Author: Tony

Yesterday, President Bush spoke to the National Association of Evangelicals Convention. His comments were interesting. Jumping in:

As freedom’s home and freedom’s defender, we are called to expand the realm of human liberty.

Unless it involves homosexuals or speech. In those cases, it’s logical to protect the citizen defenders of freedom’s home. Every right-thinking citizen has the right to be free from anything they don’t like. Thankfully, President Bush is there to help.

Yet I know that liberty is not America’s gift to the world — liberty and freedom are God’s gift to every man and woman who lives in this world.

Unless it involves homosexuals or speech. In those cases, it’s logical to protect the citizen defenders of freedom’s home. Every right-thinking citizen has the right to be free from anything they don’t like. Thankfully, President Bush is there to help.

We’re working to build a culture of life.

I have no problem, but why are we ignoring love?

Human life is … a creation of God, not a commodity to be exploited by man.

I agree, yet I believe that the President is hypocritical on this point. He’s speaking in the context of abortion and stem-cell research, but this comment exposes his warped thinking. As governor of Texas, he supported the death penalty. No state executes more prisoners than Texas. Virginia is immediately behind in that energetic race. This is wrong.

Because a person is a criminal, they aren’t worthy of respect as “a creation of God”. They’ve become a commodity to be exploited by man. I’m not encouraging leniency on criminals, but I don’t believe there’s a legitimate purpose for state-sponsored violence. The President’s actions aren’t congruent with his speech.

I will defend the sanctity of marriage against activist courts and local officials who want to redefine marriage. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. And government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. It is for that reason I support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Our government gets its powers from the people. President Bush and Congress endorse the belief that it’s their responsibility to protect morality among the citizenry because self-regulation will lead to chaos. This has to stop now or no one will be safe from scrutiny for every personal belief.

It is time for some members of the Senate to stop playing politics with American justice.

This brings to mind the words “pot” and “kettle” and a little name-calling between the two.

Together, Americans are moving forward with confidence and faith. We do not know God’s plan, but we know His ways are right and just. And we pray He will always watch over this great country of ours.

This scares me. I have no issue with faith and belief in God. The beauty of America is that everyone can believe whatever makes sense to them. But that doesn’t give the president the right to impose one faith’s agenda on the nation. The separation of church and state exists for a reason, yet it’s quickly eroding under this current administration. Until the Bible becomes the supreme law of this land, I will follow the Constitution. Maybe President Bush should consider doing the same.

On Monday, the editors of The Wall Street Journal proposed that John Kerry choose an unconventional person as his vice-presidential running mate. Allow me to let the editors tell you the “best” candidate, as well as one potential “reason”:

If he thinks in conventional political terms, the safe bet is Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri. If he wants to make a bold choice, he will offer the job to retiring NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw. One prominent Republican says the idea of Mr. Brokaw on the Democratic ticket “worries me a lot.”

The prominent Republican is either an idiot or a good poker player. I suspect it’s an attempt to encourage stupidity among Democratic campaign strategists.

It’s irrational to think of Vice President Brokaw. Tom Brokaw is a comforting figure in the way that an old blanket brings back nostalgic memories of childhood. That doesn’t mean that the blanket will keep you warm today. Consider this rationalization:

John Thune, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Mr. Brokaw’s home state of South Dakota, agrees. He says Mr. Brokaw has been intrigued by politics ever since his days at the University of South Dakota. “It would be a fascinating out of the box choice,” he told me. A South Dakota Democratic state legislator assures me that Mr. Brokaw would be a good ideological fit for Mr. Kerry, with the added advantage that “no one thinks of him as a liberal.”

The editors continue by confirming that Mr. Brokaw “introduced Arnold Schwarzenegger to Maria Shriver at a celebrity tennis tournament in 1977”. For this, he should pay his penance to the Democratic party:

That introduction changed political history; few people believe that Mr. Schwarzenegger could have become governor of California without Ms. Shriver’s savvy support. If Mr. Brokaw resists entreaties to enter politics, perhaps Democrats will remind him he could balance off that unintended gift to the Republican Party by joining their own ticket this year.

That’s a stupid argument. At least this next speculation makes sense:

Mr. Kerry may decide the way to shake up the race is to make a truly unconventional choice, as Walter Mondale tried to do when he picked Ms. Ferraro, the first-ever woman on a national ticket, in 1984.

Tom Brokaw is the highest-paid reader in history. This does not qualify him to be Vice President of the United States. If Senator Kerry really wants to make a bold statement, he’ll accept the challenge presented by Senator John McCain:

“John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years,” McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket. “Obviously I would entertain it.”

“It’s impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk,” the Arizona senator told ABC’s “Good Morning America” during an interview about illegal steroid use. “They’d have to be taking some steroids, I think, in order to let that happen.”

That’s a brilliant move. Like most politicians, Senator McCain has his drawbacks. However, I voted for him in the Virginia Republican Primary in 2000. I probably would’ve voted for him in the presidential election if he’d beaten Bush. I like his public persona as a fighter and anti-politician. For example:

Unlike some other Republican senators, he hasn’t railed against Kerry, a fellow Vietnam veteran. McCain called the Kerry-Bush contest “the nastiest campaign so far that we have seen” and said he preferred campaigning for candidates instead of against their opponents.

Unfortunately, it seems that it’s not meant to be. The Associated Press recently added to the article:

Within hours, the Arizona senator’s chief of staff, Mark Salter, closed the door on that idea. “Senator McCain will not be a candidate for vice president in 2004,” Salter told The Associated Press, saying he spoke for the senator.

Why is it such an accepted concept that the President and Vice President must be from the same party? Virginia’s citizens elect the Governor and Lieutenant Governor separately. (We also elect the Virginia Attorney General. Do you think John Ashcroft would be the United States Attorney General if the citizenry were allowed to vote on that?)

I would welcome a bi-partisan ticket for President. For the clarity, though, this is why I think it’s a brilliant idea: Why not nominate the best two candidates possible? This election is dividing along ideological lines, but most elections focus on differences in implementation rather than differences in ideas. If something happens to the President, I’d rather have the most qualified person to step in instead of the most politically acceptable party member.

Reading this story in USA Today, I laughed because there is humor and stupidity beyond belief. Volvo organized women within the company to design a car focused on the needs of women. They came up with the Volvo YCC (Your Concept Car).

Initially, I was amused by this:

Hans-Olov Olsson, president and chief executive of the Swedish carmaker, said the endeavor seemed logical given that the male-dominated industry is constantly trying to attract more female buyers.

Through customer research, Olsson said, the company discovered that women want everything in a car that men want in terms of performance and styling, “plus a lot more that male car buyers have never thought to ask for.”

“We learned that if you meet women’s expectations, you exceed those for men,” he said.

My favorite part of that is the male-dominated industry trying to attract more female buyers. That’s logical, because women don’t buy cars or influence car-buying decisions.

The idea of catering more to women’s needs makes perfect business sense, said Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Ore. Spinella said women either will act alone or have a say in roughly 80% of all vehicle purchases in the United States this year.

Duh.

Butovitsch acknowledged the $3.5 million project had some skeptics at first, but she said the resistance ended when it became clear “this was not going to be a pink, cute-looking car but rather a very smart-looking vehicle.”

Stereotypes kick ass.

The result: A car that’s designed to be nearly maintenance free, requiring an oil change every 31,000 miles. When it’s time for an engine inspection, the car sends a wireless message to a local service center, which notifies the driver. The vehicle has no hood, only a large front end primarily suited for opening by a mechanic. It also features a race-car-like fueling system with a roller-ball valve opening for the nozzle but no gas cap.

That’s a brilliant design because women aren’t smart enough to change the oil every 5,000 miles. And they’re certainly not qualified to have a wireless message sent to them instead of a local service center. There’s no chance they remember to get the engine inspected if someone doesn’t remind them. And the hood? Please. We all know that only a mechanic, presumed to be a man, is qualified to look at the engine. And whenever I see a gas cap at the Mobil, I think “Wow, another woman who didn’t have a man with her. What a shame.”

Continuing the brilliance, consider this:

Gull-wing doors allow easy access to space behind the driver’s seat. The bottom of the rear seats fold up, similar to theater seating, providing more storage space. The car also has dirt-repellant paint and glass, exchangeable seat covers with matching carpet and sensors that allow for easier parking.

Parking sensors are seriously necessary. There are dented bumpers all over America because women don’t have eyes capable of seeing objects other than shoes and cosmetics.

Seriously, all of these features are useful and cool. I also like the design of the car. Perhaps they could sell that rather than implying that women are incompetent drivers and incapable of dealing with cars. Good marketing, Hans-Olov.