The Snarky Files - Euripides' Views on the Week January 14, 2010

Take a moment right now and donate to the Red Cross to help with the earthquake relief in Haiti. We send our thoughts and prayers to the people of Haiti. Link to Red Cross Donations

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

But First

Before I get snarky, once again I'd like to encourage you to make a donation to the Red Cross or a relief agency of your choice to help the people of Haiti (Link to Red Cross Donations). According to Hillary Clinton, the devastation in Haiti has reached biblical proportions, on par with the 2004 tsunami that hit Indonesia and other areas (Daily Mail). For once in a lifetime event, I agree with Hillary Clinton.

The Red Cross estimates three million people will need aid and total dead may reach half a million.

The War on Marriage
The court trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger taking place in California is yet another attack on the institution of marriage - in this case trying to prove that California's Proposition 8 is federally unconstitutional.

The attack from the plaintiff has taken two forms so far: 1) an attempt to show that marriage between a man and a woman is historically and religiously discriminatory and 2) an attempt to connect so-called gay rights with the right to marry a person of the same sex. In connection with the second attack, the plaintiff will argue that those who put Proposition 8 on the ballot did so as direct discrimination against gays.

The first line of attack poses several problems. In order to argue that the history of marriage is discriminatory, the plaintiff must prove that marriage is a private institution, not a public one, serving a public interest. The plaintiff must prove that the purposes of marriage have nothing to do with the preservation of society and the rearing of the next generation of children. The plaintiff must prove that long-standing understanding of the place of marriage in society has been incorrect since the dawn of history. Proving this in any logical sense is impossible. However, it is too bad that so many buy into the legal arguments in favor of same sex marriage despite the logical inconsistencies.

The idea behind religious discrimination poses a multitude of problems. If same sex marriage were to become the law of the land, the law would then interfere with the First Amendment of the US Constitution which guarantees the right of free exercise of religion. In effect, we would have a law which, claiming to end discrimination, ensures that religions which disagree with same sex marriage or homosexual sex would be discriminated against. Since this is a direct violation of the founding principles of the US Constitution, the legalization of same sex marriage would substantively change the interpretation of the First Amendment and would legalize discrimination against anyone who held moral or religious beliefs against homosexuality.

At least video coverage of the trial was blocked by the Supreme Court wiht a 5-4 vote. Those who stood up for marriage in California don't need another round of threats and intimidation by gay activists.

"It would be difficult -- if not impossible -- to reverse the harm of those broadcasts," the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. The witnesses, including paid experts, could suffer "harassment," and they "might be less likely to cooperate in any future proceedings." The high court also faulted U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for changing the rules "at the eleventh hour" to "allow the broadcasting of this high-profile trial" that will decide whether gays and lesbians have a right to marry in California. (LA Times)

At least we have five judges in the US who aren't taken in by the idiocy of others.

Further Breakdown
An Illinois judge, John R. Kennedy, has allowed a woman to take her two children out of state, away from their father, so she can live with her lesbian partner in Oregon (Illinois Family Institute).

Once again, I'll cite this as an example of the breakdown of family law in the US. Neither Illinois nor Oregon recognize same sex marriage as legal, yet this Illinois judge has no qualms about handing down a judgment which subverts family law and the legal, social, and moral basis of protecting families. And in this case, the children's standard of living will be lower than living near their father, plus they will be removed from a father who enjoyed his right to be with his children.

This is bad legal precedent:

Even from a "coldly" legal standpoint, this decision is subversive. It flies squarely in the face of decades of removal jurisprudence in Illinois, as Illinois courts historically and consistently give great weight to the relationship enjoyed between children and their non-custodial parents, and typically allow removal only where the visitation time would either remain the same or increase after the move. (Illinois Family Institute)

Is this the new face of family law in light of same sex marriage and gay activism - that a loony judge with an agenda can flaunt the basic needs and rights of children? Children have the right to a loving mother and father who will provide for their needs and raise them to become moral adults.

Damn the Constituents! Full Speed Ahead!
President Obama urged Congress to reconcile differences between the two health care bills and swiftly pass the thing (NY Times). Obama said the reason to hurry the bill along was to help Americans.

“Once I sign health insurance reform into law, doctors and patients will have more control over their health care decisions, and insurance company bureaucrats will have less,” Mr. Obama said. (NY Times)

Ah yes! Let's hurry and pass the bill so we can switch from insurance company bureaucrats to the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-principled, all-caring federal government.

I have several theories why Obama wants to hurry this bill along: 1) Obama's poll numbers are sliding down faster than a kindergartner shoved down a slide coated with Crisco; 2) the people of Massachusetts may actually elect a Republican to the Senate, canceling the 60 vote super majority; 3) Obama made a lot of campaign promises and, by gum, he plans on keeping one of them.

Double Dip
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue warned the U.S. faces a double-dip recession because of the taxes and regulations under consideration by the Democratic Congress and President Barack Obama. (The Hill)

Well knock me over from not being surprised. Do you think the health care bill will help?

Business as Usual - The George W. Bush Way
If anyone has any doubts that Obama is channeling George W. Bush take a look at this:

President Barack Obama will ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of a record $708 billion for the Defense Department next year. (AP)

Wait a minute! I thought Obama was against expanding the wars in the Mideast and against increased defense spending?

If I were one of the left-wing liberals, I'd be completely incensed about Obama's position on the military and about his incredibly naive approach to the Mideast.  I am, however, a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy and I'm completely incensed about Obama's position on the military and about his incredibly naive approach to the Mideast.

You Can Bank on This
President Obama also suggested that Congress pass a law to tax banks to help pay for the $117 billion shortfall in the bank bailout (AP).

Let's see if I got this right. Congress passed a law to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to give to banks to keep them from going under. Then, when the scheme didn't work as planned, Obama now wants Congress to tax the banks to pay for the borrowed money that Congress gave them.

Why do we allow our government to continue such insane policies?

Jimmy Carter We Hardly Knew Thee
After only one year in office, a recent poll shows that Barack Obama would not be reelected to a second term if the election were held today.

This is change I can hope in. Better would be a Congress that actually practices foundational conservative principles in governing the people of the US.

Blame Game
The White House budget director, Peter Orszag, reported this week that a big reason reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because Washington has old computers (The Hill).

Silly me. I thought that the big reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because the federal government is a large, unwieldy, money-grubbing, power-hungry, program-laden, bureaucracy that can't function without borrowing money and socking it to taxpayers.

I could use with a new computer, though.