a certain Milton Friedman quote sums it up:

One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.

I understand the good intent behind the law and I think conservatives embrace the good intentions (despite the left characterizing us as heartless) but we understand that there are better ways than using the sledgehammer that is the federal government to do the job of a scalpel.

I truly hope that the mistake that is the ACA is realized by those on both sides of the aisle who are rational enough to realize that this was not the way to achieve this goal. I fear, however, that too many folks are happy to blindly say that because the ACA is a victory for the political left that it is good policy. I fear that kind of stubborn political pride is going to keep this policy in place long enough to cause the American medical commnity irreparable damage. 

As they say, the path to hell is paved with good intentions....


And a final thought, here is an apt quote considering recent events: 
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Reagan

How the Administration Hoodwinked Us

This segment sums up how the President lied to all of us by selling us a bill of goods (the bill is not a tax, not a tax, I REPEAT, NOT A TAX) and then turning around and called it what it really was in court. It does it better than I ever could:

The Only Positive Message To Conservatives Today

Today is a rough day in the world of conservative politics. The Affordable Care Act has just been upheld as a Constitutional tax even though the Obama administration has stated repeatedly that it isn't a tax and the bulk of the House Democrats walked out on the the Holder contempt vote. 

But, if I may be cliché for a moment, remember that the night is darkest right before the dawn.... and our dawn is coming. Now it seems that the march towards bigger and bigger government has been in full swing for quite some time now and that lately it has accelerated exponentially. But, with that being said, us true conservatives can look at the extreme version of government control that has been championed by the Obama administration and see a silver lining. Bear with me here...

As the federal government starts doing things that are increasingly distasteful and unpalatable to the average American (who tends to be center-right), more and more of those average folks sit up and pay attention. If we look at what has happened just in the past year or so, we have seen the Obama care spectacle, the Fast and Furious insanity, the National Defense Authorization Act, the Department of Justice refusing to enforce federal immigration law in AZ, the Dept. of Homeland Security cutting ties to AZ law enforcement after the SCOTUS ruling about the AZ immigration law, the awful solar company investments, the Gibson guitar raids, SOPA and PIPA, Obama having a private "kill list", and the list continues on. If we just look at those few stories, we can see a steady march towards centralized government control that involves armed raids, turning assault weapons over to foreign criminals, detention of Americans by the military, and a standoff between a state and the federal government. These are all incredibly divisive stories for anyone keeping up with politics.     

But let's remember that elections are not decided by those of us who have our homepages set to Drudge, FreeRepublic, or DailyKos (shudder). Elections are decided by cabinetmakers in Indiana, farmers in Iowa, factory workers in Ohio, web-designers in CA, and little old ladies in Florida. These folks generally don't give a damn about what the DoJ is doing or how many rounds of golf the President has played during his term (its up to 101 as of today) but they do care when they hear about the head of the nation's law enforcement has been held in contempt by Congress. They do care when they hear that their money is being wasted on junk investments. And they REALLY care when they are forced to purchase something or face a penalty.

So what we have in the year or so behind us are a ton of instances of average folks hearing more and more about how far left the federal government has gotten. For those of us who have lived and worked in DC, we know how bad it has been for quite some time but now that has risen to the "in your face" level. These kinds of stories are covered on nightly news and in local papers. They are impossible to ignore. 

So let's get back to today. Everyone was watching DC today and the liberals certainly didn't disappoint. Between gloating over the SC decision (and some more gloating) over the ACA and the House Democrats creating a circus featuring race as its main attraction, those on the left of the aisle look like bullies who are spiking the proverbial football after scoring a touchdown. (Side note: I always say that you can judge a group who competes by how graciously they win. If you look all over Twitter and Facebook today, you'll see how gracious the winners today are.) This won't sit right with the average folks. For the most part, people do not agree with Obamacare so they lost today. When people lose, they don't like their noses rubbed in it and that is exactly what is happening here. This drives people away from the message of the President and the DNC and the only other game in town? Romney. (I gagged while writing that)

Before today, I said I would vote for Ron Paul come hell or high water but today has changed my tune and I imagine I am not alone in this. Today has turned the November election into more aggressive Left leaning policies versus ?. I say ? because that is what Romney is, he is a giant question mark, an enigma. He flip flops, changes his tune, and avoids taking a position like it’s his job (oh wait, it is his job). But more and more folks (you can include me as of today) are willing to role the dice and vote for the unknown over the known commodity of Barrack Obama. The logic is something along the lines of "I know I can't stand what Obama has done while in office and there is no possible way Romney could be worse than this." I, for one, am willing to roll those dice and take that bet. I know that in his first term, Barrack has made giant strides towards "fundamentally transforming" America. We have to keep in mind that Obama, who always has campaigning on the brain, championed all of the above while still worried about being re-elected (kinda). So what is going to happen when he isn't concerned about re-election? That is what scares me and that is why I have changed my tune and have decided not only to vote for Romney but also to donate to his campaign. I saw a quote today along the lines of "donate to the Romney like your future depends on it..... because it does." After the exhibition of today, I can not think of a more appropriate sentiment on which to end.

Thank you for reading and I HOPE things begin to CHANGE.

Well I've been "off the air" for awhile and there's a very good reason for that. I've had a quasi-epiphany when it comes to politics. There is little to no point in me getting all huffy about these issues like I have in the past. Quoting Jeremy Clarkson, arguing politics is "like blowing on an oil rig fire". It does no good for, even before I open my mouth, people already agree with what I'm about to say or they disagree. I sincerely doubt I have even changed someone's mind about an issue. What it boils down to is people either believe that the government should assume all responsibility or they believe the government is an overgrown bully who takes your lunch money (as I and my family and friends believe). The latter already agree with me so my rants do no good there and the former refuse to change their beliefs (or, more typically, don't read my postings at all). It is rare to find any audience member with an open enough mind to be critical of their own views and beliefs (I consider myself to have this ability most of the time). So what good am I doing if I am just supporting already held beliefs and not enlightening anyone?

I have to admit that I do enjoy writing about societal issues. It allows me to think things through better than if I just do it in my own head (it's a scary place, trust me). So, right now, I am considering if I should even continue writing at all. If I do, there will be a drastic change in subject matter. I will write more about entertainment, cars (including British car television shows), issues that my generation face, and random crap that happens to me. So we shall see if anything comes from this. In any event, I feel I am a more informed individual for keeping this site up and running. Thanks for reading and stay tuned next week to see if I'm back.

Cheers

Classless Eco-Mentalists

The caption at the top reads "The Tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11".

Really classy WWF. Whoever made this ad should be fired and then hunted down by an angry mob (led by me)

Tomorrow

The Most Essential Skill of Any President

I think everyone, no matter what political party they aspire to, can agree that the most crucial skill for any President is to surround themselves with intelligent advisers who will guide them to the best decisions. Kennedy did this with McNamara and his own brother (who did deserve the job). Bush "did" this with Rove and Cheney (good choices? probably not). But I see this as Obama's serious downfall. I know I don't agree with any of his policies, but, barring that little detail, he can't seem to appoint an adviser that hasn't evaded taxes or done something extremely reckless politically.

Back in March of last year, Samantha Power (Obama's foreign policy advisor) called Hillary Clinton a "monster" (forget for a minute that she was right, you still can't say that and hope to have a job under the President of the United States). Also, last March, it came to light another foreign policy adviser Rob Mailey, had been meeting continually with the terrorist group Hamas. And then we have Tim Geithner who evaded large amounts of taxes. Then we have Bill Richardson (corruption), Nancy Killefer (payroll tax evasion), Hilda Solis (tax evasion), and Tom Daschle (more tax evasion). You starting to get the picture yet?

The latest in this trend of poorly thought through and piss poorly vetted advisers (or czars if you prefer the Soviet term like Obama does) is that of Van Jones (read about him here and here), the Green Jobs Czar. He came out last week with all guns blazing and called all Republicans "assholes" (they generally are but you can't say that on the record and hope to hold a political office). He also signed the 9/11 Truth petition arguing that the Bush administration either turned a blind eye to 9/11 or perpetrated the attack themselves (which could be the case but you don't want a special adviser to the President holding that belief). He also founded the ColorofChange.org which "addressed black issues" (aka he's a racist).

Now, I am torn over the "assholes" comment. I believe that people should be able to say whatever they want and if that was Jones's only slip up, I would have wanted to keep him around. But he's a racist and a conspiracy theorist, good riddance.

But this highlights a bigger problem. Obama cannot choose staff intelligently (a simple Google or Wikipedia search would have told him all he needed to know about Van Jones). This scares me more than his socialist-leaning policies. I think the ability to choose your comrades is the most important ability a President has to have....... and Boh'Rock ain't got it.

A parting thought: Maybe Obama needs a Czar for Appointments of Czars

The GM Volt Revisited

Awhile back I wrote about GM's new hybrid, The Volt (here's my write up: http://daily-cynic.blogspot.com/2009/08/getting-away-from-politics-for-minute.html)

As those who know me personally know, I am a huge car guy and, more specifically, an avid Audi enthusiast (have been since I was 16 with my first A4 which was followed by my father's S6 and now my new S4). The reason I mention Audi in relation to GM's Volt is that Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen just came out with a prediction that the Volt will "fall flat" and "the federal government, having publicly forced GM to develop electric cars, will subsidize the Volt to save face and boost sales." See the entire article here: http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=1247701 .
You know what? He's 100% right. I pointed out in my article on the subject that the Volt had no advantage over existing hybrids like the Prius or Honda Insight. I didn't really go into why hybrids are terrible investments and not the best choice if you are a true environmentalist but de Nysschen goes as far as saying people who buy hybrids over more fuel efficient, practical, and powerful diesels are "the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are" (as Jay Leno says "here in America, we like to make known the good deeds we are doing annonymously"). He hit the nail on the head again. The big draw to hybrids is PR. People value the appearance of being environmentally friendly over actually being environmentally friendly. Hypocrites, all of em.

The question for the Volt is are the faux environmentalists willing to pay up to $15k over the price of Japanese hybrids for an American product? My answer: No. Japanese cars usually have a higher snob appeal than American cars. The hierarchy of snob appeal for cars goes like this: Italian>German>British>Japanese>American, at least in my book. So I sincerely doubt the Volt will take any significant market share away from Toyota or Honda with the Volt. If there were charging a lower price than the Japs, then it might, but definitely not when GM is selling at a premium.

The final question brought up by de Nysschen is that of "the federal government, having publicly forced GM to develop electric cars, will subsidize the Volt to save face and boost sales." I think this will make or break the Volt because it will effectively price the Volt below its Japanese rivals and that is probably enough to shift sales to GM. Judging by our government's recent actions (and the fact that Boh'Rock feels he has the right to run GM), this subsidy is a pretty safe bet so you can expect to see some solid sales numbers as a result.

The Volt is already a failure in my book even if it does sell well as a result of government intervention.

You People Make Me Sick

Remind you of anything?



Anyone that pledges to a single person (outside of marriage) is no more than a drone.

Now I understand that most of what was said in the first video were things we can agree on about being nicer and all that feel good stuff, but there were quite a few things in there that are political in nature. And that is how this crap starts, make everyone feel good about following a leader (this is EXACTLY what the Nazis did in Germany, got everyone to feel good about being German and following Hitler). After the people are following the leader, the leader starts to make bolder and bolder policies and without anyone to challenge those policies and decisions, he is free to do pretty much whatever he wants (no one really protested Hitler's international belligerence or treatment of the Jews). So the question is, where does Obama want to take this?