People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Saturday, March 04, 2006

The Times Demands Job Protection

The Roanoke Times editorial staff demands this morning that our governor do something about the worsening economic conditions here in Southwest Virginia.

Oops. Never mind. I read it wrong. Jobs be damned; they're actually concerned about preserving our rocks and bushes:
Protecting forests

Just in case the governor's shout to protect the national forests falls on deaf ears, Virginia's attorney general better ready the big guns.

Gov. Tim Kaine this week, in a letter attached to a petition signed by more than 5,000 Virginians, reiterated the state's plea for the forest service to leave the roadless lands untouched.

If the [Bush] administration insists on violating this nation's protected open spaces, then the states must engage the battle. (link)
What's shocking in this editorial is the revelation that the governor could only find 5,000 DC suburbanites (it is those folks who drive down here one weekend every other year to smoke dope, take a picture of our trees, and demand that Southwest Virginia remain primordial in perpetuity) who were willing to sign the petition.

I'll bet I could get 5,000 signatures down here demanding that the governor turn the DC suburbs back into the wetlands (they called them swamps back then) that they originally were. I'll then drive up and take a snapshot (leaving the dope smoking to the hippies that still wander, completely lost and oblivious to the world around them, the hiking trails of Southwest Virginia).

Suppose the Roanoke Times will support my petition drive to protect the forests that will be Springfield, Virginia?

Quote of the Day

... [former President Jimmy] Carter's working to subvert U.S. diplomacy is nothing new; but his apparent belief that he can speak on behalf of the country while doing so is rather stunning.

It must drive him crazy to know that John Tyler was a member of the Confederate Congress when he died in 1862; that makes it hard for Carter to surpass Tyler as the most anti-American ex-president in history. But we doubt he'll ever stop trying.

James Taranto, "Best of the Web Today," March 3, 2006 (link)

On Ginsburg Being An Old Bat

I received a few emails from readers yesterday who were rather harsh in their criticism of my having referred to Supreme Court Justess Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an old bat. They felt she deserves, because of her lofty position (and diminutive stature), a high level of respect. Deference. Courtesy.

I thought I was being rather temperate. In certain other lines of work, she'd have been fired in a heartbeat.

Look. Ruth Bader Ginsburg literally makes life and death decisions. She and the other members of the Supreme Court hold sway over all (federal) laws by which the rest of us have to abide.

And she's sleeping through oral arguments?

Is this how we ended up with the reprehensible Kelo decision? Did someone wake her up and tell her it was time to vote on whether we should keep it at one thousand grams; the basic unit of mass adopted under the Systeme International d'Unites?

If those of you who criticized me in your emails respected the institution as much as you've asked me to, you'd demand that Ginsburg head off to the nursing home about now. She disrespected both the institution and the people who allow her to be there.

And she needs to go before she kills an innocent man.

Dancin' With The Ones What Brung Ya

I received an email yesterday in response to a weblog post concerning Ted Kennedy and his sudden reversal of position with regard to alternative energy sources:

It is worth noting that a majority of the "whacked-out environmentalist left" has strongly criticized Sen. Kennedy and his nephew Bobby Jr. for their atrociously hypocritical NIMBY stance on Cape Wind. There is simply no excuse for their position, and both have lost a good deal of respect in the environmental community. It is clear on this issue that politics and selfishness have overtaken their commitment to cleaner energy.
Good point.

The problem we have - the emailer and myself - is that we have to depend on our politicians to carry through on their promises, and when they don't, well, where do we turn? What do we do?

In Ted Kennedy's case, the opinions of environmentalists (and abortion supporters, union members, feminists, and trial lawyers) don't really matter anymore. He's going to do what he pleases and they will vote for him again next time anyway. And he knows it.

I'd like to think there is a distinction to be made here between conservatives and liberals. Liberals have their causes. Environmentalism is one of them. Liberals support the environment (like the rest of us don't - but we'll not go there) and all politicians who espouse similar interests, and who are willing to fight their fight. But "liberal" politicians are known to change their views depending on which way the wind blows. Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Dick Durbin were all fervent supporters of the pro-life movement until they counted heads and realized that the path to their success led them toward the pro-abortion crowd. So they switched sides. They became fervid pro-choice politicians. Men of principle ...

The war in Iraq is an even better example. I got whiplash trying to decide if John Kerry was for it or against it. Nobody knows to this day. A man of principle ...

Conservatives, on the other hand, live by their principles. Or try to. Without going into detail, it involves both fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. Because we are passionate about our principles, we look for politicians who are as well. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania comes to mind. In the Terri Schiavo case last year, he was at the forefront of the movement to have her innocent life spared - despite the fact that his actions may have brought about his defeat in the upcoming November election. He believed in Terri's right to live and was willing to pay the ultimate political price to save her life. My kind of guy.

On the other hand, you have those who profess their undying loyalty to principle and who, when faced with a situation where they have to prove it, turn tail and run. Bill Clinton's gun-ban proposal (waiting periods, assault weapons, etc.) in 1994 was the perfect example. We in the NRA hold no principle more dear than that of our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We are prepared to defend it to the death. We expect those politcians who side with us in that fight to do the same. When they don't, retribution is swift and harsh.

Just ask former Speaker of the House Tom Foley and long-time Texas Congressman Jack Brooks. After many years of professing their support for gun rights, they turned on their loyal constituency. Their constituents immediately sent them into retirement.

Then you have all those politicians out there who try their best to live by certain principles but have a tough time coming up with any. Bob Dole comes to mind. The only principle he seemed to live by was one involving the protection and nurturing of our ever-expanding federal government. By election day 1996 I came to realize the fact that Bob Dole stood for nothing. When it came time to pull the lever, I passed. I voted for none of the above.

The same could be said for George W Bush. He more often than not talks the talk but, like his father, sometimes strays when he's out walking. In the 2000 primary, I voted for Alan Keyes (say what you will, he's a principled man).

So. Environmentalists are upset with Ted Kennedy. So what? He'll still be their man come election day, just as Bill Clinton, to this day, is the darling of the feminist crowd despite having been charged with sexual harrassment by a number of women, including former employees of his, and for having been accused of rape(!). Even his wife gives up any pretense of holding to principle when it comes to her husband. A rape here and there are of no consequence. He leads the cause!

The bed these people have to lie down in. To a degree, I feel sorry for them.

I'll Stand Behind This Principle

Manure as a source of energy? Not In My Back Yard.

From a letter to the New York Times:
A Load of Manure
By Nicolette Hahn Niman

Talk of reducing our dependence on foreign oil through alternative energy sources like biomass is everywhere these days — even on our president's lips. As a livestock farmer and environmental lawyer, I've paid particular attention to discussion about using manure as "green power." The idea sounds appealing, but ... (
Yeah. The idea of burning cow poop to heat my house is so very appealing.

Nicolette, say no more. I'm with you.