Caffeinated Thoughts |
- Advice to Pro-Lifers from the Peanut Gallery
- Christie Vilsack: Against Government Efficiency on Her Government Efficiency Tour While Ducking Questions
- TABOR: A Pro-Growth Solution for Iowa
- Traffic Cameras: Safety or Cash?
| Advice to Pro-Lifers from the Peanut Gallery Posted: 02 May 2012 11:14 PM PDT Over at Hot Air Dustin Siggins notes that the pro-life movement is succeeding more than ever in passing legislation, including some in Mississippi that is expected to close the state’s last abortion clinic and also that young people are more pro-life than ever. One could add to that, that the pro-life movement has Planned Parenthood on the run with efforts like the Mona Lisa Project and attempts to defund Planned Parenthood across America. In the midst of this great success, Siggins concludes that it’s time for the pro-life movement to adopt new tactics. Among these are:
This is the type of condescending article/blog post that causes my blood to boil. The first time I read something like this was in Former Vice-President Dan Quayle’s Autobiography Standing Firm. He suggested to pro-lifers that they needed to focus on alternatives to abortion and “changing hearts and minds.” As a teenager who frequently went to pro-life protests outside of the abortion clinic where one sign had a number for the pregnancy support center, I felt like saying, “Mr. Vice-President, get real.” That is our focus. I have the same feeling about Mr. Siggins. The only qualification Mr. Siggins possesses to speak to what the pro-life movement is about is that he attended one March for Life in Washington, DC and more in “coverage” mode than as an activist and two prayer protests outside of an abortion clinic. That’s why many of his points are hallow straw men. Points two and four are particularly bad on this point. For the past two decades, the pro-life movement HAS been educating about sexual activity prior to pregnancy and alternatives to abortion. There have been billboards, ads on buses, pamphlets, brochures, websites. By better, what does Mr. Siggins mean? Does he know? Does anyone who offers this sort of “advice” know what the pro-life movement is doing before telling them “do better”? And as for his point on condemning women is equally laughable for anyone involved in the movement. Again, in two decades, I’ve rarely seen anyone in a “blame the woman” mode. If you go to a Life Chain, one popular sign will be, “Jesus Forgives and Heals.” That brings us to Mr. Siggins’ point about religion. His argument is that religious-based arguments have no place in pro-life discourse. Siggins writes, “As I noted after attending the 2010 March for Life, I do not think using religious arguments will persuade either self-described Christians who agree with abortion or non-Christians who agree with abortion. The science of life is in our favor, and we should emphasize this. ” Siggins thinks that the scientific facts on the beginning of life ought to propel the pro-life cause to victory. But will it? Consider that for years blacks, Native Americans, and other racial minorities were abused in this country even when basic scientific facts told us we were mistreating human beings. We believe we were right despite the science or we made up racist pseudo-science to justify ourselves. If you go back to the days of Rome, the pagans left their children out to face exposure and they certainly had no question about their humanity. We can look at the child in the womb and say, “Yes, it’s human, but who cares. An abortion is convenient.” The only reason we can ever come to respect the unborn right to life is if we realize that the child has a right to life that comes from their Creator. And to suggest we can leave that out of the equation is out of touch with the state of humanity. The other reason that the role of God is essential in the pro-life movement is the women Siggins talks about. All that science can tell a woman who has had an abortion is that she hired a doctor to kill her child. It is Christianity and Christians that can offer forgiveness, healing, and redemption from even this. In addition, Siggins complaint came at the March for Life. The March for Life is part rally, part prayer gathering. There are secularists and non-Christians who may show up, but this is quite rare. It is about rallying the faithful. Many are pro-life activists who have soldiered with little help and support. Maybe, they’re at the moment where they despair and cry out like Elijah, “I, even I only, am left.” (1 Kings 19: 10 KJV) At the rally, they see they are not alone. There are hundreds of thousands concerned for the unborn, not only that, they see that they are doing the Lord’s work in standing for the innocent. At that moment, beleaguered activists need inspiration, not a bland recitation of fetal development facts. Of course, there are times when Biblical arguments wouldn’t be best. Congressional floor speeches and hearings on pro-life legislation would not be a good time nor on appearances in the secular media. But then again, that’s not when the faith talk really comes up in the pro-life movement except as part of Mr. Siggins’ straw man argument. I watched hundreds of hours of debate on partial birth abortion and never once heard anyone say it should be banned because the Bible says so. Finally, as to kicking Randall Terry out of the pro-life movement, I’m not quite certain how he proposes that we do this. Maybe Mr. Siggins would propose that a group of pro-lifers perform a discommendation ceremony for Mr. Terry at the next March for Life:
And to be honest, I’d gladly trade twenty armchair quarterbacks like Mr. Siggins for one Randall Terry. Mr. Siggins can pontificate on plans for the pro-life movement with no clue as to what they’re actual doing from the safety of his living room. Meanwhile, the pro-life leaders face the mockery, the degrading attacks, and even death threats. Due to their efforts, abortion rates are down and the number of crisis pregnancy centers are up. If Mr. Siggins thinks the pro-life movement should meet his specifications, he should start a pro-life group modeled after his ideal. Once his group has built pregnancy centers and closed down abortion clinics, then I’ll be happy to listen to him. If he wants to pontificate on how the pro-life movement should operate based on a shallow analysis of the pro-life movement as just another column, I could care less. The pro-life strategy will not be dictated from the bleechers. If Mr. Siggins and pundits like him want to have a voice in the pro-life movement, they need to get out of their seats, suit up, and get in the game. Link to this post!        |
| Posted: 02 May 2012 04:30 PM PDT
In case you missed it, Christie Vilsack came out against government efficiency on her government efficiency tour, which continues across Iowa's 4th Congressional District today. Vilsack read prepared remarks stating she was opposed to a proposed USDA rule that would save taxpayer dollars and make poultry inspections more efficient. The "poultry slaughter rule" was proposed by the USDA to modernize the poultry slaughter inspection system. The rule would allow USDA inspectors more flexibility to patrol the processing plant to ensure the plant is meeting food performance standards. The Des Moines Register reported Christie Vilsack was put into a contrary position by coming out against her husband, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, who is attempting to save money and increase the speed of the inspection process by privatizing poultry inspectors. I don't blame Iowans in the 4th District for being confused by Christie Vilsack's opposition to government efficiency while she is promoting her government efficiency plan. This is yet another example of Christie Vilsack trying to duck issues and have it both ways. Iowans in the 4th District deserve to know whether Vilsack is for saving taxpayer dollars, as her tour claims, or if this is another issue she'd rather Iowans not know her true position. Christie Vilsack says she understands the burdens of our national debt, but her opposition to saving the taxpayers' hard-earned money tells me she wants to continue down the President's path of raising our debt ceiling and spending money we don't have. Christie Vilsack wasn't done there. Multiple media outlets reported she continued to duck questions on issues and give vague answers on policy that matters to the 4th District.
When asked about the President's stimulus package that added to the national debt Christie Vilsack said, "Well I, you know, I don't think it makes sense to go back and replace something, I wasn't in Congress then…" When WHO's Dave Price asked Vilsack about raising taxes, Vilsack responded, "Well I think that everyone needs to pay their fair share." Price followed up by asking if that was a "yes" or a "no." Vilsack fired back, "That's my answer."
Jimmy Centers is the Communications Director for the Steve King for Congress Campaign Link to this post!      |
| TABOR: A Pro-Growth Solution for Iowa Posted: 02 May 2012 03:15 PM PDT
Across the nation, Governors and state Legislators are confronted with the task of implementing sound economic policies that will both attract businesses and create jobs. The difficulty of this responsibility has increased in the aftermath of the weak recovery from the "Great Recession," as unemployment remains high, and states as well as the federal government face tremendous fiscal challenges. Many states across the nation have led the way in restoring pro-growth economic policies that consist of tax reform, reduced spending, and reforming state government. These are policies that are needed in order for economic growth to take place. The policy of both low spending and taxation is a blueprint for economic success. In examining specific pro-growth economic policies, policymakers in Iowa should consider a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights measure or TABOR. Colorado was the first state to implement a TABOR provision, which was adopted by voters in 1992 in response to high levels of spending and taxation. The purpose of TABOR was to bring spending and taxes under control by requiring voter approval. Under TABOR, state spending was slowed to the rate of population growth and inflation, and it brought more accountability to government. Although Colorado voters have modified their TABOR, the measure has provided the most aggressive tax and spending limitation measure in the nation. The state Legislature in Iowa is currently faced with the challenge of implementing both tax and spending reform. A TABOR measure would be a pro-growth policy provision if implemented. The TABOR provision in Colorado was passed by initiative, but Iowa does not have the initiative or referendum. Any effort to get a TABOR amendment added to Iowa's Constitution would have to go through the legislative process. The Tax Foundation, using government finance data from the U.S. Census Bureau, demonstrates that a TABOR provision in Iowa would have lowered state spending. Using the "TABOR Calculator" from the Tax Foundation, actual spending in Iowa from 1981 to 2009, adjusted for inflation, was $241.8 billion. If Iowa had enacted a TABOR measure in 1980, spending from 1981 to 2009 would have been $163 billion or $78.8 billion less. From 1991 to 2009, Iowa spent $177.9 billion, and if TABOR existed in the 1990s, spending would have been reduced to $135 billion or $42.9 billion less. Overall, a TABOR provision, if part of Iowa law, would have constrained state spending. As policymakers in Iowa debate a variety of policy ideas to bring about economic growth, a TABOR provision should be considered. A TABOR provision would bring more accountability to spending and tax policy and allow taxpayers to have more responsibility. The battle for pro-growth economic and fiscal policies will not be an easy process, as demonstrated by the debates occurring in states such as Ohio and Wisconsin, but implementing pro-growth policies rooted in spending and tax reform are vital to the economic recovery of both Iowa and the nation. John Hendrickson is a Research Analyst with the Public Interest Institute in Mt. Pleasant, IA. This column is originally featured with In The Public Interest a publication of the Public Interest Institute. Republished with permission. Link to this post!      |
| Traffic Cameras: Safety or Cash? Posted: 02 May 2012 08:55 AM PDT
According to the National Motorists Association, the media hype in favor of cameras has been a little slanted in some of our major cities:
In Des Moines, the “2012 Traffic Camera Report” for the City of Des Moines reports that in the time period of January through March, 2012, the city has netted over $400.000, yet no column in the report gives information as to the safety factor. Was it improved? Was it worsened? Is it profitable. Oh, yeah. Most Iowans have driven along Lakeshore Drive in Chicago at least once. A single intersection, according to CBS Chicago’s Pam Zekman, generated $1.5 Million in revenue for the city in just the year 2011. That intersection is on Lakeshore Drive. Due to braking suddenly out of fear of the dreaded yellow light, most Des Moines residents have barely avoided rear-end collisions since the traffic cameras were installed . Others have bashed into the car in front of them that stopped abruptly for the same reason. Yet the metro cities seem to be eager to expand camera use. At the beginning of this traffic control practice you may remember that camera-ticketed drivers even paid a much higher fine than a driver ticketed by an officer of the law. Apparently, the charges were for the company that installed the things in the first place. What is the cost per ticket on the new speed cameras going to be? More on the Des Moines question of safety versus revenue, versus rights, versus innocent until proven guilty, etc. can be found at the Tax Update Blog. Now we are looking at the implementation of speed cameras. Who has not been caught in a traffic jam on our freeways, not due to an accident, but because someone has been stopped by an officer for speeding? It’s very frustrating. When a driver actually doing the speed limit sees this anomally, he or she seems programmed to slow to ten MPH below the speed limit. In a very few minutes, traffic is nearly at a standstill. Obviously, our officers need to be doing their job of keeping traffic as close to the speed limit as possible, and we are obligated by law and morality to make it as safe as possible for these men and women, but will the reaction be the same when motorists spot what they think is one of the mobile speed cameras? More traffic traveling at a crawl out of fear of being targeted by a camera? Revenue or Safety. I’m still not sure which inspires our lawmakers more. I hope it is the latter. Link to this post!      |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Caffeinated Thoughts To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Are you looking to earn money from your visitors by using popup ads?
RăspundețiȘtergereIn case you are, have you tried using Clickadu?