Matt Jones' Random Acts of Verbiage

I thought I would mention a few posts from Power Line relating to the House reading the Constitution since they have some good stuff to say: Read it Again, John.

I thought it was a good idea for the Constitution to be read aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives as that body kicked off its new session. The reading reminded those present of the contents of our fundamental law and symbolized a commitment to adhere to that law.

But what seemed like a good idea turned out to be a great one. For instead of good naturedly going along with the exercise, or suffering in silence, a number of leftists publicly displayed their lack of comfort with, if not contempt for, the Constitution. Thus, the public received its clearest indication to date that the left regards the words of the Constitution as an impediment to its agenda.

Read the full post here. And Disowning the Constitution:

[S]ome Democrats, rather than fighting over who owns the Constitution, were publicly disowning it — in some cases symbolically and in others substantively.

The NY Times Explains the Constitution:

I’ve never understood what liberals mean when they say the Constitution “evolves.” They clearly don’t mean that it can be changed by amendment. Nor do they seem to be referring to, for example, the application of the First Amendment to the internet, even though the web is not a “press.” When liberals talk about “evolution,” it generally seems to mean making stuff up–but only liberal stuff, of course.

Read it all here. And finally: Are Liberals Coming Out of the Closet on the Constitution?:

Today’s New York Times editorializes on the Republican takeover of the House. You could paraphrase the editorial as “wah-wah-wah;” the paper basically cries over its party’s November defeat. But in the course of doing so, the editorialists are surprisingly open about their contempt for the Constitution:

A theatrical production of unusual pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House for the 112th Congress. A rule will be passed requiring that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution. A bill will be introduced to repeal the health care law. On Thursday, the Constitution will be read aloud in the House chamber.

Those who had hoped to see a glimpse of the much-advertised Republican plan to revive the economy and put Americans back to work will have to wait at least until party leaders finish their Beltway insider ritual of self-glorification. Then, they may find time for governing.

What? Yes, how dare bills be founded in the Constitution? How dare our guiding document be read aloud in the chambers of those that purport to legislate based on that guiding document? Read that full article here.

Now I have no doubt that this whole thing might be blown out of proportion. The folks at Powerline might just be too sensitive(?). I don’t want to offend anyone; I’m sure most democrats and liberals are strong supporters of the Constitution. I just think it is somewhat strange that many are making a big deal of this over on the Democrat side. Why do they have a problem with the Constitution being read? How is it a “presumptuous and self-righteous act”? They are writing laws and passing legislation based on this foundational document, I think they should be reading it all the time.

Apparently Steven Den Beste thinks this is Not the End of the World. So that’s good. He has some insightful/wise/scary/harsh/needed words for the US after Obama handily won the presidency. Check it out… if you can handle it. A few snippets:

Good intentions do not guarantee good results. Idealists often stub their toes on the wayward rocks of reality, and fall on their faces. And the world doesn’t respond to benign behavior benignly.

The main reason this will be a “coming of age” moment is that now Obama and the Democrats have to put up or shut up. Obama got elected by making himself a blank slate, with vapid promises about “hope” and “change” — but now he actually has to do something.

This is a big day for our coutry and I am willing to bet that there will be a record number of people out voting today (or have already done so by absentee). Those that have read my blog before will know my political leanings and will know who I am voting for. Am I super thrilled with either candidate? Not necessarily. I haven’t been extremely political lately mainly because I have been busy. But I know this is an important race for the United States and look forward to the future of our country.

I only ask two things of you: 1) Go vote. Check maps.google.com/vote for your local polling stations. 2) Don’t vote for superficial reasons. “He’s cool” or “he sucks” or “he isn’t this” or “blah blah blah” are NOT good reasons to vote for someone. Become informed. Take a look at what you really believe and vote that way. There won’t be any one candidate who ever fits for idea, but you can decide what is most important to you and vote that way.

You should also stop by Google’s 2008 Election Coverage. Here is a cool map that will be displaying poll information as they report (and some other cool election maps).

Vote well.

Dave Scott saluting the flag on Apollo 15.

I hope everyone has a wonderful Independence Day celebration! And remember that our freedom isn’t free; this is a day to be thankful for all the rights we have been given!

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Bill Whittle has two essays that you, ALL of you, need to go read right now: Seeing the Unseen Pt. 1 and Seeing the Unseen Pt. 2 (his final installment will be out some time in the near future). These essays will take time to read but you will be better of for it. He simply tells it like it is.

My problems with those on the far left of American politics is not that they have a vision of they way things should be, it is that they often live like those visions are reality and so try and force everyone to fit that reality. Unfortunately, reality pushes against their beliefs.

We live in a sea of information, an Information Age: and yet, it has been almost half a millennia since mankind has been so unwilling or unable to use critical thinking to separate the intellectual wheat from so…much…chaff! Critical Thinking — the ability to analyze data, determine it’s usefulness and fidelity, to learn how to assess reliability, question methodology, weigh expertise and all the rest -– is in shockingly short supply these days. It’s not just a shame; it’s an epidemic, it is a fatal metastasizing disease in a democracy where information is used by the public to make the decisions that steer the ship of state. For the ability to think critically allows us to see the unseen; to find the truth behind the falsehood, as well as the falsehood behind the truth.

This series of essays looks at critical thinking, or the lack there of. His Part 1 takes a look at a few of the “arguments” against the war, the Bush hegemony, and the sheer evils of our country. Part 2 takes the conspiracy theorist mentality down a few pegs… ok, well they have no pegs left. His part 3 will be taking a look at global warming; I am pretty curious what he will have to say about this.

Both pieces are extremely well written and made me laugh a lot. What ever side you are on in politics, or whatever, take the time to read the essays. Critical thinking is so extremely important and there has been a huge lack of it these days it seems.

After my post on the idiocy of Rosie O’ Donnell and her fellow conspiracy theorists, I really appreciated much of what he had to say! This quote said it well I think:

Rosie O’ Donnell making such a claim on a major network is a national disgrace. The fact that much of the audience cheered and applauded is nothing less than a national catastrophe.

In conclusion, I again urge you to go read the essays. I will end with sentiments that I COMPLETELY agree with:

Excuse me. I’m sorry. I don’t do this often but I just can’t continue this calmly:

WHAT THE LIVING HELL IS THE MATTER WITH THESE PEOPLE?!!

I think it’s high time – and way, waaaay past high time — to start pushing back against these kinds of diseased philosophies and the fact that they are getting traction because no one seems willing to point and them and go:

I think this is one of my favorite post titles from Ace of Spades: An Inconvenient Energy Bill. It made me crack up, probably too much. Oh, and the content was interesting too. Everyone’s favorite environmentalist, Al Gore, apparently uses 20 times more energy than the average American at his estate in Tennessee (oh, and his consumption increased after the movie came out).

Here is what I have boiled his message down to: “We need to stop global warming! And by ‘we’ I mean ‘you’. So get on that!”

I have also been enjoying reading about The Gore Effect (more here, and here), especially since I figured he would win for best documentary (shocking). Good times.

UPDATE I: Instapundit has more on Gore’s response. His response seems like something a magician (or politician) does: look at what is going on over here so you don’t see what is actually going on over there. Also Wizbang has an addition about Bush’s house in Texas (although the specific energy usage is not given) from this post:

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this “eco-friendly” dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

Interesting. Of course that is never reported. Shocking.

UPDATE II: Oh this is just too classic (hat tip to protein wisdom via sal):

So, where does Gore buy his ‘carbon offsets’? According to The Tennessean newspaper’s report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management. a company he co-founded and serves as chairman:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe…

As co-founder and chairman of the firm Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself.

Um, yeah. Read the whole thing. Of course, he presumably draws an income from the company. He may not. But regardless, that is so incredibly fishy! Gore: the eco-warrior, making profits and looking good doing it! Of course this will probably never make it to the MSM either.

UPDATE III: Scripps Howard News Service notes many of the left’s responses to The Tennessee Center for Policy Research’s report on Gore’s energy usage. Pretty standard. I liked Malkin’s comment: “Par for the course, of course.” Here is my favorite quote from the SHNS’s post:

“Some people must believe the Mason-Dixon Line runs between our office and Gore’s mansion,” Johnson says. “No one would call Gore a redneck, but when we uncovered his hypocritical energy use, it somehow made me a sister-dating hillbilly. That’s quite amusing, since Gore and I live in Nashville, less than five miles apart.”

UPDATE IV: Gee, aren’t I surprised: “Carbon Offsets” a fraud!

I don’t know much about Barack Obama. Just wanted to get that out there from the start. From what I have seen of him, he is a good politician. He seems (possibly like Kerry during his presidential run?) like he will say anything to anyone to get them on their side. He just seems to do it better than Kerry.

Obama is a Christian. (When is a politician not?) I am in no place to question his salvation nor his commitment to his faith. But I do take issue with his Church (via LGF: What Does Obama Believe?). Of course a church can believe whatever it wants, but when it calls itself a Christian church, they are open to scrutiny by other Christians.

The KKK called themselves Christians, they also called the white race superior. Fortunately for us, they have been around long enough that no one takes their crap theology/dogma seriously and have, for all intents and purposes, no voice in the world of politics and religion. Now the issue arises that because of African-American persecution/discrimination, it is difficult to claim “foul” when there are cases of reverse discrimination. But just because it is difficult, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call it what it is: racist.

So keeping the KKK and their racist “church” ideologies in mind, what do you think when a church notes this as their value system?

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
(source)

Now replace every instance of “black” with “white” (which is what LGF’s post was quoting from this post). Can you imagine that? Can you imagine the ACLU’s reaction to a church like that? (And is “embracement” a word? Middleclassness?)

This is obviously a touchy subject because no one wants to be called racist (myself included!), but it seems that there is a double standard: anyone claiming any sort of “white value system” (whatever that would mean) is completely racist and would be denounced (as it should be), but having a “black value system” (whatever that means) is somehow ok because blacks have been persecuted in the past? I simply don’t get it.

Of course I would not go so far as to say this church is just like the KKK (that would be a bit extreme), but the similarities seem fairly apparent to me. Ideologies like this are extremely dangerous for a Christian church to hold to and just as dangerous for a politician.

Things have been even slower than intended around here ’cause I have had the flu, it sucks. I don’t often get sick, but when I do, it definitely sucks. I am feeling quite a bit better now, just fairly achy. Anyway…

Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper made an excellent statement about the possibility of peace talks with groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah (via LGF):

OTTAWA (AFP) – Canada will not hold talks with “genocidal” groups Hamas and Hezbollah to try to secure Mideast peace, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in an interview with broadcaster CTV, to be aired Saturday.

“We will not solve the Palestinian-Israeli problem, as difficult as that is, through organizations that advocate violence and advocate wiping Israel off the face of the Earth,” Harper said.

“It’s unfortunate because with Hamas, and with Hezbollah in Lebanon, it has made it very difficult to have dialogue — and dialogue is ultimately necessary to have peace in the long term — but we are not going to sit down with people whose objectives are ultimately genocidal.”

“I think all of the civilized world is agreed — and it’s not just Canada — we can’t deal with organizations whose principle and only objective is terrorism and the eradication of the other side.”

Well said I think.