Post by Robert Braun on Aug 22, 2005 14:06:16 GMT -5
**The following is a statement of personal opinion***
Some of the "talking heads' commentators have begun to pick up on a recent trend that I picked up on some time ago. Not wanting to be "scooped" entirely, I'll quickly weigh in...
What is up with the sudden influx of political topics that are suddenly above and beyond contrary comment, just because the orator(s) is/are or appear to be safely ensconced on some kind of moral high ground?
These topics include:
In my own opinion, when you act illegally, or act like an idiot when all the while claiming an absolute "moral imperative", you lose the moral high ground. Period.
(Unless of course, CBS, Good Morning America or the New York Times agrees with you... )
**This has been a statement of personal opinion.***
Some of the "talking heads' commentators have begun to pick up on a recent trend that I picked up on some time ago. Not wanting to be "scooped" entirely, I'll quickly weigh in...
What is up with the sudden influx of political topics that are suddenly above and beyond contrary comment, just because the orator(s) is/are or appear to be safely ensconced on some kind of moral high ground?
These topics include:
- "voter i. d. cards" (recently vetoed by Wisconsin's "Emperor" Doyle, as part of yet another package of "d.o.a." bills submitted by our "d.o.a." legislature; Georgia had a similar law up for debate, and various legislators harkened the act to the "return of Jim Crow Laws, sang slavery songs, and plunked a set of shackles down on a sponsor's desk.
Last time I checked, you STILL need to show an i.d. card to cash a check or rent a video, regardless of ones' ethnic background or social status. SO if you need one anyway, how will requiring one to reduce occasional but clearly documented instances of votor fraud be "disenfranchising" to this or that segment of our society? - Native Hawaiian Sovereignity... Yes, this is the LATEST, in a series of raced-based initiatives that have come down the pike in recent years. A bill known as the "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act" and sponsored by Senator Daniel Akaka from what is STILL known as the "50th State" is snaking its way through the Senate. Essentially, it allows native Hawaiians to set up and set aside their own provisional governing council, seperate and distinct for the U. S. Government! Some Hawaiians wants the same "protections" given to native Indian tribes, without having to go through the legal process necessary to determine and identify tribal entity and descendancy-- since when is a "tribe" established by Congressional legislation? Their claim is based on the "depredations" of their island and people at the hands of those 'dirty' Americans-- the overthrow of the last Hawaiian queen occured in 1893; apparently it took more than 100 years for sovereignity to be a "good idea?" Never mind the fact that Hawaii ist a STATE and not a protectorate, like Puerto Rico, and the bill is certainly and profoundly excluded by the U. S. Constitution's 15th Amendment. Apparently these facts weren't enough to stay the support of SIX Republican senators, all of whom are apparently vying for "Moron of the Year." But point these facts out, and you are tarred with being a racist anti-Hawaiian, without ever a need to discuss the patent illegalities involved in the sovereignity "movement."
- Sorry... I've waited long enough. This Cindy Sheehan "anti-war mom" thing has mutated and spun its way into nothing what it started to be: a heartbroken mother's anguish over a son's loss. I'm curious, at what point does her vitriol against both the president and our country-- potentiated by the "prestiege media" (who never shrinks from inventing the news) and several "left of the left" organizations-- remove from her any moral authority her son's death certainly merited? Some examples of Cindy's comments might be instructive: "Bush crime family," "evil bastards in the administration," "f***ing hypocrites," "biggest terrorist in the world," that the United States is "waging a nuclear war" in Iraq, etc., etc. All of this is left unchallenged by the prestiege media, and passed on as "mother's grief"-- as if the mother's greif harbored by women who do not agree with Cindy to be of unequal, even lower value. (BTW Cindy, the president DID personally meet with you-- a priviledge hundreds of other families who have suffered losses in Afghanistan and Iraq have not enjoyed. There's even a picturre from that event circulating on the web.)
Last time I checked, you STILL need to show an i.d. card to cash a check or rent a video, regardless of ones' ethnic background or social status. SO if you need one anyway, how will requiring one to reduce occasional but clearly documented instances of votor fraud be "disenfranchising" to this or that segment of our society?In my own opinion, when you act illegally, or act like an idiot when all the while claiming an absolute "moral imperative", you lose the moral high ground. Period.
(Unless of course, CBS, Good Morning America or the New York Times agrees with you... )
**This has been a statement of personal opinion.***