The Obamacare case ruling

is expected around 10am.  I'm hitting refresh every few minutes.  I hope it comes through before I have to leave the house...

A little bit of a sick feeling.  We shall see...

October Baby DVD and a special bonus

I heard about this and thought it was too good an opportunity not to share.  The movie October Baby is coming out in September and is now available for prebuy (is that a word?). For every prebuy copy purchased through Family Christian Stores (at only $13.99) they will donate an additional copy to a local pregnancy resource center.  Now that's a great deal!

I think this movie is well worth seeing, and who knows how God could use it in the life of a woman or couple experiencing a crisis pregnancy.  I encourage you to look into it this opportunity if you can!  

Religious Liberty, Part II

This article from National Review Online about a sexual orientation discrimination case in New Mexico is a must read.  In the case, an Albuquerque photography studio run by a husband/wife team declined to provide photography for a same-sex commitment ceremony based on the religious beliefs of the owners.  The state's Human Rights Commission found Elane Photography guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2008, and last month the state's Court of Appeals upheld this ruling. According to the Court, the studio provides services to the public and therefore has no free speech protections under the First Amendment.

I think this ruling represents a grave threat to religious liberty.  As the article points out, photography is a highly personal, creative, and artistic pursuit that is entirely different from the services of a restaurant or department store.  And art has long been recognized by the courts as a personal form of expression protected under the First Amendment.  In fact, in their initial e-mail request for photography services, the lesbian couple asked for a photographer to help "celebrate" their commitment ceremony.  Clearly, forcing a photographer to lend her artistic skill to celebrate something to which she has a conscientious objection is nothing less than government coercion and a violation of the photographer's right of free speech.  And for that matter, would it not be in the lesbian couple's best interest to find a photographer that was supportive of their ceremony, assuming that their goal was to get the best photos possible of the event?  What couple would want someone taking pictures of their wedding who was compelled to do so against her will?  There is little doubt that the couple bringing the suit could have easily found a first-rate photographer who would gladly have helped to celebrate their ceremony, but instead they chose to pursue a political agenda that involved trying to shutter a business whose owners disapproved of their lifestyle choice.  In fact, this whole case provides support for my previous argument that the push for same-sex marriage is really about forcing societal approval of homosexuality. 

The logical result of this ruling is to effectively bar all individuals with traditional religious beliefs (Christians, Jews, and Muslims, to name a few) from the wedding photography business, since they cannot in good conscience celebrate same-sex marriage.  And, as the article notes, what about writers, videographers, graphic designers, clothing designers, and others?  Logically, under this decision they would also be forced to enter into contracts to offer their services on behalf of causes with which they disagree.  Already, in Kentucky a T-shirt company has had legal action brought against it for refusing to make shirts for a gay pride parade.  If this ruling holds, discrimination laws in certain cities would force marketing agencies to work for political organizations like the Communist Party USA.  If free speech means anything at all, it should mean that individuals and businesses have the right to make their own decisions when it comes to personal and creative services governed by private contracts.  And no one should be forced to use their marketable skills on behalf of a cause that violates their conscience.  If this ruling stands, it is a severe blow to both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Religious Liberty, Part I

This morning I was listening to the radio broadcast of Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk program.  The guest was Kelly Shackelford, the president of the Liberty Institute which provides legal defense for attacks against religious liberty.  Shackelford was talking about the case of the Mojave Desert Memorial Cross, which was constructed more than 75 years ago in the middle of the desert to honor veterans of World War I.  The ACLU sued to force the removal of this memorial -- since we all know what a threat to our Constitution this is! -- and a lower court and a court of appeals both agreed with the ACLU that it was unconstitutional.  During the appeals process, the court ordered the deeply offensive cross to be covered with a bag and chain so that no one who happened to be passing by in the middle of the desert would be subjected to looking at anything that could be construed as a religious symbol.  Eventually, the case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the memorial was upheld as constitutional in a 5-4 decision.  After the Supreme Court's decision, some brave champions of the Constitution tore down and stole the monument.  An exact replica was quickly constructed, but the Obama Administration has refused to allow it to be put up despite the Supreme Court's ruling and despite the pleas of numerous veterans' organizations across the country, since the legal proceedings apparently have not yet been officially closed.  This is just one of many attacks by the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation against veterans' memorials and other public displays that include religious symbols, with the goal being the complete of eradication of religious expression in the public square. 

Although it is sad that so many judges, as well as the Obama Administration, have bought into an interpretation of the Constitution which is completely contrary to the intentions of the Founders and which threatens our fundamental First Amendment freedoms, it is encouraging to hear that groups like the Liberty Institute are fighting back and winning some key victories.  It is also a warning about the importance of defeating Obama in November.  If Obama gets the chance to appoint even one additional Supreme Court Justice, then all hope of winning most of these religious liberty cases is gone for probably decades.  I realize that there is some concern about the type of justices Romney would appoint as well, but his public statements as well as his website make clear that he believes in the concept of original intent and does not believe unelected judges should impose their policy preferences from the bench.  And conservatives would at least have hope of influencing his nominating decisions, unlike Obama's.  This issue alone should be sufficient reason for every conservative to cast a vote for Mitt Romney in November.

Headline Mix-Up?

In April 2012, this was Bloomberg Businessweekly's cover:

(This with the official unemployment rate above 8%, real unemployment well into double digits, anemic and slowing economic growth, soaring gas prices, a deficit near $15 trillion, and huge majorities of Americans believing the country is on the wrong track.)

A month later, this was Bloomberg Businessweekly's cover:

I'm fairly certain this magazine mixed up its headlines.  The first picture was supposed to go with the second headline.

Presidential Election Predictions

The 2012 election season is starting to heat up, and I have once again prepared my predictions for the outcome of the presidential election.  Obviously, it's still very early, and I will be updating my predictions map periodically over the next several months.  I have also made preliminary predictions for the U.S. Senate races, but these are even more subject to change because in some cases the nominees have not even been chosen yet.  At some point I will make predictions for the 2012 governor's races as well, and possibly the U.S. House races.

Here are the links:
Presidential Electoral College Predictions
U.S. Senate Predictions

UPDATE: I have now added links to my presidential, Senate, and governor election predictions on the left side of the blog.  As I update my predictions over the next few months, I will update these links as well so they will stay current.  So check back now and then for changes!

Eric Holder and Gay Parenting

These two topics are unrelated, by the way....

I have ranted against Attorney General Eric Holder many times on this blog.  I think he is nothing more than a corrupt, incompetent, race-obsessed political hack, and it is a disgrace that he occupies one of the most powerful governmental positions in this country.  Finally, in the wake of Holder's utter failure to seriously address the Fast and Furious scandal and the unprecedented leaks of classified information that are apparently coming from the White House, several prominent Republican in Congress, including Senator John Cornyn from Texas who sits on the Justice Committee, have called for Eric Holder's resignation.  Senator Cornyn lays out the reasons why Holder should resign clearly here.

I also want to follow up on the lengthy essay I published on the topic of same-sex marriage last month.  One of the issues I discussed with Some Dude in the comments to that essay was the question about how children do growing up in homes with same-sex parents compared with children being raised by both of their biological parents.  Some recent studies have claimed that there is no difference, and supporters of same-sex marriage have seized on these studies to argue that since children do not need a father and a mother to thrive there is no reason to give special recognition to traditional heterosexual marriage for the sake of the children. 

However, two studies published on June 10 in the Social Science Research journal, which is apparently a well-respected scholarly publication, raise serious questions about these claims.  One study, authored by a professor at Louisiana State University, found that previous research studies that claimed children raised by same-sex parents do just as well as children raised by married heterosexual parents were flawed and that the data from those studies was insufficient to support their claims.  The other study, authored by a professor from the University of Texas, found that children raised by lesbian parents fared worse on 24 out of 40 key developmental outcomes, and that children raised by gay parents fared worse on 19 out of 40 key developmental outcomes.  The children of gay and lesbian parents fared better on no developmental outcomes.  This study also compared other types of family structures.  The study's conclusion is that "children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.”

I have found a number of helpful articles online that provide more information and analysis of these studies.  They include an article from Fox News by Dr. Keith Ablow and a National Review article by Charles C.W. Cooke.  And legal expert Ed Whelan, also of National Review, discusses the implications of these studies on the ongoing gay marriage debate in three very helpful articles here, here, and here.  Of course, studies must be taken with a grain of salt and no one study can definitively prove anything.  But these studies are important in debunking the claim being advanced by many gay marriage advocates that science definitively proves that it makes no difference to a child whether he is raised by a mother and a father, two fathers, or two mothers.  Ultimately, my belief in the importance of fathers and mothers is not based on any study.  It is based, first of all, in my belief in God's Word and the creation order and marriage institution God established.  It is also based on the fundamental realities of biology and the clear differences between genders and between fathers and mothers.  And finally, it is based on the experience of thousands of years of culture and the mountains of evidence that demonstrate that children do best when raised by their married biological parents.

UPDATE: Another great article from National Review analyzing the recent gay parenting study and comparing it to other gay parenting studies published in recent years.

The Good Guys Won!

Tuesday's governor recall election in the state of Wisconsin has been called the second most important election in 2012, and I do not believe this was an overstatement.

Scott Walker is the epitome of everything that people say they want in a political leader.  He took immediate action to address the state's massive $3.6 billion budget deficit which he inherited from his predecessor.  He came up with a plan to balance the state's budget without raising taxes and convinced the state legislature to pass it.  He courageously stood by his principles and did not back down, despite massive public protests and unfavorable polling. 

Walker's plan brought him into direct conflict with the state's public employee unions.  I wrote more about the corrupt influence of public employee unions on government and Walker's reasonable efforts to curb their power here and here.  Essentially, public employee unions have the power to force state employees to pay dues, which are then used to elect the unions' favored politicians (usually Democrats).  Those politicians, in turn, use their power to negotiate highly favorable contracts on behalf of those unions who funded their campaigns.  Michael Barone has memorably called public employee unions "a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic party."  This vicious cycle explains why state and local government union employees make, on average, 45% more in total compensation than similar employees working in the private sector.  Walker took direct aim at this wasteful, corrupt system by proposing that government union employees pay a larger percentage of their health insurance and pension costs (still a much smaller percentage than most non-government employees), limiting collective bargaining rights of public unions for non-wage benefits of their members, and preventing unions from forcing state and local employees to pay dues.

It has now been well over a year since Walker's reforms took effect, and the evidence clearly shows they have worked.  He succeeded in eliminating that multi-billion dollar budget deficit without raising taxes.  In fact, the state's most recent budget showed a $154 million budget surplus!  Under Walker's responsible fiscal leadership, the state's economy has begun to create new jobs again.  By reducing the power of the teachers' unions, school districts around the state have saved millions of dollars and avoided sizable layoffs.  And membership in public employee unions declined significantly in the year following enactment (45% decline in AFSCME membership, per the Washington Post), suggesting that given the choice many people prefer not to be in a union at all.  These positive results have helped to change the opinions of Wisconsin voters.  Walker and his reforms were initially very unpopular in the state, but multiple polls leading up the recall election yesterday indicated that a clear majority of voters approved of Walker's job as governor and specifically of his collective bargaining reforms.  This explains why Walker's Democratic opponent almost completely stopped talking about the labor issue in the weeks leading up to the final recall vote.

In contrast to Walker's common sense solutions, the tactics of his pro-union opponents were radical and thuggish.  All the Democrats in the state senate left the state entirely to try to shut down the democratic process.  Protestors surrounded and occupied the state capitol building in Madison for months on end, shouting vile things and waving signs comparing Walker to Hitler.  So many physical threats were leveled against Republican legislators that many of them had to get police protection for their homes and businesses.  Huge numbers of teachers walked off their jobs for days and weeks at a time, shutting down schools and creating huge headaches for working parents.  And then there were the endless recalls.  The unions spent close to $100 million, first by turning a state supreme court election into a partisan drama by running a candidate who promised to legislate from the bench and overturn Walker's collective bargaining law passed by duly elected representatives of the people.  They then spent big bucks on a primary and special election to attempt to recall several Republican members of the state legislature, not for any corruption or crime while in office, but merely out of political disagreement.  A few months later, they got the necessary number of signatures to force another primary and another special election to attempt to recall Governor Walker, elected barely a year and a half earlier, and a few more Republican legislators.  Once again, the recalls were purely based on political disagreement.  For the entire year and a half period spanning all this political drama, the voters of Wisconsin were subjected to non-stop partisan rancor, campaigning, and get-out-the-vote efforts.  The unionists have literally torn the state apart.  No wonder that in the final recall election yesterday, nearly 70% of voters according to exit polls said that they believe recall elections should never be permitted or should only be permitted in the case of clear malfeasance or corruption in office.  Talk about an electorate sick of partisan politics!

I am thrilled about the outcome of this election because the good guys won.  And that doesn't seem to be something that happens much in politics these days.  Scott Walker took on one of the most powerful political interest groups in the state on behalf of the taxpayers, didn't back down in the face of some of the most extreme thuggery I've seen in politics, and ultimately won the fight because of his courage and persistance.  His success sends a powerful message to politicians everywhere that standing on principle doesn't have to be a political loser, and that elected officials don't have to kowtow to powerful special interests and go with what is easy and politically expedient in order to win elections.   (As further proof of this, the voters of San Jose and San Diego also approved initiatives limiting the power of public unions on Tuesday.)  It also sends a message that gutter politics and intimidation tactics do not always win the day.  There are still many people in this country that care about spending and deficits and will support a candidate of fiscal responsibility.  I hope this will embolden other politicians to challenge the public employee unions that are threatening their states with insolvency.

I stayed up late to watch Governor Scott Walker's speech on Tuesday night (delayed due to Barrett's refusal to concede until a couple of hours after the race was called by the networks).  The first words out of Walker's mouth (after an acknowledgement of the enthusiastic crowd) were these: "First, I want to thank God for His abundant grace."  I could hear the emotion in his voice as he spoke these very personal words, and also the next words as he thanked his wife and teenaged sons for their support.  I too felt surprisingly emotional as I heard these words.  Governor Walker and his family have been through hell over the past year and a half.  Wisconsin has been through hell over the past year and a half.  I am so thankful that God's grace sustained the governor, his family, and his supporters through this painful experience.  His grace apparently also enabled Walker to be incredibly gracious toward his political opponents in his speech, which was completely devoid of partisanship.  He said that he was the governor of all residents of Wisconsin and that he was going to work hard to bring the deeply fractured state back together.  When Walker mentioned Barrett's name and the crowd starting booing, Walker held up his hand for silence.  I guess I need more of God's grace because I wasn't feeling very forgiving and generous towards the union goons that have been so hateful toward Walker and his supporters.  I felt hungry for revenge.  I wanted to see Walker rub his big victory in their faces.  But deep down, I know that Walker's approach is right, both from God's perspective and from a practical standpoint.  It is rare indeed to find a politician who combines such incredible backbone with such a soft spoken, gracious attitude toward his enemies, and I hope that Walker has a political future beyond Wisconsin.

The Case for Marriage As the Union Between a Man and a Woman

NOTE: I originally wrote most of this article more than a year ago, but never got around to completing and publishing it.  Now that gay marriage is in the news, both in Maryland and nationwide due to President Obama's "flip-flop-flip" on the issue, I decided to revisit and complete this.  It is of necessity long, because I am trying to address the issue as comprehensively as possible and respond to many of the claims made by gay marriage advocates.  I have two main goals in writing this.  The first goal relates to conservatives and religious people who are uncomfortable with gay marriage but may not be able to articulate why and may be reluctant to take a stand.  I hope this article will help them to realize that there are good public policy reasons to keep marriage between a man and a woman and encourage them not to back off in the face of accusations of bigotry from the left.  The second goal is to convince any supporters of gay marriage who may read this that there are good reasons for our opposition to gay marriage and that we are motivated not by hatred or the desire to deny gay people basic civil rights, but by our desire to preserve an institution that benefits children and society and to protect religious liberty.  I don't necessarily think that this article will change the mind of someone who believes strongly in gay marriage, but I think if that person is honest and fair-minded it will convince him or her that there is a clear case against gay marriage that is not based on bigotry and hatred.

The other day, I glanced at a letter on my dining room table from my state delegate. He was talking about all the supposed "accomplishments" of the 2011 session of the Maryland legislature. One of the items he mentioned was the issue of same-sex marriage. Even though same-sex marriage narrowly failed to pass the House of Delegates this year, my delegate considered it a great triumph for equality that the legislation came so close to becoming law. He even included a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

This got me thinking about how thoroughly social conservatives are losing the battle over marriage in this country. Everyone knows that the key to winning an argument is framing the debate in terms favorable to your position. No matter how strong a case you may have, it is next to impossible to win an argument when you are fighting on your opponent's turf. In this case, gay rights activists have succeeded in convincing a sizable percentage of the American population that gay marriage is a fundamental human and civil right guaranteed by the Constitution, and to ban it is to deny equality to millions of Americans. In almost any debate on this topic nowadays, the onus is on defenders of traditional marriage to prove that they are not the hate-filled, discrimination-loving bigots that they are assumed by default to be. Indeed, most of the time the media calls the issue a debate over "marriage equality." Talk about loaded definitions! Obviously, no one wants to get stuck on the side of inequality, which explains why support for traditional marriage from many conservative quarters has been tepid at best.

I think it's important to take a step back and think about the actual institution of marriage -- what it is, why it exists, why it is important to society. In my view, understanding these points is a critical first step to discussing whether changes are needed in the definition of marriage. Instead of allowing our opponents to pick the battleground, we have to redirect the focus back to these critical questions.

Primary Elections Yesterday

For conservatives, there was a lot to celebrate in the primary election results yesterday:

In Indiana, 36-year GOP incumbent Senator Richard Lugar lost by a massive 61-39 margin to State Treasurer Richard Mourdock.  Lugar was so out of touch with Indiana he sold his home in the state years ago.  For most of his tenure in the Senate, Lugar was a conservative, but over the past 5-10 years he had been drifting steadily to the left, even going so far as to agree to be featured in an Obama campaign ad in 2008 (viewed by some as a quasi-endorsement of Obama).  Lugar will certainly not be missed by me, and Mourdock should have no problems winning the general election in a conservative state like Indiana.

In North Carolina, voters passed a state constitutional amendment to reiterate the traditional definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman by an overwhelming 61-39 margin.  I expected the measure to pass but not by such a wide margin in this supposed swing state that Obama apparently entertains hopes of carrying in November.  I also found it interesting that 21% of Democrats (200,000 voters) voted for "No Preference" rather than for the unopposed Obama.  Hmmm.

In West Virginia, Obama did have an opponent.  A convicted felon who has been incarcerated in a Texas prison since 1999.  This guy got 41% of the Democratic vote statewide!  Obama got only 59%.  I think it's safe to say this is one state Romney has locked up.

In Wisconsin, Democrats nominated former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to run against Scott Walker in a gubernatorial recall election in June.  The interesting thing here is that Barrett comfortably defeated Kathleen Falk, who was Big Labor's nominee of choice.  After all, this recall election was engineered by Big Labor in the first place, and they spent big money on Falk's behalf.  Barrett is downplaying the union issue, to the point that he backed out of a unity rally with Falk and union leaders the final weekend of the campaign in an apparent attempt to avoid being associated with them.  It seems pretty obvious that the non-stop union protests and recall shenanigans over the past year plus have turned off voters and provoked a backlash.  Walker was practically unopposed in his primary and there were no other GOP primaries occurring, while the Democrats had a competitive gubernatorial primary as well as a number of competitive primaries for state legislature recall races.  Therefore, Democrats should have had far more motivation to turn out than Republicans.  Yet, the total votes cast by Democrats and Republicans was virtually equal, and Walker got more votes than Barrett and Falk put together!  I'm feeling good about Walker's chances in the recall election next month.  He is one of the most courageous and principled politicians out there, in my opinion.

Testimony before sub-committee this week

Dr. Jeffrey Herbener of Grove City College and the Ludwig von Mises Institute (also a former professor of mine) is testifying before the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology which is chaired by Ron Paul (Committee on Financial Services) tomorrow.   Dr. Peter Klein of University of Missouri is also testifying.  Both are excellent economists and should say what needs to be said.  I can't say as much for their colleagues who will also be testifying before the subcommittee, including James Galbraith.

Dr. Shawn Ritenour over at Foundations of Economics has more details, including links to Dr. Herbener's and Dr. Klein's written testimony.  I encourage you to take a look at the written testimonies if you can!      

Some Dude's Profound Profundities of Profoundness

Thomas Sowell occasionally writes a list of pithy sayings which are too short for their own article.  I'm doing the same.  -- S.D.

1. There is one reason and one reason only to oppose voter ID laws: you support election fraud.

2. Or maybe you think that voter ID laws are discriminatory against differently-animated Americans.  Or differently-naturalized Americans.

3. One argument from liberals opposed to voter ID laws is that the number of fraudulent votes cast is miniscule and that this is a "solution without a problem."  In that case, maybe I should wait until I get a cavity before I brush my teeth.

4. I am a little amused when I read about efforts to end bullying in schools.  Liberals seem to think that passing a federal law against bullying will somehow make bullies disappear.  All it takes is passing a law and hiring some motivational speakers?  Why did no one think of that before?  In that case, why not ban jerks?  That would eliminate a whole range of crimes and antisocial behaviors...like silencing dissenters and demanding that other people pay for your recreational activities, for example.

There oughta be a bumper sticker... (cont.)

Continued from here...

7. Keep your ovaries out of my wallet.  (See this.)

8. If obstetricians made large donations to Democrats' campaigns, giving birth would be a sacrament.

9. I want a pony.

The President's List

Here is a disturbing opinion piece from The Wall Street Journal about President Obama's enemies list. 

I have said this before, but I will say it again.  Put ideology aside for a moment.  Regardless of whether you are conservative or liberal, you should be upset by the political tactics Obama uses.  You should be bothered by the excessive partisan rhetoric he uses to demonize his opponents, his administration's attacks against the free press, the way he uses the power of the presidency to intimidate GOP donors, his attacks against and attempts to lecture the Supreme Court (a co-equal branch of government), his attempt to politicize the awarding of government contracts, his administration's intimidation tactics against health insurers, his open refusal to comply with Constitutional requirements about obtaining Congressional approval for his Cabinet-level nominees, his corrupt refusal to hold people in his administration accountable for their actions, his politicization and racialization of legal cases that should have nothing to do with politics (Trayvon Martin case, Cambridge police case), and his administration's refusal to enforce laws they don't like.  To me, Obama's corrupt thug tactics and disregard for the rule of law are far worse than his left-wing ideology.

Every time I see a car with an Obama 2012 sticker or hear someone expressing support for his re-election, I wonder.  Are these people simply ignorant about what Obama is really up to?  Or do they know about what he's up to and just don't care?

"Seven Stanzas at Easter"

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His flesh: ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart
that–pierced–died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping, transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.

The stone is rolled back, not papier-mâché,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.

And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck’s quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.
~John Updike

There oughta be a bumper sticker...

These are all variations on common bumper stickers.  Feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments section.

1. My child was Vandal of the Month at Occupy High School.
2. It will be a great day when our military has the money it needs and Planned Parenthood has to hold a bake sale to pay for abortions.
3. A conservative needs a liberal like a dog needs a tick.
4. Envy is not a family value.
5. Class warfare is not a family value.
6. Jesus is not a Democrat.

My Ballot Choices for Tomorrow's Primary

Just on the off chance that there are any Maryland (particularly Montgomery County) readers of this blog that are interested in hearing my ballot choices for tomorrow's primary election, here they are:

PRESIDENT: Mitt Romney. Romney has never been my first choice, but he is the only candidate with a mathematical chance of winning the GOP primary outright. I think that the sooner this primary wraps up and we can focus our attention on Obama, the better. Waiting till the convention to choose a nominee is a very bad idea and will likely guarantee a loss to Obama in November. Romney has weaknesses as a candidate, but I think he is a decent man and a very acceptable nominee and would be a vast improvement over Obama.

U.S. SENATOR: Daniel John Bongino. From what I have read, the two top-tier candidates in the race are Bongino and Richard Douglas. Of the two, I find Bongino more impressive. His website demonstrates his conservative beliefs and also is very detailed and substantive. His resume is also very impressive, and conservative blogs are buzzing about his passion and speaking ability. He has associated himself with the Tea Party movement and has been endorsed by several Tea Party members of Congress. My only concern about him is that his website does not address his positions on abortion and gay marriage, but the fact that the Maryland Right to Life has not endorsed a candidate in this race suggests to me that he is probably pro-life. Obviously, he is a long-shot against Democratic incumbent Ben Cardin, but if he is as good of a candidate as people are claiming, maybe he will make it a race.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 6TH DISTRICT: Roscoe Bartlett. This district was redrawn since the last election, and has gone from being a 40% Obama district to a 57% Obama district, meaning it will be a challenge for us to hold this district in the upcoming election. Bartlett is a long-time incumbent, but he has not faced a close race in a very long time and is about 85 years old. I'm a little worried that he may not be up for the tough campaign ahead. However, I have not found myself impressed with any of his 7 GOP challengers either. Supposedly the biggest threats to him are two opponents who are already members of the state legislature: Kathy Afzali and David Brinkley. I have read some negative things about Brinkley, who apparently is a fairly moderate Republican. Also, Bartlett has been an excellent congressman who has consistently fought against higher spending, and he has been endorsed by the Maryland Right to Life. And he has raised more money than all his opponents combined, which calls into question their claims that they would have a better chance of winning in the general election.

BOARD OF EDUCATION AT LARGE (MONTGOMERY CO.): For Board of Education, I always look at the candidates recommended by the teachers' union's "Apple Ballots" and make sure to vote the opposite, since I believe the teachers' unions deserve a large share of the blame for the problems we have with public education today. Most people apparently do not agree (or do not realize that Apple Ballot candidates are teachers' union endorsed, not necessarily teacher endorsed), since the Apple Ballot candidates always win. Anyway, incumbent Phil Kauffman is the Apple Ballot candidate, so he's out. Of the remaining candidates, I think I most prefer Aryeh Shudofsky, based on some of his answers to the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County's questions. Morris Panner might not be a bad choice either.

BOARD OF EDUCATION DISTRICT 2: I think the worst choice would be Saqib Ali, who is actually not an Apple Ballot candidate but is a left-wing activist and an awful former member of the House of Delegates (I used to be in his district when I lived in Montgomery Village). I would also avoid the two Apple Ballot candidates Jeanne Ellinport and Fred Evans. Almost by default, I settled on Susan Byrne as the best available choice. I liked what little information I could find about her. Both she and Shudofsky (above) are outsiders, and I think that's a good thing. The Montgomery County Board of Education could use some fresh blood.

Usually the candidates I vote for don't win. I hope this year is different!

Too Late to Apologize

I can't remember if I've shared this before or not, but it's ok if I have.

I like the "no tea" in the first verse...

October Baby and the NY Times

I thought I'd share this brilliant movie "review" from the New York Times for October Baby.

Priceless, isn't it?

The movie opens today. Go see it.

October Baby

NateDawg and I were blessed to see a pre-screening of a new movie coming out on March 23, October Baby. We were part of a group of bloggers chosen specially for this honor. Just kidding. I won the tickets through 95.1 Shine FM. The DJs were handing out tissues as we entered the theater, and they were right. It isn't all tears. There are many funny and beautiful moments. It was a wonderful, moving, emotional story of forgiveness and love, of the miracle of life, and adoption. I think I will try to go again when it opens next weekend.



And a hint for when you go see it (opening weekend!): be sure to stay for at least the beginning of the credits.