As crazy as this might sound, give this a minute of thought.  Means testing has a precedent in Medicaid; specifically, it pertains to getting government assistance with nursing home care expenses.  People are expected to drain their own savings paying for their own care before they can get any help.  After all, Medicaid is supposed to help the poor.  Were such measures not in place, this nation would go broke trying to pay for universal elder care.  (Does this sound familiar?) 

     I don't like this idea, but unless there are fundamental changes made either to the Social Security program itself or to the way such a program is funded (FairTax, anyone?), the Democrats will force means testing on us as a means of keeping Social Security afloat.  This would be the most sweeping and effective way of preventing the system as it exists from going broke:  deny the payment of benefits to retirees who live off of their savings, pensions, or investment incomes until such time when those sources of income have been exhausted.  These people, God love 'em for being thrifty and doing the right things, don't need their Social Security payments.  Do they deserve them?  Under the auspices by which we were sold the FICA  bill of goods, absolutely they deserve those benefits, having paid into the system for so long.  But will we be able to afford it, assuming that everything stays the way it is?

     Tom Sullivan, a Rush guest-host, came forth with a revelation in 2002:  the Social Security problem will fix itself as the Baby Boomers die.  The argument goes that a spike in births must someday produce a spike in deaths, thus alleviating the number of retirees to whom we must issue entitlement payments, which, by definition, is what Social Security payments are.  Until that time, however, what are we to do?  A crisis is coming.  Are we going to take proactive steps now or are we going to sit back and eventually be forced to take a draconian reactive step?

(Note:  My last entry contained a syntax error.  The line about Obama's openness in regards to his positions should have ended with "he couldn't afford to be open or honest.")

 

The above case deals with legalized sex discrimination against men with respect to dress-codes.  Specifically, it relates to hair length.  Under present law (per this judicial precedent), a company can force men to wear hairstyles which conform to a specific boundary template, while anything goes with women.  The opinion is justified on the basis of "social mores".

 

This language is disturbing.  At one time, racial discrimination was a "social more".  Mandatory retirement ages were once a "social more"; now, anyone at or over the age of forty can pursue an age discrimination case.  Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was once encouraged.  People were once excluded from many fields and institutions because their reproductive systems were carried internally, as opposed to being carried externally.  Despite the apparent coarsening of the culture, I still believe that society at large has learned from the mistakes of its forbears.  But my belief is thrown off kilter when I read company dress codes. 

 

Fast-forward to 2008.  Don't even think of excluding someone on the basis of any of the above categories.  It's okay for men to wear earrings in some companies.  Women can wear their hair as long as they please.  Should it be a potential occupational hazard, they can always tie it back.  I don't have a problem with that.  Women can wear their hair as short as they please (which, by definition, includes many men's hairstyles).  Upon further examination, though, is it really a "social more" for a woman to wear a man's hairstyle?

 

I don't have a problem with people wearing their hair in whatever style they please.  What I DO have a problem with is the idea of being excluded from a set of people allowed to engage in a behavior on the basis of my reproductive system (that which, by definition, defines me as "being male").  Sex discrimination is against the law.  At least, it's supposed to be.  Succinctly, either discrimination upon the basis of sex as a condition of employment is either illegal or legal.  It is WRONG for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia to selectively apply law as they see fit.  The job of those people in the black robes is to apply the law as it exists.  Any snags which arise are to be worked out by those elected bodies called "legislatures".

 

Equality is a "warts and all" proposition.  As Bill Maher would ask, "Does anybody have a problem with that?" 

Okay, Rush.  I get it.  Now that you've got Obama and Clinton sniping at each other and have effectively sown the seeds for Denver '68, McCain is free to go out there and get his message out.  The trouble is, though, that McCain isn't really doing that; he appears to be just sitting on the sidelines and to be watching the other team fight itself when he should get off his behind, grab the ball, and RUN with the dog-gone thing!!  He is "running" for President, is he not?

 

The mask seems to be coming off of Obama's candidacy.  To me, it has always been clear as to why Barack Hussein Obama, the man with the ear-teasing sensitivity, has been empty in regards to his true positions on America's problems:  he couldn't afford to be.  This blowup over J. Wright and his America-hating rhetoric is the perfect highlight.  I don't believe that Obama has the best interests of all Americans at heart.  It has already been made clear that even if Obama gets the White House, it still won't be enough to enable us to put racial differences aside.  I for one just want to go on with life.  I don't CARE what color, sex, religion, orientation, or age a candidate happens to be.  What I want in a candidate is the maximum amount of agreement in relation to policy positions as to where this nation should go.  I don't like either one of the Democrats' positions on anything.  McCain's opinions have not much more appeal to me.  This year, a lot of us will be holding our noses and voting for the candidate who smells the least.  I dislike the notion of giving the bird to all the legal immigrants by granting amnesty to those who did it illegally.  McCain-Feingold is un-Constitutional.  The Keating Five will haunt him for all of his presidency, if he is elected.  At least with McCain, we know where he is.  At present, we have just seen a glimpse of where Obama likely stands.

 

Speaking of the possibility of being elected, shouldn't McCain be getting around to selecting a running-mate?  Being from Missouri, I am pulling for our governor, Matt Blunt.  He is a man who has decided he has done pretty much everything he wanted to do as the governor.  Would he want the job of Vice-President?  The biggest snag, though, is that the drive-by media would seize on the age gap.  It may be best to go with someone like Romney or even Fred Thompson.  Like Reagan, Thompson is an actor.  Hardly anyone mentions this, but one of Reagan's greatest strengths as our President was that he knew how to act presidential.  Thompson would be able to apply that strength to just as great an effect.

 

Even better, a Condoleeza Rice, Ph.D and J.C. Watts ticket would force the Left to really put its money where its mouth is.  I'd vote that ticket in a heartbeat, assuming that ticket and I have the most agreement on policy positions.

As Ditto-heads go, my listenership to the Rush Limbaugh Program is fairly new.  Only in the most extremely rare cases do I ever disagree with the former KMBZ announcer.  When it comes to "Hillary Rodham-Rodham", aka Mrs. Bill Clinton, we are poles apart.  Barack Obama needs to put her away and put her away NOW. 

     Right now, the focus is on the fight between Obama and Clinton; it is not on the lack of substance with either of these candidates.  We need to see just how empty Obama's rhetoric really is compared to Senator McCain's.  Don't get me wrong:  Sen. McCain has some MAJOR flaws which I mentioned in the previous post.  At least with McCain, though, we are aware of what we are getting:  a candidate who may have a conservative position or two, but one who is not a real conservative.  To those who decry such a candidate, I direct your attention to the current occupant of the White House.  If President Bush were a true conservative, he wouldn't have hesitated to veto McCain-Feingold, perhaps the most egregious codified violation of our free-speech rights since the advent of "hate-speech" codes.  The point is, we could have done better as conservatives go, but we could also have done worse. 

     Rush holds the position that we are better off to keep Hillary in the race in order to sow and continue to have chaos in the Democrat party, to paraphrase.  Given the primary results of the past several weeks, it is clear to me that the libs are NOT in disarray.  They have chosen Obama.  As much as I really don't care for the liberal philosophy on things, I have to give them credit for making it clear that Hillary is too phony even for them.  What the lefties are saying, essentially, is that they are tired of flip-flops and doublespeak.  They prefer the vagaries of Obama's "hope for a future filled with hope".  (Taken from one of Rush's parodies.)  What we need to do RIGHT NOW is to get Obama in the spotlight and to pin him down on what exactly his positions, stances, and policies really are and to establish the comparisons and contrasts with Senator McCain's positions.  I guarantee that the positions on the Iraq/Iran situation are akin to the Onion's summary of the Carter/Reagan positions.  ("Let's talk better mileage," and "Kill the bas-----", respectively.)  Given that I truly believe the average American is conservative and just doesn't know it, I'd say that if we can keep the Middle East in the spotlight on this campaign trail as opposed to the phony hogwash on the economy, Obama doesn't stand a chance against McCain, the candidate willing to wipe our enemies off the face of the Earth (if he has to do so).

     There is an uphill battle ahead of us.  The "Drive-By" media will do their absolute darnedest to paint their man in the most glowing terms whilst demonizing "that conservative".  We can deal with that; we're used to it.  As much as it would pain Rush, Sean, Ann, Laura, and Neal to do so, we need them to start establishing that comparison NOW and to keep hammering it into as much of the public's conscience as we possibly can.  Don't count on Fox News to help us.  In fact, I would say our best TV hope for getting this out would be Mr. Beck on CNN-HN.  Perhaps we could get him a two-hour spot in order to bump Nancy Grace.  (If I want to listen to a woman yell, I will leave the seat up.)

For the first time since 1988, I feel that the general election will be an occasion where I will hold my nose and choose between the lesser of two undesirables.  Why not McCain?  The Keating Five, the amnesty bill, and McCain-Feingold are reasons which come to mind.  (To be fair, G.W. ducked his responsibility to veto something he KNEW to be un-Constitutional.)  Why not Obama?  I'm tired of hearing about "hope" and "change".  I "hope" I have enough "change" to feed the parking meter in the morning, okay?  Why not Hillary?  She and her partner (oddly enough, from "Hope", AR) have already HAD their turn. 

     Imagine that we have a system in place on General Election Day whereby certain people were allowed to vote at certain times of the day.  Now imagine that when you walk into that booth, your person has been removed from the list of candidates because not enough of the folks ahead of you voted for him, leading him to make the decision to drop out, a' la Fred Thompson.  What is so wrong with having a set day where every state votes in the National Primary?  Why not apportion the delegates according to the percentages won in each of the states?  Is this not fair?  I wanted to vote for Fred Thompson, but because the states ahead of me voted for McCain, Romney, and Huckabee, Thompson dropped out; thus, my only palatable conservative choice was Romney, who dropped out after Super Tuesday.

     There is an argument to be made about how the current primary system can be a boon to the residents of a town which happens to be on the campaign trail, but who is to say that a town can't be canvassed during the lead-up to National Primary Day (say, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in August)?  In fact, let's have a nine-month "gestation period" for our Presidential selection process:  six months of primary campaigning until August, then the last trimester can be the no-holds-barred slugfest to which we're accustomed.  Why such a short timespan?  Frankly, the current campaign began after the 2006 midterm elections.  It's old.  What used to be the national convention for each party can be a national primary watch party. 

     Another advantage of the short gestation would be that it would place the lower funded candidates like Thompson at less of a disadvantage (hopefully).  Okay, Thompson's apparent apathy didn't help, but neither did the considerable lack of coverage by any of the major news outlets, either.  Also, if certain major columnists were so concerned about getting a conservative back in the White House, they would have backed their most conservative choice all the way.  (Due credit to Ms. Ann Coulter, who was unabashedly a Hunter fan.)

     The bottom line is, shouldn't I have a chance to vote for the same candidates as the people in Iowa and New Hampshire?