Archive for May 21, 2010

…praying the Rosary in schools:

A 13-year-old New York student was suspended for wearing rosary beads to school.

Raymond Hosier was sent home for two days over the religious symbol, visible outside his clothing.

His school district in Schenectady said students are not allowed to wear beads out of concern they may be gang-related. Hosier, however, said they’re comforting since the loss of his brother and uncle.

After all if you have kids praying the Rosary they might start honoring their father’s and their mothers or deciding to love their neighbors as themselves and we can’t have that.

And of course if it was an Islamic symbol they would not have dared to touch it, but since Catholicism says to love your enemy instead of cutting off their head the school department doesn’t fear them.

However I’ll bet the school department fears a canny lawyer nearly as much as much as Islamic violence so if I was an enterprising young lawyer I’d be calling this boy’s parents STAT.

He won’t get support from the national media either, they only like Catholics who don’t believe.

If this upsets you then watch this post at Adrienne’s Corner to cheer you up.

…As I finalize my trip to Atlanta to take a peek at Ga-4 and the Liz Carter Campaign.

My plans for the week are not in stone, as I ‘m staying with friends and a family that I haven’t seen in decades I’ll of course be wanting to do some catching up but that won’t keep me from the purpose of the trip.

I’m hoping to meet pols, bloggers, tea party members and the voters who will decide the primaries and the general election and give you an idea of it as well.

This fight is being repeated all over the country and hopefully my bit will give you a useful glimpse.

Does it depend on what “is” is?

Posted: May 21, 2010 by datechguy in local stuff, opinion/news
Tags: , ,

You might have noticed quite a debate in comments between me and my arch enemy friend Chris concerning an attempt to define “Medical Office” under the city ordinance.

The thing that got Chris in such an uproar was the following statement to start:

but I think the thing needed frankly are different counselors if we want to see different results

This sentiment was not appreciated by Chris:

In order to have people who will put their personal beliefs above the law and the interests of the town, then yes, you will need to replace the mostly reasonable and honorable members of the city council.

Read that statement and roll it around your head. Apparently only people who are not willing to respect the law would be people who agree with me, or with pro-life people. The sheer arrogance that this conveys is astounding. I wonder what other political positions would qualify for that under this philosophy?

We then got into a discussion about the specific issue, being can a resolution be passed to define what a “Medical Office” is? Chris’ reaction:

The town solicitor thought it was illegal, the city council president thought it was illegal, and the majority of the city council thought it was illegal.

Now I wasn’t at that meeting and he was, so I can’t speak to what they said, in the Newspaper they reported something slightly different:

But the City Council voted against amending the petition, after Council President Stephan Hay informed them that the amendment wasn’t filed until late Monday afternoon.

“I think asking this council in one day’s notice to define what a medical office is, is inappropriate,” Hay said.

Now that is a fair point, but that can be resolved by re-submitting the petition but as to the legality I asked Chris a pretty basic question:

Can you point me to something in actual law that states what a medical office is defined as? Can you point me to specific text in a law that would make that definition “illegal”.

After hemming and hawing he pointed me to this link that says the following:

It is the policy of the City of Fitchburg to see that each individual, regardless of his/her race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, age, ancestry, children, marital status, veteran history, public assistance recipieny, handicap, disability or sexual orientation, provided that the term “sexual orientation” shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as sex objects, shall have equal opportunity in or access to employment, housing, education, recreation and public accommodations; to assure that each individual shall have equal access to and benefit from all public services; to protect each individual in the enjoyment of his/her civil rights; and to encourage and bring about mutual understanding and respect among all individuals in the City by the elimination of prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, discrimination and the disorder occasioned thereby.

Now forgetting that they are defining sexual orientation in a way I haven’t seen it defined before can someone explain to me how this policy makes the following illegal:

“Medical Office” shall mean the office of any doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed health care practitioner, medical clinic, or medical laboratory wherein ambulatory medical, dental, physical rehabilitation, mental health services or other health services are rendered. “Medical Office” shall not include a facility wherein a live human fetus is terminated or caused to be terminated by any surgical procedure performed or medication prescribed.

I put this out as an open question to anyone reading this. How does the policy above make the paragraph illegal as passed? Furthermore how does redefining a “medical office” make abortion itself illegal in the city. I don’t see that at all and I don’t know how someone reads that into that statement.

Look at any federal law. Terms within the laws are regularly defined within laws, in fact they are often re-defined in different sections of the same law. Take a look at the healthcare bill for current examples.

Now I think Mr. Hay’s argument about timing was not without merit, but the assertion that this is illegal without citing law to back it up is just cheap talk. The amendment was prepared by an experienced and trained lawyer, why is his opinion concerning Mr. Hay’s et/al any less valid? Or is a legal opinion validity based not on what the law says but if someone agrees with it?

Anyway I throw the argument open: Is Chris right or am I? Furthermore I say again, can someone point out an actual applicable city, state or federal law that would make creating such a definition illegal?

Read more:

Who is going to create jobs if not business?

Posted: May 21, 2010 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: ,

Again we see the media and the left (I know that’s redundant) celebrating the passage of a law that has kicked the stock market between the legs:

Stocks logged their biggest drop of the year Thursday as investors worried about two events coming Friday — a German vote on the EU bailout and options expiration.

Plus, a vote in the Senate to end debate on financial reform cleared the path for a final vote tonight or tomorrow, which added another layer of selling pressure.

It’s very simple, if you want to create jobs you need business to be able to make money and make profit. If they do not then they will not hire.

Small business, big business any business that is the way it is. As long as this administration is unfriendly to business and the bottom line, the jobs are not going to come.

And remember those jobs produce TAX PAYERS. Without taxpayers we can’t continue on the route we are going.

This is economics 101. Until or unless people figure this out the economy will not recover. Period!