I see my mechanic a lot because my car is always breaking down.
I spoke to him this week about the effect of gas prices.
He lives in Sherman Oaks and works in zip code 90035.
He said that a year ago, it took him 90 minutes to get home at night. Since gas prices skyrocketed, it’s taken him about 40 minutes, on average, to get home.
He said that when gas prices hit $3 a gallon, his shop did not get its first call that Saturday until 3 pm.
Business has been way down because of higher gas prices.
Perhaps the most important argument against same-sex marriage is that once society honors same-sex sex as it does man-woman sex, there will inevitably be a major increase in same-sex sex. People do sexually (as in other areas) what society allows and especially what it honors.
One excellent example illustrating this is an article recently written in the McGill University newspaper by McGill student Anna Montrose. In it, she wrote:
It’s hard to go through four years of a Humanities B.A. reading Foucault and Butler and watching ‘The L Word’ and keep your rigid heterosexuality intact. I don’t know when it happened exactly, but it seems I no longer have the easy certainty of pinning my sexual desire to one gender and never the other.
(Michel Foucault is a major French "postmodern" philosopher; Judith Butler is a prominent "gender theorist" at UC Berkeley; and "The L-Word" is a popular TV drama about glamorous lesbians.)
I interviewed Anna Montrose, a bright and articulate 22-year-old woman, on my syndicated radio show. She is a fine example of the type of thinking and behavior a homosexuality-celebrating culture — such as that at our universities — produces.
But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.
First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Mr. Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition’s wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."
The reason for this change is obvious – to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition’s language to favor his own social views. What Mr. Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society – people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays – to now think of themselves as bigots.
According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a ‘striking’ impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it."
What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.
And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.
The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: "Prop 8 = Prop Hate."It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal – proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As the New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited."
But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That’s why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate."
Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.
It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate – because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?
These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.
The Los Angeles Times ran two stories about the California marriage proposition that deal heavily with religion. The first is a puff piece — a pro-same-sex marriage press release, really — about the gay weddings a rabbi has performed…
If you can imagine reading 39 paragraphs of that, feel free to go check out the whole thing. You can learn all about how wonderful same-sex marriage is in breathtaking detail and you can avoid learning about any religious, moral or philosophical opposition to it.
The other story is, thankfully, much more critical and incisive. It is, of course, about proponents of Proposition 8 — which would define marriage in California as an arrangement for one male and one female. Right after the California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, media polls showed that the proposition had very little support. But apparently the battle is closer than was predicted and we’re seeing a ton of stories about these people who somehow support the proposition.
The story begins with an anecdotal lede about Melissa Huff, a young woman who is part of a communal Christian home engaged in fasting and prayer about the issue:
“God, we are asking for an awakening,” she prayed one recent afternoon, standing before a group of young people who had come together to ask for divine intervention in California’s upcoming election.
Next to her, another woman, whose blunt black hair and fashionable clothing would not have been out of place at a Silver Lake club, added her own prayer: “I am asking for rains of revival to open up over California.”
Huff and about three dozen others in their 20s and early 30s have spent every waking minute since Sept. 24 at a San Diego County megachurch praying for the passage of Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The story handles the community and their life of prayer respectfully but isn’t overly flattering or sympathetic. Most of the story, in fact, is about the group and not about the particular issue they’re praying about right now.
But the story also does the simple thing that was lacking in the previous story. We hear from people who disagree with the group:
The praying and fasting have discomfited some religious leaders who oppose Proposition 8.
“I am a person of prayer,” said the Rev. Susan Russell, a lesbian and a priest at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena. But she said she does not believe prayer is “a weapon to be used to influence the political process.”
That, she said, “takes us down a slippery slope from democracy to theocracy.”
I don’t imagine her views about prayer and a hard link to theocracy are shared by many, but at least we get the quote and the perspective. That’s part of journalism.
Monday night. Fifty five degrees out. Too cold. Staying in. Running late. What’s the use of going to shul?
Tuesday morning. Failure. Failure. Failure. I feel like a failure. I feel like I’m swirling down the toilet of life.
On that happy note, let’s go to shul.
Tuesday night. I’m swirling. I’m swinging. I’m spinning. I’m the outside man on a daisy wheel and we’re racing around the bima. As the outside man, I have to cover more ground. I have to run faster. I have to avoid crashing into the ark and through the mehitza into the ladies’ section.
I’m spinning faster and faster. If I let go, I’ll spin out of control. I’ll crash and burn.
I must hold tight.
I mustn’t let go.
Must not.
Go.
Ten PM. Fifth hakafot. Time for a change.
I stride east on Pico Blvd and then south on Robertson to the Shtibl Minyan. There’s a high level of fervor. Men dance with women and the Torah. There’s a Sikh bloke with a purple turban. I wonder if he was born Jewish?
There’s divrei Torah about finding a place for women in the tradition. The crowd is largely American Jewish University students and faculty and friends and lovers.
These were once my people.
I feel renewed hope for the Conservative movement. It will be blessed by beautiful rabbis.
I stay in my shell and don’t say more than a few words to anyone. I don’t want to pull a muscle or sprain an ankle or make a fool of myself.
I feel like the world is coming down on my head. I must stay quiet and calm and collected. I must conserve my inner resources. Still my inner drama queen.
Don’t say anything dumb.
Go home. Lie down. Be still.
Boys don’t cry.
guest36: Luke: so where do you daven now?
YourMoralLeader: various
guest36: why were you booted?
YourMoralLeader: on my blog, ‘coz i outed that 18yo jina davidovich
guest36: thought because you posted about the lawsuit, or did that come afterward?
YourMoralLeader: yeah, that too
guest36: guess being politically correct doesn’t extend to a Rabbi’s widow
guest36: maybe if she vowed to buy a hybrid, they would give her some money
guest36: at the rate you’re going, you’ll end up at a Persian minyan and then you’ll have to blog in Farsi
YourMoralLeader: you in the hood?
guest36: unfortunately
YourMoralLeader: why dont you like it here?
guest36: have you tried driving down Pico on a Friday pm?
guest36: This community at one time was liveable
YourMoralLeader: got any scoop for me?
guest36: Trust me, there are very few secrets in the hood
guest36: So how does a shul tell you to stay away?
guest36: Is it email, letter, in person, phone?
YourMoralLeader: email
guest36: did you post it?
YourMoralLeader: no
YourMoralLeader: i hope to get back in
guest36: Why? I’ve been trying to get out for years
guest36: Maybe you can return to Death Jacob and they won’t recognize you with the beard
I wonder if the Democrats will try to extend this to the internet?
Brian C. Anderson writes for the New York Post:
SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine – and to diminish conservatives’ influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.
Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn’t seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan’s FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats – including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore – strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."
Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It’s doubtful.
The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It’s a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.
Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham’s, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don’t do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.
From an authoritative and comprehensive post at zomblog (don’t even think of suggesting that this is a photo-shopped fake, because you’ll just make an utter fool of yourself if you do)(h/t Ace), here is a photograph of the short book review written by then Illinois state senator Barack Obama for Bill Ayers’ then-new book, A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court, as published on page 5 of section 14 of the Chicago Tribune on Sunday, December 21, 1997:
Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee, says that by electing an inexperienced untested candidate in Obama, the world will immediately test America.
What a gift to the Republicans!
Which tough guys will fear Obama? Not many.
The world will want to test what it can get away with as Obama takes office.
Joe Biden is a gaffe machine.
He won’t shut up.
Obama was a fool to select him and is getting what he deserves.
John F. Kennedy was similarly tested early, notes Biden. Kennedy was tested by Nikita Kruschev and bested.
Ronald Reagen was similarly inexperienced. The Iranians didn’t want to mess with him, sending the hostages back on his inauguration day.
"The world is not going to mess with a John McCain," says Charles Krauthammer. "It will mess with an inexperienced [Obama]."
SEATTLE, WA — Joe Biden says he’s certain that if Barack Obama is elected president, there will be an international crisis to test his strength within the first 6 months of his presidency.
“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.” he told a fundraising crowd in the Pacific Northwest on Sunday. “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
“He’s gonna have to make some really tough – I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen.”
The Delaware Senator made similar remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser the day before. “We’re going to face a major international challenge. Because they’re going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy. They’re going to want to test him. And they’re going to find out this guy’s got steel in his spine,” Biden said. He told the crowd to continue to stand by Obama and know they made the right choice even when the going gets tough.
I’ve only got two points to add, but they literally fill me with dread:
This grim prediction is Biden’s own best-case scenario — that is, he thinks that Obama will make correct decisions in response to the crisis, but they will seem incorrect even to the Americans whose support Biden is now soliciting in advance.
As Scott Johnson pointed out: "In Portland on May 18, Obama cited John F. Kennedy’s 1961 summit with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna among the series of negotiations that led to America’s triumph over the Soviet Union in the Cold War." Thus, despite his own Ivy League education and his having surrounded himself with supposed experts in foreign affairs, Obama has remained so ignorant of world history that he genuinely thought JFK’s Vienna summit was a success. Instead, even Kennedy and his staff immediately realized that it had been a colossal failure, and history has shown that failed summit to have been a direct precursor to provocations which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, including the Communists’ erection of the Berlin Wall and the Soviets’ emplacement of nuclear missiles in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
How can we hope along with Biden for a best-case scenario — when the would-be new president doesn’t even know the most critical basic facts about the historical precedents for the challenges he is bound to face?
In one of the most sensational stories of the presidential campaign, The New York Times published a 3,000-word, front-page article in February suggesting that a little-known telecommunications lobbyist named Vicki Iseman had an affair with Sen. John McCain during his first run for the White House in 1999. The story did not provide any evidence of an affair, but said that McCain’s top aides became convinced that the relationship was romantic and took steps to keep McCain and Iseman apart.
The story generated massive publicity, and media and political critics accused The Times of publishing a salacious and unfair story. The Times‘ own public editor joined the chorus of criticism saying, "Although [the newspaper] raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance."
McCain, now 72, hotly denied a romantic tie to Iseman and accused The Times of "a hit-and-run smear campaign."
What did Iseman, whose blond good looks helped to drive the story, have to say about the explosive allegations? She refused to be interviewed by The Times, but in e-mail exchanges with the paper’s reporters, she denied ever having a romantic relationship with McCain and disputed key assertions made by The Times‘ unnamed sources.
Now, after more than seven months of silence, Iseman, who just turned 41, has decided to speak out and aggressively defend herself. In a series of interviews and e-mail exchanges with National Journal, she said she and McCain had a "strictly professional" and cordial relationship.
"I did not have a sexual relationship with Senator McCain," she said in a three-hour interview last month in a seventh-floor conference room in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. "I never had an affair or an inappropriate relationship with Senator McCain, and that means I never acted unethically in my dealings with the senator." Iseman, a partner in the lobbying firm of Alcalde & Fay, where she has worked for 18 years, adds, "I have never even been alone with Senator McCain."
Iseman says she answered every question put to her by The Times, but that the newspaper "chose to disregard" many of her answers. "The New York Times set out to write a story about a ‘romantic relationship’ in exchange for legislative favors…. Make the lobbyist a prostitute — pretty heady stuff. The only problem was, they were wrong on all counts."
