There's Backwards and there's . . .
BurkeWords
There's Backwards and there's . . .
The Republican Congress, with some help from President Clinton, is pushing the federal budget from deficit to possible surplus, leading many in both parties pondering at what to do with the excess. Let me rephrase that: How should we spend it?
The number one priority should be to NOT spend it. But I don't agree with those who say we should give the money back to the people.
I think it should not be taken from the people in the first place. Congress continues to think its their money, but it isn't -- it's ours. They take it from us to do their business, by force.
The President, being a man who hoarded all the Democrat campaign money for himself, is loathe to the idea of a tax cut, particularly a broad-based one that allows people to do what they want with their own money and not what the President tells you to do. Good Heavens! They might put it into the economy! They might invest it in something worthwhile! They might use it to help with the mortgage payments!
Opponents shout out the old mantra, "It has to be paid for!"
No, there is nothing to pay for. It's a matter of not collecting it in the first place.
Tax cuts stimulate the economy and raise revenues for Washington. And if they don't (they do, but if...), the folks inside the Beltway will be able to make up the difference easy.
They've shown time and again, they have no aversion to collecting taxes all over again. But if they spend it now, they won't stop later.
Give the money back!
Okay, we all know that President Clinton shut down the coal industry in the United States so that he could seriously damage the economy and school system of Utah, a Republican stronghold, as well as help out his buddies in the Lippo Group with major holdings in Indonesia which used to be behind the U.S. in coal production. That's all well and good, and everyone can see the obvious connections.
But how about this?
The folks in Hong Kong, recently acquired by Clinton's pal in China, are putting to death over a million fowl, reportedly because of a disease carried in chickens. Is that really the case?
Or are the Chinese about to place a take out order for some Tyson Chicken?
Hmmm. Inquiring minds want to know.
"On my honor I will do my best: To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight... except in the state of California.
The proposed revision to the Boy Scout Oath.
In California, the Boy Scouts of America are under attack from not one, but two lawsuits, which taken together seek to nullify the first and third clauses of the above oath. That is, remove the reference to God so that young atheist boys who join this Christian organization of their own free will not be offended. And remove the part about morally straight because, after all, these are the Gay 90s, and any grown homosexual scoutmaster who wants to go camping with a troop of teenage boys should be allowed to do so.
Note that the two "agnostic" teens who are suing say they don't want to quit the organization because it's the best thing out there for boys. But, apparantly, it isn't good enough, so they've decided to remake it in their own image.
A decision as to whether the Boy Scouts are a private oranization or a business is expected within ninety days. If declared a business, California's Civil Rights laws then take effect and negate the right of free assembly provided by the United States Constitution.
If it is declared an organization, that decision could affect a third case under review in California. A girl is suing to get in.
FYI:
Boy Scout Law: A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent.
Boy Scout Motto: Be Prepared!
Boy Scout Slogan: Do a Good Turn Daily!
In the past week, we've lost two people in high-profile skiing accidents.
First was Michael Kennedy, who, despite pleas from Kathie Lee Gifford, will wind up being remembered for fooling around with his kids' babysitter (and thereby cheating on Kathie Lee's stepdaughter). Said Scott Shannon, morning DJ on WPLJ-FM, 95.5 in New York City, "if he wasn't a Kennedy, this would be reported in 'Knuckleheads in the News'." Kennedy was skiing without poles on an expert hill trying to catch a football.
Second was Rep. Sonny Bono (R-Calif), who went from Cher to mayor to Congressman. He wasn't playing football at the time.
No sarcastic comment. I don't ski, and I don't think I'll be taking it up any time soon.
In 1992, the so-called Year of the Democrat Woman, Geraldine Ferraro must have been the highest-profile woman to lose out on a seat in Congress. Her main obstacle, a second woman in the primary whose conduct was so atrocious that she (former Rep. Liz Holtzman) finished in fourth place behind Al Sharpton.
This time, so far, she's the only woman in the race. That might help her position, but Mark Green and Charles Schumer aren't about to just roll over and give it to her. (Of course, Schumer may decide to run again for his Congressional seat if he doesn't think he can make it into the Senate.)
Ferraro has declared that she will take the high road and not resort to name-calling and mud-slinging. But she hasn't pledged that none of her staff or handlers won't do that for her instead. She has a good reason to want to play nice with D'Amato, though: for all his ethical problems, nothing has ever stuck to him; and Ferraro and her husband aren't entirely clean either.
One final note: the media has reported that Democrat infighting in 1992 gave D'Amato the election. Not true. Robert Abrams had a great chance (after winning the nomination) to defeat D'Amato, and he might have done it, too -- if he hadn't called D'Amato a "fascist" not long before the election. The media -- and the voters -- didn't let him forget that one.
How would you like it if someone labeled you a Nazi? How would you like it if thousands of people, day after day, likened you to Hitler? What if the media went along with it because they thought it was funny?
Well, you'd be out of luck.
Ever since Jerry Seinfeld decided not to quit his long-running TV show, New York City has been abuzz with all things Seinfeld. As a result, reporters have camped-out outside the International Soup Kitchen to talk to Al Yeganeh, the man who was caricatured by Jerry Seinfeld as the character "the Soup Nazi".
Note that I said "caricatured". Folks in the media have tended to confuse the sitcom with reality. Remember when they accused Quayle of doing that? (Quayle hadn't confused the two, as anyone paying attention to his speech would have known, but newspaper folks didn't really listen to Dan Quayle anyway. Besides, why get in the way of a good story?)
Al Yeganeh is not the "Soup Nazi". He never appeared on Seinfeld; he wasn't compensated by Seinfeld for the character. Yes, his business has increased -- but he'll forever be known as a Nazi.
A final note: I won't give any more fame to the WABC reporter who riled Yeganeh last week, but I would like to say that she had a lot of nerve. She asked Yeganeh for an interview and he not only agreed, but he put on a headset and even answered questions from a radio caller. The woman then asked him to say, "No soup for you." whereupon Yeganeh removed the headsets, hurled them at her and screamed an obscenity.
What did she expect?
But guess what part of the interview WABC played continuously throughout the day?
What do you expect?
According to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, President Clinton is the most admired living man today, beatiing out the Rev. Billy Graham, the Pope and Colin Powell.
Nothing unusual there. You have to admire a man that can do what he does and manage to get away with it every time.
Now that California will ban smoking in bars that have non-owner bartenders or waitresses, there will be a heavy demand for folks to open up small, quaint "Mom & Pop" bars, owned and operatored by the folks paying the bills, without any employees on the payroll.
Smokers will flock to these places in heavy numbers.
Quick! The window of opportunity is closing -- the Super Bowl is coming, and the 49ers might be in it. Open your own bar now!
At the end of President Reagan's book An American Life: the Autobiography of Ronald Reagan", which I just finished listening to on tape, he lists three things he believes will make the country a better place. Maybe they will in time, maybe they won't. Here they are:
A Constitutional Amendment to Balance the Budget: As we now know, an amendment isn't necessary. You only have to shake up Washington and hold everyone's feet to the fire. Either that, or throw out the Democrats and put in Republicans. Let them talk about balancing the budget so much that the President is forced to adopt the issue.
Give the President the Line-Item Veto: This would be a good thing if the President would use the damn thing. So far, President Clinton has only shown his reluctance to use it on all but penny-ante pork and bills that he doesn't understand in the least (like when he apologized for vetoing twenty-nine items by mistake or when he delivered "a heavy blow to the poor and uninsured of New York" (1) and "interfered with [New York's] system of providing health care to the poor." (2))
Clinton has cowered from Gingrich and Lott while signing their high-priced pork into law.
Reform the congressional districting system: The way the lines were drawn while President Reagan was in office was disgraceful enough. The way they were redrawn after the 1990 census has been declared unconstitutional, not to mention racist and offensive. But it had one totally unexpected outcome: redistricting gave the Republicans the House of Representatives as blacks got their own safe districts while neighboring Democrats lost large chunks of their political base. As a result, blacks lost almost all power in D.C. because they were mostly tied to one party, the minority party. No pun intended. Ah, hell, sure, I intended it.
(1) Rep. Jerrold Nadler
(2) Rep. Charles Rangel