Congressman Lamar Smith believes the Constitution can fit his beliefs, rather than espouse the freedoms and rights he fears.

Congressman Smith Says, "It's inconceivable that the authors of our Constitution intended to create a right to same-sex marriage."

I stongly disagree. While I would agree that that authors of our Constitution would have been unlikely to have considered that specific right at that time, I believe they intended to grant us the freedoms which would encompass that right. I don't believe that they were terribly concerned about restricting the rights of marriage while crafting the document.

Congressman Smith continues, "Traditional marriage does not violate equal protection because it makes marriage available to all men and women who want to enter into a marriage relationship with each other."

Hmm... wasn't that the same argument used by those who sought to restrict interracial marriage?

He continues, "States may recognize other relationships, but if they do, such states are recognizing relationships other than marriages."

It is disingenuous to impose one's own definition of marriage upon an independent governing body. Surely, as one who has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, Congressman Smith is familiar with the 14th Amendment, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Thus, as "marriage" is not defined or prescribed in the Constitution, the individual states have the right to define it as they please subject to the individual liberties granted by the constitution. States thus have the power to define marriage, contrary to Congressman Smith's beliefs.

Even given these states' rights, the "equal protection" clause (as Congressman Smith cites in his flawed argument) prevents any state or the US Government from selectively discriminating as he apparently wishes to according to his beliefs.

Congressman Smith, please uphold your sworn duty. Or, we shall find someone who does.

Congressman Lamar Smith disrespects the Consitution

Congressman Smith said, "When Congress returns from recess, I plan to introduce a resolution condemning today's decision and urging an immediate appeal. The voters of California are not the only ones who lost today. This decision defies the voice of all citizens who have sought to define marriage in their states as the union between one man and one woman. Judge Walker's actions should be opposed and the decision should be swiftly overturned."

What about freedom? The tyranny of the majority is not the rule of law in this country. The foundation of our country rests upon a document he has sworn to uphold, but apparently had his fingers crossed when he did so. The Constitution guarantees equal protection to all, regardless of the opinion of a majority of voters who believe their view of the world is the only "legal" view. Freedom always wins in the end. Lets hope that those who wish to infringe on the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of others, start losing.

Congressman Smith is up for re-election in November. Vote for somebody else.

There's no such thing as "unbiased reporting"

In CNN's "Creative ways to avoid layoffs", there is this nifty phrase:

"An unfortunate, but often necessary, way to contain costs is by implementing pay cuts..."

Notice how the journalist has taken a fact, that some companies have chosen to implement pay cuts, into a sympathetic statement made to make both the company and its victims feel better.

Company: Gosh, it's unfortunate (for you), but we need to cut your pay.
Employee: I understand that it's necessary right now.
Company: Still friends?

This is atrocious reporting. Injecting sympathy into a story, while perhaps making the journalist feel better about reporting on a difficult topic, has no place in journalism.

"Some companies have chosen to implement pay cuts as a way to contain costs." Period. Then back it up with facts, as is done here: "...which 16 percent of employers have employed in the last six months." (It would also be easy to criticize "employers have employed", but that would be a digression.)

Oh, I now notice that the story was written by the Matt Ferguson, CEO of CareerBuilder.com. So, let's blame the editor, instead. :-)

Look for the bias in the next story you read.

Congressman Lamar Smith on "Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge"

> Smith said he also favors opening part of the protected Arctic National
> Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for drilling, stating that oil reserves there
> could offset 20 percent of the oil imported from Saudi Arabia.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Why does it seem prudent to offer a short-term offset to current demand by tapping what is a valuable resource today, in our energy-inefficient environment, when it could be an invaluable resource in a future energy-efficient environment. We don't need it now, with either a strict or loose definition of need. What we need to do is get sustainable. Oil is not sustainable. This country certainly has the creative energies needed to get from where we are now to where we need to be. Let's tap that energy instead.

Congressman Lamar Smith on "cap-and-trade"

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Congressman Lamar Smith wrote:
> Smith said the Congressional Budget Office estimates a federal cap-and-trade
> program would cost U.S. families an average of $1,600 in higher energy costs
> each year. The 22-year veteran congressman said that is the lowest estimate
> he has seen so far.
>
> A cap-and-trade program would set limits for carbon emissions from
> industrial and commercial sources. Permits for increased usage must be
> purchased or traded from companies that are reducing emissions.
>
> "No matter what, it will be expensive," Smith said. "It won't reduce
> emissions," he added, citing limited success in Europe and the lack of
> similar programs elsewhere in the world.
>
> Smith said he supports growth in solar and wind power, especially as ways
> are developed to store and to transmit alternative electrical generation.
> "But the hard reality is that only 2 percent of power comes from wind and
> solar," Smith told more than 150 people attending the chamber luncheon.
>
> Seventy percent of power still comes from carbon-emitting fossil fuels,
> Smith said, and 20 percent comes from nuclear power. "I think nuclear needs
> to be part of the mix as we try to reduce our reliance on foreign energy,"
> Smith said.

Congressman Smith,

Do you agree that we are in the midst of an environment crisis?
Do you believe that pollution is contributing to problems in our environment?
Do you believe that so-called greenhouse gases are pollution?
Do you believe that building new nuclear power plants can effectively reduce pollution? By how much? How much will building these new plants be? How much to maintain them? How much in depreciation? How much will it cost to handle nuclear waste disposal? Where will it go? How will it get there? How will the plants and the waste be protected? How much will all of that cost? How does that compare with a cap-and-trade system, which requires no new infrastructure, maintenance or depreciation, and indeed might make better use of the infrastructure we already have?

Which of the above solutions is sustainable? (Hint: it's not cap-and-trade, nor nuclear.)

And why do you say "It won't reduce emissions" ? Is that simply because the cap is set at current levels? Certainly, that indeed will reduce emissions in the future, wouldn't you agree? Also, is the cap not adjustable?

Lastly on this issue, isn't it quite possible that the cap-and-trade system could also generate wealth, just as the securities markets (sometimes) do today? Might such a system, then, actually have the potential to help the economy and those families you mentioned?

I think we agree that something must be done, and in relatively short order. Indeed, I think that something should be a lot of somethings, and we need to think across the board. Just saying "no" to a viable option is not an option. I think you should instead say "how can we make this work?"

Fair Hunting

I am not a hunter, nor am I anti-hunting. I would like to see the "sport" become a bit more fair, though...

My understanding is that most hunting trips involve putting on the cammo, trekking out to a isolated area with gun, ammo, and (possibly) six-pack in hand, and waiting...maybe climbing up into a blind, and waiting... Eventually, and hopefully from the hunter's point-of-view, a poor, innocent woodland creature of sufficient size to justify the effort and not currently protected by statute (where's their lobby?) strolls by. And now, it get's really unfair. The hunter has to expend sufficient effort to dispatch the beast: that being, to pull a trigger. (The more adventurous types may have to draw and release a bowstring.)

Where's the contest? Only in the mind and ability of the hunter to aim and fire accurately without alerting his/her prey. There is no discrimination as to the innate abilities of the prey to defend itself and escape, nor in the physical abilities of the hunter to pursue and conquer the beast. A pathetically out-of-shape hunter is just about as likely to kill a strapping buck as a strapping young hunter is to kill a three-legged sleeping cow. Darwin was robbed!

For hunting to be truly fair, one must take away the blind, the night-vision goggles and sights, the ammo, the gun, the bows and arrows, the knives. Indeed, one must take away the cammo, all the clothing, bug spray, all protective implements of any kind.

The only truly fair hunting expedition involves walking naked into a forest. Good luck!

Parenthood is immortality

Show your children the person in you that you wish to be remembered.