Follow me on Twitter Entries RSS

Dolphin’s Dock

Intriguing

May 6, 2010

Filed under Politics

I’ve nothing of worth to add, I just found this very intriguing.

On balance, Republicans view ‘libertarian’ negatively, Democrats are divided, while independents have a positive impression of the term.

Have Your Say

* required

Note: This post is over 3 months old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.

Choices

January 26, 2010

Filed under Politics

I usually don’t get caught up in the abortion topic. I certainly have my views, but as hot button issues go, I don’t get as worked up over abortion as most (on either side). But I can’t help but think Focus on the Family is kinda accidentally running an ad for their opposition during this year’s Super Bowl.

Tim Tebow may go down in history as the greatest college football player who ever lived. And to think none of that would have happened if not for a decision his mother made nearly 23 years ago.

That is the message of a controversial new ad starring Tebow and his mother, Pam.

Isn’t Tebow’s very existence evidence that we DON’T need to criminalize abortion? Here we have a mother who, when given the choice, decided not to have an abortion. Is it just me or is that a shining example of how people can make (what one assumes FotF thinks is) the “right” choice without being compelled to do it against their will?

Have Your Say

* required

Note: This post is over 7 months old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.

What do you know?

August 18, 2009

Filed under Politics

Republicans were in favor of “death panels” before they were against them.

Have Your Say

* required

Note: This post is over a year old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.

What’s wrong with a “death panel” anyhow?

August 13, 2009

Filed under Politics

There’s been some hoopla lately that the health care bill, making it’s way through Congress now, calls for “death panels” (a moniker coined by opponents of the bill) for Medicare recipients. Now, if a “death panel” were what it sounds like, I obviously understand the problem, but when you actually look at the provision opponents are referring to a “death panels,” I can’t help but think it’s a fantastic idea. The provision referred to actually sets up funding for optional consulting on end-of-life issues (like living wills and advanced care preparations) for Medicare recipients.

My parents have recently been through this with my grandfather. They were burning through money for in-home nurses, electric wheel chairs (and building ramps for them to get in the house), and other medical expenses. On top of it, they had to hire lawyers to work out alot of the end-of-life preparations that make a difficult time at least somewhat smoother to get through. Wouldn’t it have been nice if Medicare could have covered some of that?

The reality is that all of us will die one day. Our hearts will stop beating, our synapses will stop firing and our bodies will start to rot. It’s a fact. Any preparations made in advance for how things should be handled in our final days (or even hours) make things that much easier for us and our loved ones. If you want to call providing the option to protect yourself and your family during your final days a “death panel” then where do I sign up?

One Response to “What’s wrong with a “death panel” anyhow?”

  1. The opponents did a masterful job of changing this phrase from its original meaning, at least as far as Palin’s original reference.
    She was originally referring to government beaurocrats deciding whether you qualified for a given treatment, much like the British determination of “meaningful years of life”. So if you’re 85, you don’t get the titanium hip because you’re going to die soon anyway. She was saying that, for example, you would be too old to get the very expensive treatment that would prolong your life, hence a “death panel”. The left changed that to be end of life care options, which personally I’m in favor of too, but apparently a bunch of conservatives are against.

Have Your Say

* required

Note: This post is over a year old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.

Olbermann Miss The Point

May 19, 2009

Filed under Gay Rights, Politics

Ok fine, RNC Chair, Micheal Steele’s assertion that gay marriage will cost small business owners in the form of spousal benefits does blatantly ignore the billions that will be pumped into the economy by the addition of gay weddings. Fair enough, and I do certainly appreciate just how much of an ally to the gay community Olbermann has been lately. But if it’s even valid to argue the economics of human rights, Steele’s argument misses the mark in a big way and bothering to argue the other side only serves to validate the faulty framework Steele set up in the first place.

It’s really quite simple. Economically, there is not gay marriage and straight marriage, there is only marriage. Gay people make up approximately 10% of society. Any economic argument for or against gay marriage applies to straight marriage times nine. If the GOP wants to argue that gay marriage is just too expensive, then, by default, they are making the argument that straight marriage is just too expensive by a much wider margin. Steele can’t argue that he wishes to ban gay marriage for economic reasons without simultaneously arguing that he wants to ban straight marriage even more (9X more). If “nobody should be able to get married, period” is the message the GOP wants to sell, more power to them, but I doubt it’s a winning platform.

Have Your Say

* required

Note: This post is over a year old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.

Future of the GOP. One Can Hope.

April 17, 2009

Filed under Gay Rights, Politics

A few prominent members from John McCain’s family and campaign are stepping forward to try and persuade the Republican Party that hating gays is no longer a winning strategy.

Few would disagree that the GOP is in disarray right now. One faction will eventually rise and take control (or the whole party could go under, but I somehow doubt that). I think there’s good reason to think that more socially moderate voices such as the McCains and Schmidt will win out over the Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins. Don’t get me wrong, the GOP will remain socially conservative, but the more extreme examples of social conservatism stand a good chance of falling by the wayside.

Younger conservatives really just aren’t that concerned with social issues; even among the religious right. Abortion is still a biggie, but not so much as it was for the parents of this new generation. Opposition to gay rights is relatively small and dispassionate among the younger GOP. If the GOP wants to re-achieve a majority, it will court these younger conservatives by easing off on it’s focus on social issues. If it doesn’t, then it will continue to lose until such time as it DOES listen to the Meghan McCain’s and Steve Schmidts of the party.

2 Responses to “Future of the GOP. One Can Hope.”

  1. Well first off rights do not belong to groups, they belong to individuals; only individuals have rights.

    And secondly, if the government can define “marriage” then what else about our families can they control? Will the bureaucrats, and politicians eventually try to define “love”? I should hope not.

    Marriage is a contract between consenting individuals. The government should have nothing to do with it and the very idea that one must ask permission to marry is a direct insult to our freedom. In fact the implication of having to attain a license to marry is that marriage is a privilege granted by the government. A privilege is the opposite of a right because rights are inherent and do not require permission. Even the Constitution recognizes our unlimited right to contract.

    The best plan?
    Leave the government out of it. And you’re right that the Republican Party and my fellow conservatives should adopt this philosophy. Besides, one cannot call themselves a “conservative” if they advocate big government intrusion into the personal lives of consenting adults. If the government is powerful enough to force one group of morals upon another group, then it is powerful enough to trample the rights of all individuals.

    ______________
    DISCLAIMER:
    Nothing I communicate is to be considered an official statement representative of any organization I belong to or am an officer of, including the Campaign for Liberty, Republican Liberty Caucus, WTN, Liberty on the Rocks, America’s Future Foundation, The Tennessee Liberty Alliance, or the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party. My opinions are my own.
    Edit/Delete Message

  2. I’m glad that Meghan McCain is as vocal as she is about LGBT issues. Sure, she enjoys the attention because it helps cement her role as a freshly minted pundit, but she’s sincere, and it’s encouraging to see that her opinions are making news. Besides, anybody named McCain seems to naturally enrage the religious right, so any time she’s in the news I enjoy knowing that she’s sending fundie blood pressure readings through the roof.

Have Your Say

* required

Note: This post is over a year old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.

Quote of the Day

February 3, 2009

Filed under Humor, Politics

Who knew the funniest (and most accurate?) thing I’d read all day would be related to Micheal Phelps smoking a bong.

In the meantime, I merely note that this broken wreck of a man’s failure to win any more than a pathetic fourteen Olympic gold medals (so far) is a terrifying warning of the horrific damage that cannabis can do to someone’s health—and a powerful reminder of just how sensible the drug laws really are.

Have Your Say

* required

Note: This post is over a year and a half old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.

Next Year?

January 23, 2009

Filed under Humor, Politics

I had Inauguration Day off this year as a company holiday. I took the opportunity to get my haircut during the work day when I knew they wouldn’t be busy. The following is (more or less) an actual conversation I had while out.

Me: I had the day off for the Inauguration so I thought I’d beat the crowds.

Stylist: That’s nice, it’s always pretty empty here until about 6. Did you take the day off to watch the inauguration?

Me: Well, I did watch the inauguration ceremony but it was actually one of our company holidays for 2009, which I think is a kinda strange day to have off, but I’m not complaining.

Stylist: So do you think you’ll get Inauguration day off next year too?

Me: Umm… …there’s only an inauguration every four years.

Stylist: Oh.

Have Your Say

* required

Note: This post is over a year and a half old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.

Congratulations

January 20, 2009

Filed under Politics, Splashes

America welcomes the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Obama!

Have Your Say

* required

Note: This post is over a year and a half old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.

War on Warren

December 18, 2008

Filed under Gay Rights, Politics

Ok, I’ll probably lose both my gay and liberal credentials with this post, but I just don’t understand the outrage over Rick Warren’s selection to give the invocation at the inauguration. I mean, I’m not happy about it, but it’s not really upsetting me either. He’s being asked to say one prayer folks, it’s not like it’s a cabinet position. And I don’t feel like I’m just shilling for Obama either; in fact, it may well be because I’ve never really looked at Obama as all that much different than any other politician as the reason this didn’t really catch me off guard as it seems to have for some.

Of course, it shouldn’t have caught anybody off guard, I don’t think. Isn’t this precisely the thing Obama promised to do; reach across the aisle, acknowledge all Americans, etc? While I absolutely understand, and consider valid, the argument that we risk legitimizing abhorrent views when we honor those who hold them, I’m not convinced the risk is that great here. Were Obama to pick James Dobson, I’d absolutely be singing a different tune. Dobson is KNOWN for his hate. He’s based his entire career on it. Warren has some hateful views and has said some hateful things, but hate is not so inextricably linked to him that one cannot acknowledge positive attributes about him without validating the hate.

I don’t see having Warren come give a non-controversial prayer (if he injects socially conservative issues into it, it’s a different story altogether) as a acceptance, promotion, or even tolerance of his objectionable views. Rather, it’s offering a role in working together on what we can agree on, and I can’t find much wrong with that. As I said, it’s a prayer, not a cabinet position. There’s no power to the role. I don’t want Rick Warren making policy, but if there are parts of an Obama presidency that he can agree with, I for one don’t mind letting him have a part.

3 Responses to “War on Warren”

  1. Well, besides the fact that Warren is who he is and says what he says, there is the feeling that Obama tried to game his own inauguration by trying to pick up some theocrat brownie points via the pick (at the expense of gays), rather than to strive to find the least offensive preacher possible for what is supposed to be an historic and unifying national event.

    Compare: Billy Graham may have been no champion of gay marriage, but he reached the heights he reached precisely because of his non-divisive, milquetoast approach to faith in the public square.

    Warren is about as far from that as is Louis Farakhan.

  2. P.S. I’m still not convinced that the blame doesn’t belong more to Feinstein and Pelosi than to Obama. We just don’t know how the choice was actually made.

  3. I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, the whole thing is just, to me anyways, not worthy of the outrage it’s generating.

    Oh, and it may have been Feinstein and Pelosi’s choice, but I do suspect that if Obama had been dead-set against it, it would not have moved forward.

Have Your Say

* required

Note: This post is over a year and a half old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.