On the 10/03/05 Sean Hannity radio show, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said that Harriet Miers can be counted on to be true to the oath she will take as a supreme court justice and not legislate from the bench.
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453, of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''
I suppose Senator Cornyn will introduce a bill to add some words about not legislating from the bench to the oath for Justices.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Monday, October 03, 2005
Molasses Sugar Cookies
Recipes from my grandmother's and mother's recipe file boxes, written in their hands, are a family treasure that I am sharing with all who are interested in baking goodies:
3/4 cup shortening
1 cup sugar
1/4 cup molasses (Brer Rabbit brand recommended)
1 egg
2 teaspoon baking soda
2 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 teaspoon ground cloves
1/2 teaspoon ginger
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon salt
Melt shortening in a 3 or 4 quart saucepan over low heat.
Add sugar, molasses and egg- beat well.
Sift together flour, soda, spices and salt and add to first mixture.
Mix well and chill.
Form into 1-inch balls, roll in granulated sugar and place on greased cookie sheet 2-inches apart.
Bake in moderate hot oven (375 degrees) 8 - 10 minutes.
Enjoy!
3/4 cup shortening
1 cup sugar
1/4 cup molasses (Brer Rabbit brand recommended)
1 egg
2 teaspoon baking soda
2 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 teaspoon ground cloves
1/2 teaspoon ginger
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon salt
Melt shortening in a 3 or 4 quart saucepan over low heat.
Add sugar, molasses and egg- beat well.
Sift together flour, soda, spices and salt and add to first mixture.
Mix well and chill.
Form into 1-inch balls, roll in granulated sugar and place on greased cookie sheet 2-inches apart.
Bake in moderate hot oven (375 degrees) 8 - 10 minutes.
Enjoy!
Aggressive Drivers - No Joke Intended
I listed 20 questions on an earlier blog that relate to driving behaviors exhibited by some automobile drivers who might be labelled as aggressive. A friend with whom I shared the blog commented that the questionnaire was funny. Well, it could be, but it was intended in dead seriousness. Aggressive driving probably contirbutes to more than its fair share of accidents. I only wish the police kept traffic records that tracked accidents caused by aggressive drivers like they do for drunk or drug impaired drivers.
The first question was , "When approaching a yellow light, do you speed up to beat the red even if you could stop?"
This aggressive driving behavior is enabled by traffic signals that hold back the green light for a second or two while the intersection is clearing of cross traffic after the yellow to red sequence and before the green. Danger exists from the driver trying to make it through the yellow miscalculating his distance, speed or timing and end up t-boning a driver who proceeds on a green light without looking for the late-comer who ignores the yellow. My experience is that on the many occasions when I am able to stop when the yellow comes on, a driver in the next lane will actually speed up to get through the intersection, presumably, to avoid waiting for the next green light. Strangely, I often end up next to the yellow-ignorer at the next light.
Now, that's funny.
The first question was , "When approaching a yellow light, do you speed up to beat the red even if you could stop?"
This aggressive driving behavior is enabled by traffic signals that hold back the green light for a second or two while the intersection is clearing of cross traffic after the yellow to red sequence and before the green. Danger exists from the driver trying to make it through the yellow miscalculating his distance, speed or timing and end up t-boning a driver who proceeds on a green light without looking for the late-comer who ignores the yellow. My experience is that on the many occasions when I am able to stop when the yellow comes on, a driver in the next lane will actually speed up to get through the intersection, presumably, to avoid waiting for the next green light. Strangely, I often end up next to the yellow-ignorer at the next light.
Now, that's funny.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Runaway Rhetorist
I've coined a new word, rhetorist. It means someone who uses rhetoric, which is the use of exaggeration or display in language. For example, in an 'As I See It' column in the September 25, 2005, Kansas City Star by Brenda Landwehr entitled, "A limit is needed on government spending", a rhetorist is born. By the time I finished the article, I decided that Brenda was indeed a "Runaway Rhetorist", having escaped both logic and candor.
Brenda's writing was in response to a column by Barbara Shelly (Robin Hood revolt comes to Kansas, September 16), concerning the so-called Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR). Landwehr alleges that Shelly, in her critique of TABOR missed the forest for the trees. This is how Landwehr's rhetoric starts: "The really big forest is that Kansas government spending for the last 30 years is growing three times faster than the average Kansan's wages." Let's analyze this allegation of Landwehr's.
First, why is it these politicos seldom cite sources like publicly available research reports? What is meant by "Kansas government spending"? Which years does the "last 30" cover? From July 1, 1975, to June 30, 2004 or some other time frame? Which expenditures make up the "government spending"? Does it include spending funded by federal aid, such as medicaid, highways, community development grants, school aid and many other sources of state income? Does it include spending funded by non-tax revenues such as tuition, lottery income, law suit settlements (i.e., tobacco) or bond issue proceeds (i.e., highway bonds)? Does "Kansas government spending" include only state government expenditures or is spending for cities, counties and schools counted as well? Was any adjustment made in the total "Kansas government spending" to account for the State's assumption of school finance? Does it include new state spending caused by 'unfunded federal mandates'? What other adjustments in "Kansas government spending" are necessary to be sure the comparison over a 30-year period is not one of apples and oranges? In other words, just what is it that is growing three times faster than the "average Kansan's wages"? Speaking of "wages", where is that figure obtained? Is "wages" the same as per capita income, or average family income? And who is this "average Kansan". What part of the Kansas population is in the data set? Well, you get the picture. How reputable are the numbers that Landwehr refers to as "government overspending" in the very next sentence in her article. And, other than her personal opinion, how legitimate is this characterization of the expenditures of the State of Kansas? If "government overspending" is the basic premise for TABOR, shouldn't this characterization deserve an in-depth analysis rather than only the proof by assertion that Landwehr has offered?
I'll skip discussing Landwehr's idea that Colorado's TABOR problems will be avoided in Kansas if TABOR is added to our state constitution, because we'll have a "budget stabilization fund". And, would she be so kind as to explain, "what happened to state budgets after the terrorist attacks of 2001"? And if a B.S. fund is needed "to avoid the shortfalls Colorado faced", does her use of the past tense mean that Colorado has solved its problem. If so why are they talking about suspending TABOR for 5 years and then perhaps, indefinitely or forever.
Let's look at some more of Landwehr's rhetoric. Next, she writes, "While you and I have to live within our means, government does not have to show that restraint." Which government is she talking about: local, state or federal? Agreed the federal level lately under the GOP has shown little spending restraint, our Kansas local and state governments live within their means, because of the "cash-basis" statute which prevents deficit spending by local governments and a state constitution that requires a balanced state budget. While a Kansas TABOR won't rein in the U.S. Congress appropriations, it would only hamstring the state. Landwehr twice refers to Kansan's money as "hard-earned" and makes the legislature appear to be looting and pillaging Kansans, getting into their pockets and all. It's odd that Landwehr claims the legislature has "little incentive to be prudent with (Kansans') money in face of special interest groups' pressure". Does she mean that lobbyists' spending on steak dinners, drinks, concert tickets, is too tempting? I understand that experience is the best teacher. And, back to the beginning of this paragraph- who says people live within their means? Has Landwehr not heard of credit card debt, personal bankruptcies, and home equity loans. Then, the Landwehr's last statement of the same paragraph really threw me: "With baby boomers soon retiring, we need to control government spending now to avoid a crisis in the future." What kind of a crisis does she think baby boomers will create for state government? Too bad she can't be more specific, but that would take away the mystery, and the resulting fear that her statement is calculated to produce.
Then, in the next paragraph we read, quoting, "With a TABOR, we the people [some plagiarism there] can take back control of the state's budget." When did the people ever have control of the state's budget? As long as there has been a Kansas constitution, the state's budget has been controlled by representatives of the electorate. She goes on, "Our founding fathers fought against the tyranny of taxation". Not true. It was the tyranny of taxation without representation that was among the reasons for the Revolutionary War. Our new federal constitution made provision for taxation, so it certainly wasn't seen as tyrannical. In her final act of rhetoric, Landwehr opines, "Today, we need to make the government a servant of the people not the people the servant of the government." Our national government has survived as the servant of the people for nearly 230 years. We don't need to do anything today to continue our record as a republic with representative government. Again, another strike-out, and so this paragraph produces no runs, no hits and three big errors.
Overall, the article is rhetorical and offers no information that would justify putting the State legislature in a TABOR straight jacket when confronted with the needs of its constituents. Landwehr cites Thomas Jefferson's sentiment for limited government. Would that she follow Jefferson's dictum that "Information is the currency of democracy." and provide the research indicating government spending growth at 3 times that of average wages. Perhaps Landwehr is a Republican in name only and a Libertarian in political philosophy?
Brenda's writing was in response to a column by Barbara Shelly (Robin Hood revolt comes to Kansas, September 16), concerning the so-called Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR). Landwehr alleges that Shelly, in her critique of TABOR missed the forest for the trees. This is how Landwehr's rhetoric starts: "The really big forest is that Kansas government spending for the last 30 years is growing three times faster than the average Kansan's wages." Let's analyze this allegation of Landwehr's.
First, why is it these politicos seldom cite sources like publicly available research reports? What is meant by "Kansas government spending"? Which years does the "last 30" cover? From July 1, 1975, to June 30, 2004 or some other time frame? Which expenditures make up the "government spending"? Does it include spending funded by federal aid, such as medicaid, highways, community development grants, school aid and many other sources of state income? Does it include spending funded by non-tax revenues such as tuition, lottery income, law suit settlements (i.e., tobacco) or bond issue proceeds (i.e., highway bonds)? Does "Kansas government spending" include only state government expenditures or is spending for cities, counties and schools counted as well? Was any adjustment made in the total "Kansas government spending" to account for the State's assumption of school finance? Does it include new state spending caused by 'unfunded federal mandates'? What other adjustments in "Kansas government spending" are necessary to be sure the comparison over a 30-year period is not one of apples and oranges? In other words, just what is it that is growing three times faster than the "average Kansan's wages"? Speaking of "wages", where is that figure obtained? Is "wages" the same as per capita income, or average family income? And who is this "average Kansan". What part of the Kansas population is in the data set? Well, you get the picture. How reputable are the numbers that Landwehr refers to as "government overspending" in the very next sentence in her article. And, other than her personal opinion, how legitimate is this characterization of the expenditures of the State of Kansas? If "government overspending" is the basic premise for TABOR, shouldn't this characterization deserve an in-depth analysis rather than only the proof by assertion that Landwehr has offered?
I'll skip discussing Landwehr's idea that Colorado's TABOR problems will be avoided in Kansas if TABOR is added to our state constitution, because we'll have a "budget stabilization fund". And, would she be so kind as to explain, "what happened to state budgets after the terrorist attacks of 2001"? And if a B.S. fund is needed "to avoid the shortfalls Colorado faced", does her use of the past tense mean that Colorado has solved its problem. If so why are they talking about suspending TABOR for 5 years and then perhaps, indefinitely or forever.
Let's look at some more of Landwehr's rhetoric. Next, she writes, "While you and I have to live within our means, government does not have to show that restraint." Which government is she talking about: local, state or federal? Agreed the federal level lately under the GOP has shown little spending restraint, our Kansas local and state governments live within their means, because of the "cash-basis" statute which prevents deficit spending by local governments and a state constitution that requires a balanced state budget. While a Kansas TABOR won't rein in the U.S. Congress appropriations, it would only hamstring the state. Landwehr twice refers to Kansan's money as "hard-earned" and makes the legislature appear to be looting and pillaging Kansans, getting into their pockets and all. It's odd that Landwehr claims the legislature has "little incentive to be prudent with (Kansans') money in face of special interest groups' pressure". Does she mean that lobbyists' spending on steak dinners, drinks, concert tickets, is too tempting? I understand that experience is the best teacher. And, back to the beginning of this paragraph- who says people live within their means? Has Landwehr not heard of credit card debt, personal bankruptcies, and home equity loans. Then, the Landwehr's last statement of the same paragraph really threw me: "With baby boomers soon retiring, we need to control government spending now to avoid a crisis in the future." What kind of a crisis does she think baby boomers will create for state government? Too bad she can't be more specific, but that would take away the mystery, and the resulting fear that her statement is calculated to produce.
Then, in the next paragraph we read, quoting, "With a TABOR, we the people [some plagiarism there] can take back control of the state's budget." When did the people ever have control of the state's budget? As long as there has been a Kansas constitution, the state's budget has been controlled by representatives of the electorate. She goes on, "Our founding fathers fought against the tyranny of taxation". Not true. It was the tyranny of taxation without representation that was among the reasons for the Revolutionary War. Our new federal constitution made provision for taxation, so it certainly wasn't seen as tyrannical. In her final act of rhetoric, Landwehr opines, "Today, we need to make the government a servant of the people not the people the servant of the government." Our national government has survived as the servant of the people for nearly 230 years. We don't need to do anything today to continue our record as a republic with representative government. Again, another strike-out, and so this paragraph produces no runs, no hits and three big errors.
Overall, the article is rhetorical and offers no information that would justify putting the State legislature in a TABOR straight jacket when confronted with the needs of its constituents. Landwehr cites Thomas Jefferson's sentiment for limited government. Would that she follow Jefferson's dictum that "Information is the currency of democracy." and provide the research indicating government spending growth at 3 times that of average wages. Perhaps Landwehr is a Republican in name only and a Libertarian in political philosophy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
