Friday, June 29, 2007

Just when you thought you heard it all . . .

By now the whole world pretty much knows that the infamous "immigration reform bill of 2007" (a.k.a. Bush/Kennedy bill of 2007) is now dead in the water. This was covered so much, that I decided not to really hit on it in the blog world. But I read a small article today that made me chuckle, so here it is in all of its glory.

In an article seen here, L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa was incredibly disappointed, saying that "Our elected leaders -- people who are supposed to stand up on behalf of Americans -- were bullied by a small contingent of hate-mongering anti- immigrants completely unrepresentative of the larger American public, which continues to call for just, humane and effective solutions." He also said that 70% of Americans supported the legislature. This, despite poll after poll after poll (you get the point) stating otherwise.

He was probably reading another brilliantly drafted LA Times poll to distort the real views of the American people.

Monday, June 25, 2007

Military service of Presidential candidates

I was on HuffPo's blog today and there was an article making a huge ordeal about Mitt Romney's deferment from military service while he was serving as a missionary for the LDS church.. Apparently, getting a deferment and then years later, saying anything supporting the military at war makes you a hypocrite and a criminal in liberals eyes.

Additionally, it's an issue that some of the Republican candidates have not served in the military. They point to Rudy Giuliani since he received multiple educational and work deferrals. Well, I am not a huge fan of Giuliani, so I will go ahead and let that one go. He had an opportunity I am sure most of us would have taken to establish a career, and he did not serve. And this is the big sticking point of democrats and liberals.

So, I have taken the liberty of compiling a list of both parties' candidates and their military service. I would like to point out the following. First, out of the top 3 for Democrats (Clinton, Edwards, Obama), none have served, and only one had a small possibility of being drafted. Of the top 3 for Republicans (Romney, Giuliani, McCain), 1 is a veteran, and the other 2 received draft numbers, but did not get called.

I find a few things interesting about this research. First of all, I remember during the Clinton/Bush election, not serving in the military was really not a major factor in being an effective Commander-in-Chief. Now, it seems to be a big requirement (except if you are a Democrat candidate).

Second, I note that no Democrat who did not go through a period of time with a draft volunteered nonetheless.

Third, I see 4 Republican candidates are veterans. There is 1 Democrat veteran and one reservist (who might be considered a veteran). Add in Chuck Hagel on the Republican side, and you now get 5.

Lastly- I see deferments and medical disqualifications on both sides.

Anyway, the next time you hear this as an argument, or cut on Republicans, feel free to use this list.

DEMOCRATS

Joe Biden: None. Rejected for medical reasons, but would have been eligible in a national emergency.
Hillary Rodham Clinton: None.
Chris Dodd: Army Reserve (1969-75).
John Edwards: None. Draft number was never called.
Dennis Kucinich: None. Was rejected for military service because of a heart murmur.
Barack Obama: None. Too young to have been drafted for the Vietnam War.
Bill Richardson: None. Received student and medical classifications. Draft number was never called.
Mike Gravel: Served in the Army in the 1950s.


REPUBLICANS

Sam Brownback: None. Came of age as draft was ending.
Rudy Giuliani: None. Received student and occupational deferments. Draft number was never called.
Mike Huckabee: None. Came of age as draft was ending.
Duncan Hunter: Served as an Army paratrooper and Ranger in Vietnam (1969-71).
John McCain: Served in the Navy (1958-81); prisoner of war in Vietnam (1967-73).
Mitt Romney: None. Received a deferment as a Mormon missionary in France. Was eligible for the draft upon his return to the states but was never selected.
Tom Tancredo: None. Received student deferments. Was available for military service in 1969. Reclassified in 1970 because of stress-related anxiety and could have been called up only during a pressing national emergency.
Jim Gilmore: Served in the Army in West Germany.
Ron Paul: Served as an Air Force surgeon.

Friday, June 8, 2007

Paris Hilton, back in the clink




I am sure anyone who reads this will have already had more than their fill of this developing story, but it begs the question, why is everyone treating this story as though it is a life sentence?

I read this article commenting on the minute-by-minute details, including where Paris yelled "it's not fair!" and "Mom", after Judge Sauer (gasp), told her to finish her ORIGINAL jail sentence! Imagine that! The story was complete with her parents holding each other and her Mother crying in her husband's arms.

Read one interpretation here. My favorite line is: Paris Hilton's cool, glamorous image evaporated Friday as she gave the impression of a little girl lost in a merciless legal system.

What amazes me is how people seem to accept Paris as a normal human being. She is completely detached from reality. Here is someone who has never really worked a day in her life, got any "modeling" or "acting" career solely out of who she is and who her Dad is. Don't tell me that any show or shoot she has participated in was back breaking work.

The realy story behind this story is that she does not believe the law applies to her, as do most socialites who do not live in th everyday world. And as a result of this assumption of entitlement and the "I'm special! Look at me!" attitute, she cannot deal with being away from her privileged life for a month and a half. Considering that she will never serve the full 45 days, I highly doubt there is any real "medical" reason why Hilton cannot finish her just imprisonment.

Friday, June 1, 2007

Islam in San Diego public schools

I was perusing around on a local website and came across an article from April, 2007 regarding a public school (Carver Elementary) in San Diego, offering an Arabic class. A substitute teacher became alarmed when she was provided with a lesson plan that included a segregated class for Muslim girls and an hour for prayer. The article points out that according to the U.S. Department of Education, students may pray in school during recess, the lunch hour, or other non-instruction time, and that teachers may participate only when it is clear they are not endorsing or participating in their official capacities. This substitute teacher saw clear violations. Of course, according to the district, she “obviously” misread the curriculum and that prayer was only during recess.

While you think about that, please now reflect on another article I read recently about a case in Texas. Here is the gist: a school offers an elective course which discusses a generalized version of religion using the King James version of the bible.


According to the ACLU:

"This class is not about educating students. It is about proselytizing one set of religious beliefs to the exclusion of others," said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "Students who don't share those beliefs should not be treated as outsiders by their own schools."

Hmmmm . . . The Texas class offers a generalized version of religion which does not generally follow a particular religious viewpoint that shared by Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and many Protestants. In other words, it is so general and not directed at one faith that it is a directed viewpoint. Makes perfect sense. The ACLU views this is controversial and unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, the California class offers a review of a particular faith, including prayer with prayer mats, segregated classes, girls dressed in traditional garb, total secrecy with closed doors and drawn shades and the removal of the American flag. And that is just fine. Not a word from the ACLU.

Another point of contention is that “the public school course unconstitutionally uses the Bible to instill religious life lessons, having students memorize biblical passages and then discuss how they have affected their lives . . .”. I reflect back to another California controversy (from 2002, I might add) where Northern California schools offered a class where kids would memorize verses of the Koran, in addition to other such “educational” gems as dressing in traditional Muslim dress and praying in “the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful”.

Final note: the textbook used in the course presents Islam in a positive light whereas Christianity gets a negative spin.

You have to love the hypocrisy.