An interesting bit of info hit my Inbox this afternoon via Web Pro News. New York has declared war on e-commerce, and Amazon is hitting back

Amazon.com is suing the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (DTF) over a new state law that requires Internet retailers to collect sales tax on purchases shipped to state residents.

Amazon has argued that since it does not have a physical presence in the state that it should not be required to collect taxes on shipments going to New York. “Amazon has no physical presence in New York,” according to the suit. “It does not own, lease, or otherwise occupy any physical property in the state, and none of its employees works or resides in the state.”

In addition Amazon says the New York law is unconstitutional based on a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that claims states are prohibited from requiring out of state retailers to collect sales tax unless the company has a physical presence in the state.

In the Quill v. North Dakota case, the Supreme Court re-established the rule that a state could not impose sales tax collection on a business unless the company had employees or property in the state.

New York defends the law by arguing that the Amazon Associates program, which allows Web site publishers to receive commissions by promoting Amazon items through their sites make Amazon liable to collect taxes on its behalf for those affiliates who live in New York.

I’d think that if New York could legally screw anyone, it would be the Amazon affiliates. That, however, is too difficult a task. The affiliates are hard to track, and most make supplemental income at best (or typically, not even that). The commerce clause be damned, then. That’s not where the deep pockets are.

Amazon is likely to prevail, but not before the grace period for registration passes, leaving them (potentially) on the hook for back due taxes and penalties if they do in fact end up losing the fight. These kinds of attempts at taxation are akin to imposing tariffs between and among the states. One of the central and most overlooked reasons the United States has been such a successful country is that the fifty states are the largest free-trade zone in history. Regional comparative advantage, the free flow of capital and the unrestrained flow of labor is built-in to the domestic American economy on an unparalleled scale.

New York is hurting the rest of us by doing this. The Department of Justice should step in and put the impetuous Empire State in her place.

Technorati tags: economics, politics Del.icio.us tags: economics, politics LiveJournal tags: economics, politics

Related posts: Rosalind, Oh Rosalind, Obama, Testy - Hillary, Feisty

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has already begun the spin cycle, declaring as the polls open this morning that they expect to get decimated in North Carolina. From Drudge

Hillary Clinton’s inner circle now fears a stinging defeat is likely in North Carolina.

“Look, we worked hard and gave it our best shot, but the demographics, well, they are what they are,” a top campaign source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT as voting began Tuesday morning.

The campaign now believes a 15 point loss, or more, would not be surprising. Her team will work hard throughout the day to lower all expectations in North Carolina.

The campaign hopes media attention will stay fixated on the competition in Indiana, where 72 delegates are on the line, and Clinton internals show a victory!

So, if she loses by only five in North Carolina, her case regarding electability remains strong (which I think it was, anyway, lowered expectations or no).

Technorati tags: hillary clinton, democrats, road to the white house, Del.icio.us tags: hillary clinton, democrats, road to the white house, LiveJournal tags: hillary clinton, democrats, road to the white house

Some bugs are likely to be a problem. I just moved all of my web assets to Bluehost from GoDaddy, and this blog, with over four years of posting and files, became a bit tricky. I’m quite aware the MooreThoughts header is missing - some image files got corrupted in the transfer, so we’ll get to those cosmetics shortly.

I have a sneaking suspicion it’s GoDaddy’s revenge for canning their hosting services, though I have no proof whatsoever.

I’m glad Tennessee politics is getting interesting again. I was becoming concerned. Now The Tennessean (best known for offering minimal content at the largest font size available) has made itself the focal point of the story out of a non-story run in today’s paper.

For those not from around here, there has been a multi-year debate regarding cable television and franchise uniformity in the state. Before, providers had to obtain numerous local franchises to operate in Tennessee. Once the so-called “AT&T bill” becomes law (because AT&T has been pushing for its passage), cable providers need only get one franchise license from the state. Some oppose it, but for the life of me, I cannot find a logical reason why.

Back on point - the bill passed 29-0 in the state senate. Senator Bill Ketron, a Republican, has been targeted and lambasted by Nashville’s largest circulating daily because his wife works for AT&T’s wireless division and he didn’t wear a sandwich board declaring it. Or at least, that’s what they imply they would have needed to be happy

What the Murfreesboro Republican didn’t mention then was that his wife, Theresa, works for AT&T Mobility, the company’s wireless unit, which he had noted on his ethics disclosures this year. Nor did Ketron mention the tie when he earlier acted as an unofficial spokesman for behind-the-scenes wrangling over the bill.

Wait a minute. He disclosed it, but then … what? He also disclosed his wife as an income souce. I am failing to see the ethical travesty here. What’s worse, the headline The Tennessean chose is an outright lie: “Senator discloses AT&T link after vote”.

As if any more criticism is necessary, what makes this story even more irrelevant is that the AT&T bill passed 29-0. If the vote had only been 15-14, I very well could see (somewhat) the paper’s point. But that’s not what happened and the possibility of Ketron’s recusal from the vote, which would have been voluntary in this case under the ethics rules, would have made no difference whatsoever. The Tennessean saw a chance to smear an up-and-coming Republican senator, and they jumped at the opportunity.

Technorati tags: msm, tennessee politics, Del.icio.us tags: msm, tennessee politics, LiveJournal tags: msm, tennessee politics

State Senator Rosalind Kurita has sponsored legislation banning advertising by DUI lawyers

The bill in question has a provision sponsored by Sen. Rosalind Kurita (D-Clarksville) that explicitly prohibits attorneys from advertising that they specialized in DUI cases, from advertising a discounted rate for DUI defense, guaranteeing a certain judgment in the case or claiming that the attorney had more expertise than another on drunken driving defense.

Well, guaranteeing an outcome is already prohibited by the rules of ethics. The rest of it simply reeks from a variety of directions. But why did Senator Kurita introduce this obviously unconstitutional bill?

In response to the [Attorney General's] opinion, Kurita said she’ll “have to find another way” to curtail drunk driving.

Kurita sponsored the amendment because she said she was tired of seeing suspected drunk drivers not be convicted.

Her response to increasing DUI convictions is to curtail the accused’s right to counsel, which is dubious on a variety of fronts, including the commercial speech aspect that Attorney General Bob Cooper noted in his opinion.

Anyhow, what’s the real reason for Kurita’s amendment?

Her opponent in August’s Democratic primary, Tim Barnes, is an attorney whose practice area includes DUI defense.

I hope he kicks her derriere.

Technorati tags: politics, democrats, LiveJournal tags: politics, democrats, Del.icio.us tags: politics, democrats

AC Kleinheider, affixed and blogging over at the Nashville Post, reports on some procedural tomfoolery in the Tennessee House of Representatives today.

While the issue of SJR127 (the bill to amend the Tennessee Constitution to un-protect abortion) was being addressed, Representative Odom (Speaker Naifeh’s Democrat nemesis) brought forward a motion to amend the House schedule. Representative Dunn then moved to amend that motion to also bring up SJR127 for its first of the required three readings. Speaker Naifeh then called Dunn’s motion out of order.

The House voted, and by one vote, declared that it was Naifeh, not Dunn, who was out of order.

After a recess and some leadership wrangling, Dunn’s motion won out. A further effort to skip the committee process and bring SJR127 straight to the House floor failed

The two-thirds majority required to bring the resolution to the floor bypassing the committee process was not reached. SJR 127 was not brought to the floor for a vote.

Rep. Moore then called for a moment of prayer and silence for “what just went on here today.” Republican Glen Casada praised the motion and the events of the day as a true expression of representative democracy.

A moment of prayer and silence? I hate to call a Moore out, but grow some more skin. That is, unless the moment of silence extends only to House Democrats and lasts throughout the session - then, and only then, count me in.

Byron York has good analysis in National Review Online

That, not Wright’s wide-ranging social theories, is what forced Obama to denounce Wright at a hastily arranged news conference Tuesday. By questioning Obama’s honesty, Wright was striking at the heart of the Obama campaign. The most damaging thing Wright could ever say is that he knows, based on his long personal relationship with Obama, that Obama agrees with him but can’t say so publicly for political reasons. Put another way, if voters believe that Obama fundamentally rejects Wright’s views, they might question Obama’s judgment in remaining close to Wright for 20 years. But if voters believe that Obama secretly agrees with Wright but is putting on another face to win an election, then all is lost. “People could ask why somebody with good judgment would take so long to do this,” a Democratic strategist told me Monday night. “But that’s certainly better than the subtext being that Obama is an angry black man, because if he’s an angry black man, then he simply cannot win, period.”

It’s a Democrat contortionist’s nightmare, and a Republican strategist’s Utopia. Obama’s greatest asset - his credibility - has been challenged in a most distructive way. He has had tried to have it both ways, and in the effort, has shown himself nothing more than an average politician, rising above absolutely nothing. The hope (sic “hype”) is dead. Long live the reality.

Not to say I don’t appreciate larger-than-life political leaders. We n�ed more of them, but Barack Obama never was in that class. He gave a good speech or two, rested on his laurels, and attempted to fly-over the Wright controvery as if his level of accountability rose above that of a mere mortal’s. His mentor is an unapologetic leftist, no different than the padowan Obama, but the learner has refused to pitch his true colors as part of his presidential campaign. He is being forced to decide. And in his speech yesterday, finally decrying Wright as a nut job, has left thinking people wondering what Obama is really about anyway.

Barack Obama has confirmed the old canard about a star that shines twice as bright lasts for half as long. In his case, his brightness was inflated by a complicit cheap-date media. Now we see him for what he is - a lightweight. I do hope he wins the nomination.

Kim McMillan’s interest in the governorship throws her in with already-declared (sorta) Congressman Lincoln Davis,likely candidate Harold Ford, Jr., and the lingering former Nashville mayor, Bill Purcell. Bill Frist and Ron Ramsey have shown interest on the Republican side, and there are rumors that Marsha Blackburn and Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam are also considering a run as well.

I am curious to see McMillan’s income tax spin, as she was a vocal supporter back during the tax revolt days. Even better, with the state’s budget this year and next in the tank. If the state needed an income tax in 2002, when the last budget deficit loomed, why now does the state not need an income tax in in 2009 and 2010? Consistency and expediency are often cantankerous bed fellows, as McMillan will soon to find out.

This is utter poppy cock.

First, we are told by Obama himself that that he didn’t know much bad about Jeremiah Wright. Obama had no disdain for Wright at the beginning of the disclosure, only the things he said, which (ludicrously) Obama claimed to have not heard. Then, we heard that Wright isn’t just about what we hear - that his offensive remarks were outside his usual message of hope (hear Arizona, ocean front property, and bridge, Brooklyn). Finally, we are told by Obama today that Wright is “rambling”. Obama has thrown Wright under the bus, and Wright counters with a mean ECW move and tosses Obama under the bus. Both come off flat.

Take note. This is the Democrats’ frontrunner’s relationship with his pastor and mentor. Say that again. Hear it for what it is, not the utterly inane spin that Obama’s campaign is pushing.

Indeed, judge for yourself, those of you who have mentors, and /or pastors. Make a quick conclusion as to whether you’d entertain such a relationship in the first place. After twenty years of courting Wright’s church for political gain, Obama bails. Good move, Barack. You should have done it yesterday.

As the man who speaks to 20 million from noon to three said today, Obama is synonymous with “toast”.

This post is the result of my observations over the last month.

Barack Obama has had trouble in his quest to, well - be a politician. As in, not in the negative qualities we always project upon our pols, but in the everyday, rough and tumble aspects of public service. When he was politically spawned under the North Star at the Democrat convention in 2004, he was beyond reproach. During most of the campaign, and his legendary string of eleven primary victories, he was beyond reproach. An entire cable news network panted after him on a nightly basis.

Now, things are different. And they are largely different because Obama wasn’t ready for the sure-fall. He’s more Buffalo Bills than New England Patriots.

The Jeremiah Wright controversy is all his, and grows with every Robin Williams-like appearance his mentor makes. The total disregard he demonstrated about rural values, and the simultaneous dismissal of certain valued constitutional rights, is an ongoing liability. Even worse, whenever he is asked entirely relevant questions regarding these self-made issues, he gets perturbed. It’s as if, in running for the highest office in the land, anything that has veered off-script that may indicate his true views is beyond comment. That is, to twist the magic carpet he rode in on, truely hopeful.

Hillary Clinton is the tortoise. She has plodded along, but she has been there before. She is the beneficiary of Obama’s arrogance. None of Obama’s troubles have directly stemmed from the Clinton campaign. In fact, despite her husband’s apparent onsetting dementia, Hillary is still afloat. What was initially her biggest asset has turned into a straight-up liability, and she is still on the cusp of swaying the super delegates (see also the endorsement of North Carolina’s governor today). She had no money, she was in dire straights, and now she’s back.

Obama wasn’t ready for this. He faked it for awhile, but he isn’t prepared for this sort of campaign. If he does end up in the general, I hope all my liberal friends can make peace with the phrase “President McCain.”

Technorati tags: hillary clinton, democrats, barack obama, road to the white house, politics

Del.icio.us tags: hillary clinton, democrats, barack obama, road to the white house, politics

LiveJournal tags: hillary clinton, democrats, barack obama, road to the white house, politics

I read a short article today on CNN’s website sharing the big lead that Hillary Clinton is enjoying in West Virginia. The latest polls have her up 66% to 23%. What could be the reason for such a disparity in support? Why, it has to be that the hillbilly white people who populate West Virginia are racists and would never vote for a black man, right? (Let’s put aside the fact that West Virginia became its own state largely in protest of slavery) It couldn’t be that the message of Barack “Clinging to Guns and Religion” Obama just doesn’t resonate with the hard-working folks in those magnificent mountains.

My mom’s side of the family is from West Virginia, and I have quite a few relatives who live in that fine state. They all own multiple pairs of shoes, are literate, and enjoy friendships with every color and creed. Bizarre, isn’t it?

I had to see if the “Comments” section following the article was filled with the ridiculous, hateful stereotypes that many people hold for the people of West Virginia. Here is a sampling of the posted comments, maybe of which ended with something like “OBAMA ‘08!!”. (Way to unify, by the way)

Remember the movie ‘Deliverance’ ? Need I say more ?

Wrong state … wrong part of the country. This movie took place in Georgia … a state that went for Barack Obama.

Well of course she holds a 60% lead in WV, their all related to one another over there…

First of all, I don’t get the connection. Why does Clinton naturally get the inbred vote? Second, your argument loses more water when you confuse “their” with “they’re”. Apparently even those without jumbled genetic compositions encounter difficulties with grammar.

I’m so glad the bigoted WVs dont’ represent the rest of this wonderful country.

Again, a proofreader would have serious issues with this post. And, I am so tired of the assumption that a person is a bigot if he chooses Clinton over Obama. Is the African American population bigoted for choosing Obama in overwhelming numbers?

What the people of WV should be doing, is working to educate themselves on the issues, and not the color of someone’s skin.

What a condescending remark! There are countless reasons not to vote for Obama, and none of them involves the color of his skin.

West Virginia is, and always will be, backwards. Perhaps she’ll hold a victory speech on the back of a pickup at a Klan rally.

As I mentioned earlier in the post, I don’t think they seemed so backwards in 1863.

That’s because people in West Virginia are poor and uneducated.

You see, Mountaineer simpletons. If you just had more book learning, you wouldn’t be duped by this woman.

Who cares? It’s just a bunch of “backwards” country racist hicks!! They probably think having shoes is elitest. Look for HRC to be barefoot a lot this week!

This is showing true concern for the poverty-stricken who may not be able to afford shoes. Mock them! Why put the “backwards” in quotes? Just wondering. That must be some elitist technique of which I am not aware.

Hmmm West Virgina who really freakin cares. That state is dominated by republicans and if she wins the state who really cares

Really? Are Byrd and Rockefeller aware of that? Or, how about the Democratic governor Joe Manchin? How about the fact that the state went for Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton twice?

There are many more comments from which to choose, but I believe the above sampling is sufficient. West Virginia is a swing state, Obama voters. But, please, be as offensive and bigoted as you can … I’m sure the good people of the Mountaineer State won’t mind come November.

It’s not often that the show Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy gives me much reason to engage in critical thought. However, an episode shown earlier this week on CMT has struck a nerve.

A Christian mom moves in with an agnostic family and she quickly begins to share her views. Meanwhile, the agnostic mom moves in with the Christian family and gets an earful from Granny. Some comments include,

“Being a good person isn’t enough. You are going to hell.”

“There is only one true faith. Can I read to you from The Bible so that you can know the truth?”

“You are damaging your child by not having religion in this house.”

Yep … that will work every time! Make sure you insult and scare people while implying that they are ignorant and abusive towards children. Who wouldn’t be drawn to learn more about your faith?!

I didn’t become a Christian until I was twenty-nine. When I was in high school, an ex-boyfriend offered to show me how to walk with Jesus. I wrote him a five-page letter explaining all the problems that organized religion had caused in the world. Another friend told me, “If you would just understand the story of Christ and his resurrection.” I’m not oblivious … I grew up knowing the meaning of Easter (even if my focus was on Cadbury eggs).

I distinctly recall watching some news coverage of gay marriages in San Francisco. My fellow viewer said, “I should go out there and read to them from The Bible. I’m sure if they heard those words, they wouldn’t be doing this.”

Yes, they would! I’m sure the dudes getting married had heard of that obscure book known as the Holy Bible. And, if you want to starting reading from the Good Book to sinners, why don’t you start with the 400-pound guy eating McDonald’s (not exactly treating the body like a temple) or the middle-aged guy who refuses to care for his elderly parents (a far cry from honoring his mother and father)? I’m sure you wouldn’t have to hop a plane to the West Coast to find some offenders.

I get frustrated with my fellow Christians who take a condescending approach towards unbelievers. I don’t believe you bring people to Christ by telling them they are sinful people who need to be shown the light. I believe being a good person who treats others with kindness and generosity is the best way to open doors.

I certainly believe that Christians should share their faith and testimony, but not in a confrontational and berating manner. I know that such an approach never worked in attempts on me. In fact, it drove me further away from any interest in Christianity and church. And, I think that shows showing characters like those on Trading Spouses this week have a negative effect as well. Maybe that was the plan.

Fortunately, I have not had the need to call the police very often in my life. I have, however, had three instances within the last month.

I am happy to say that 911 answered and police units quickly responded several weeks ago when I called from I-40 in Hermitage to let them know a guy was hitting a woman outside of their shared car on the shoulder of the road. After some quality time watching cars whiz by on the interstate as statements were taken, I am now awaiting my opportunity to take the stand as a witness.

My experiences with police response has not been so great with my non-emergency attempts at communication. I’m sure all of the locals reading this know the jingle for 862-8600. If it’s an “urgent, non-emergency”, give the Metro police a call using that number. OK … no one is on fire and there wasn’t just a fatal shooting, but the word “urgent” still implies that some level of quick response is needed.

I first dialed the number earlier this month, when I saw a woman zoom around our cul de sac holding a baby, who looked to be about six months old, in her lap. I wasn’t about to let anyone “pull a Britney” in my neighborhood! She deposited the child at at a neighbor’s home and sped off. Since the emergency aspect was gone, I wrote down her license plate and called 862-8600. Well, a recorded message let me know that I was calling at a busy time (1:45pm). I could hold or call back later. I stayed on the line for close to ten minutes and, after hearing the same taped voice offering me the numbers for the fire department and other such services multiple times, I hung up. Repeated attempts throughout the afternoon brought the same result. I eventually called the Hermitage Police Precinct, only to be told that they don’t handle dispatches and I should try that handy 862-8600 number again.

I called the number again yesterday when I drove up to a brand-new accident near my house. I missed the actual collision, but the participants were just getting out of their cars. Everyone seemed fine, but the left lane was blocked. Seemed like an “urgent, non-emergency” to me. Guess what? As it turns out, 4:15pm is a really busy time as well. I never reached anyone.

What is the purpose of the 862-8600 if it is next to impossible to reach someone? Perhaps the jingle should be redone with new lyrics to encourage people to call for matters such as pesky squirrels who keep eating your bird food or a stop sign that tilted just so slightly to the right. That would be more appropriate considering the speed (and “urgency”!) with which calls are addressed.

Since the L.A. City Council debated an ill-fated resolution on a “40-hour homicide moratorium” earlier this week, I decided to put together my list of practices that I would like to ban for a day or two. Since I want government involved in my life as little as possible, I would never actually work to enact any of the items on my list. But, it is still nice to dream.

I propose a 40-hour moratorium on …

1. Cell Phone Use — I am so tired of seeing drivers who can’t be bothered to use a turn signal or stay within their lane because they are engrossed in a phone conversation. I want to once again be able to assume that someone is crazy when they are talking to themselves, and not that they have one of those ridiculous-looking Bluetooth (?) devices in their ear. Come on, fellow stay-at-home moms, do you really need the hands-free phone to discuss the upcoming soccer practice while walking down the frozen foods aisle by yourself? And, to that woman who yaps on her pink phone every afternoon at the Y while doing her cardio … you are a thorn in my treadmill-loving side. Hang up, people! Enjoy hearing the sounds of the world around you. Carry on a conversation with the person sitting next to you. Urinate in a public restroom without yelling into the phone over the sounds of others flushing.

2. Baggy Pants — This absurd fashion has been around since the mid-1990s and it is time for it to go the way of the Nehru jackets, stirrup pants and jams (remember those loud shorts … I had homemade ones!). The belt industry must be hurting for cash by this point. Let’s take a day, young men, to remember what it feels like to have fabric tightly hugging your waist. Won’t it be great to run without having to use one hand to hold up your pants? Imagine the pressure of picking out just the right pair of boxers being removed from your daily routine. My daughter has actually pointed at your backside and said, “Poopie!” when seeing your sagging pants. Let’s not have the two-year-olds of the world continuing to think that you are incontinent.

3. The Use of the Word “Like” as a Way to Approximate, Paraphrase or Stall — Examples include “There were, like, only twenty people there” or “She was like, ‘There is no way I am going out with him again’” or “It was, like, so cold outside and we, like, didn’t have our coats.” The repeated use of the word “like”, especially when combined with “you know” projects a lack of intelligence and actually kills the brain cells of people who have to listen to you.

4. Child-Related Cling On Items for Cars, Particularly When Affixed to Minivans — I’m really glad that your kid plays soccer and wears #41, or that he is an honor student at the local elementary school or that he is a stick figure with a stick figure sister and a stick figure dog. However, isn’t our country already child-centric enough? What is the point of these decorations? “See, Billy, you can tell I really love you and desire to pump up your self-esteem because I put a huge soccer ball with your name on it on the back of my car. My only identity is achieved through you. Therefore, your accomplishments must be displayed on my primary mode of transportation.”

There are other actions/objects/words worthy of this list, but I believe a temporary halt to the items posted above would be a great start for the betterment of our society.

I am sure everyone has heard about the upcoming reunion that is sure to rock the music world to its core. New Kids on the Block are back! Oh, man! I feel like a 13-year-old girl again … I can feel the love for Joey Joe returning as we speak.

Nathan has promised me that if the New Kids perform in Nashville, he is getting me tickets and he will go with me. Even if I wasn’t a former fan, I would want to go just to see Nathan at a NKOTB concert. Of course, my husband still brags about front row seats at a Spice Girls concert in 1998, so his music cred has already been completely destroyed.

I was obsessed with the New Kids on the Block from 1988 to 1990. I kept HUNDREDS of pinups organized in a three-ring binder. The individual photos were first, placed in the order in which I liked that member (Joe, Jordan, Jon, Donnie, Danny was my personal pecking order). The group photos were arranged based on how much I liked the particular pose/photo quality. So, each new issue of Teen Beat or Bop brought with it hours of consideration over where to place each photo. When the hole punches I carefully made to insert each page started to wear thin from hours of pouring over their beautiful faces, I affixed gummy reinforcements.

I had all of their birthdays memorized and sent them presents. I remember that Donnie listed his favorite TV show as Sesame Street (I know your fan base was young, but come on now), so I bought him a Bert and Ernie figurine one year. What twenty-year-old dude wouldn’t love that? All I ever got back was an offer to join the fan club. (I spent countless dollars on posters and t-shirts, but could never fork over the $25 to become a member)

I requested admissions catalogs from Boston College so that I could set my sights on the GPA and SAT standards needed to enroll there. I figured that once I got to the city, I could find Joe and convince him to marry me.

I found a letter I wrote to a friend my freshman year in high school. In it, I questioned whether I would break up with my current boyfriend if I met Joe and he wanted me to be his girlfriend. I decided that I would. Sorry, Glenn (names have not been changed to protect anyone because this was nearly twenty years ago and laughable at this point).

I knew that eventually all of the girls who claimed to love NKOTB would move on and stop being real fans. That would never happen to me. I was going to be the last fan standing and I would be rewarded for my unending devotion. The emotions of adolescents can be fleeting, however. My focus changed by the end of 9th grade, when I switched my passionate allegiance to The B-52s and Depeche Mode. I could no longer be bothered by such a childish boy band like the New Kids.

Today, in 2008, nostalgia has gotten the better of me and I would love to see the New Kids on the Block in concert one more time (bringing the total to four). Let’s bring out the Aqua Net, the curling iron and the stonewashed jeans … I’ve got some awkward early teen years to relive!

As most people already know, Senator Obama made this lovely statement in Pennsylvania:

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

First, let me begin by stating that I am not an absolutist on the abortion issue. I know that it is a painful and complicated decision and there are instances in which this horrible action must be considered.

Now, to the point of my post …

Like the fine senator, I do believe that words matter. I don’t understand how someone can casually use “punish” and “baby” in the same sentence. A punishment is what a teenager deserves if she breaks curfew or gets caught drinking (I already have a list of creative punishments saved up for when Catherine inevitably irritates me in high school). A created life is not “punishment” for having sex. The baby will not exit the womb waving a scolding finger at her teenage mother. When Obama used the words “baby” and “punish” together, it stung. And, I know I am not alone in feeling this way.

I do believe in teaching teenagers about sex and how to protect themselves. I am not of the camp that believes showing a young person a condom is the same as putting it on him and closing his bedroom door while his girlfriend visits. (I had a friend in high school whose mother would hand her condoms after school so that she could have sex with her boyfriend. She even waved at them when they departed to the bedroom and said, “Have fun!”. Why I was there watching soaps with her mother, I do not recall.) So, I agree with Senator Obama when he asserts that our high school students need to be given information.

However, once two people decide to engage in an adult activity, they need to take on the adult responsibility that might result from that lovely union in the back of his ‘94 Accord (or the hotel on prom night or the back of the physics classroom). And, no, I don’t think the adult decision is just to say, “Let’s get rid of it because we don’t deserve to be ‘punished’ for our irresponsible actions.” Of course, we are teaching young people these days that they shouldn’t be held accountable for any of their decisions (Fall asleep in class? Sue the teacher! Wreck your new car? Get your parents to buy you a new one!), so why should sex be any different?

I believe that Barack Obama’s view of unwanted pregnancies as “punishments” is disturbing. Come on, Obama! Just think of the children as more people to sweet talk into your government dependence programs. Get them while they are young and pliable and your condescending, arrogant speeches will seem as natural as mother’s milk.

I know the Reverend Wright controversy has already been written about extensively, including on the other side of this blog. However, though I may be late to the topic, I feel the need to share a few thoughts on the matter. It’s not because I’m excited that a politician from the opposing party has found himself in a bad position. This issue goes beyond being fodder for the talk radio and blogging pundits. Instead, I have grave concerns about Barack Obama’s character in light of this entire debacle. My reasons for not wanting him to be our next president now go way beyond disagreements over policy.

First, let me agree that you cannot be held accountable for the words spoken by your pastor. But, you can decide that he is not going to be your pastor anymore. During our search for a home church, Nathan and I walked out in the middle of a couple of services when we got offended by the words or actions of the pastor. Several other times, we stayed until the last “Amen” (probably to avoid banging into several families while exiting a pew) but never returned.

Second, maybe the preacher did have plenty of sermons during which he advocated Christian love and social justice. Bully for him! I still think that just one of his now infamous comments would be enough to drive me away for good.

It seems to me that you have to accept one of two ideas about Senator Obama at this time:

1. He’s a liar. Are we really supposed to believe that he never heard Reverend Wright share any of his racist and inflammatory views during private conversations? They undoubtedly discussed politics and current affairs … I’m sure that Obama got a glimpse of Wright’s strong opinions during that time. For Obama to get on TV and say that he never heard Wright say anything offensive, and certainly would have spoken up if he had, is just ridiculous. If someone is that angry at society and the perceived power structure in this country, it would be darn near impossible to know him for twenty years and have no clue.

or

2. He is the least perceptive human ever to walk the earth. If Obama was oblivious to his controversial pastor’s words, he did not do his research before deciding on a pastor/mentor. I guess he never interacted with his fellow churchgoers, who eagerly cheered and applauded Wright’s hateful rhetoric. He must have let his mind wander to baseball or an upcoming speech during Sunday services. Barack Obama is a very smart man, so I doubt this second option is possible.

I know that liberals detest our current president, whom they believe to be a liar and a dense man incapable of analyzing a Dr. Suess book. Why would they want to elect another president who must share at least one of these same traits in order to make his current story plausible?

To go ahead and address what I imagine will be a response to this post, I am not just “some white girl who doesn’t understand black churches”. I have attended services in black churches. Heck, I worked for the Democratic Party in Maryland for years so I’ve done plenty of campaigning in black churches. I will happily embrace a candidate who attends a black church, a white church or no church. I am saddened and frightened, though, by the thought of a United States president who would attend, adopt and financially support Reverend Wright’s church.

I believe that Geraldine Ferraro was correct when she said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.” And, I do not believe that sentiment is a racist one. But, hey, let’s continue to pull out the “Racist!!” charge countless times leading up to November until the accusation becomes utterly meaningless.

If Senator Obama was a white 40-something man who had been in the U.S. Senate for just over three years, do you really think he would be winning the Democratic primary right now? Would an overwhelming majority of black voters be selecting a white Obama over Senator Clinton? Doubtful. After all, Clinton is married to the first black president. Yes, I know, Barack Obama is also getting a lot of white support (starting with several people who share some of my DNA). But, without the strong numbers from the black community he would not be ahead in the delegate count. If Barack Obama was white, Hillary Clinton would already be the nominee and we would be discussing the McCain vs. Clinton showdown.

To admit this fact is not racist … it’s just an objective analysis of the numbers. What is so horrible about that?

I freely admit that Senator Obama is a talented speaker and an amazing politician. If I agreed with anything that he wanted to do to our country (and I do mean “to”, not “for” our country), I would be incredibly excited to support him. However, it is not beyond the bounds to, at the very least, bring up for discussion the impact that his race is having on his success.

Ferraro also (correctly) stated that she would not have been considered as a VP candidate for a second if she had been a man. Being a woman worked in her favor. Does admitting this fact make Ferraro a sexist? No … it makes her a realist. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous

It is instances like the backlash that happened to Geraldine Ferraro which exhibit a real threat to free speech. If we continue down this path of tiptoeing around real, honest conversation out of fear that we offend someone, what a pathetic and weak society we have become.

It must be exhausting to spend every waking hour looking for the underlying racism that exists in every photo taken, word spoken and action made. What an all-consuming (and ridiculous) way to spend your time! “Racism spotting” is exactly the career path chosen by Orlando Patterson, a professor of Sociology (of course) at Harvard.

Dr. Patterson has an editorial in The New York Times today titled, “The Red Phone in Black and White”. You already knew that Senator Clinton’s 3:00am phone call was a play on our fears as well as completely unoriginal. But, did you also know that it is racist? I didn’t, either! Read this excerpt from Dr. Patterson and be enlightened:

I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image … it brought to my mind scenes from the past. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.

Patterson also compares this ad to “Birth of a Nation” and believes that Clinton meant to imply that black men are “lurking in the bushes around white society”. The white mother is protecting her white children from the scary dangers just outside her door. How can a black man protect us when he is … one of them? That is what Patterson believes the racist voters of Texas were thinking when they viewed this ad.

Let me go ahead and make this clear. If there is a black man in my shrubbery (or a man of any color, for that matter), my first instinct will not be to make a late-night call to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I do not expect my president to protect me from home intruders. I think that 911, combined with my husband’s gun, will be a much more effective remedy to diffusing the danger.

And, concerning the larger scale problem that Patterson implies, I trust a black man as much as a white man … or woman … to protect our country. I just don’t trust the specific black man and white woman running for president this year.

Walter Mondale did not mean to imply that Gary Hart was secretly a black man and therefore could not be trusted with our nation’s security. And, Hillary Clinton did not have racist intentions when she aired her version of the “phone call” ad in Texas. She just wanted to remind you that she has a lot of experience answering phone calls in the White House at 3:00am. Of course, she doesn’t remind us that the person on the other end was usually a girl who giggled, whispered “Oops, sorry!” and then quickly hung up.

Can we please focus on real issues of racism in our country instead of fabricating problems where they don’t exist? Crying racism in this instance is just plain silly.

I’m perplexed by a dream I had last night. Perhaps you can help me determine the significance of the events that unfolded:

I answered my front door wearing nothing but a large blue towel and found Mike Huckabee smiling on my doorstep. I welcomed him inside and we had a couple of beers. Then, he said, “I have a surprise for you!” We got in his car and he took me to a Hannah Montana concert. We had seats in the third row! I wore the blue towel the entire time.

My husband believes that dreams are nothing more than a random firing of neutrons, but I choose to think that dreams send us important messages.

First, why the large blue towel? Perhaps I’m attracted to Huckabee and I like the idea of being separated from him by only a layer of Egyptian cotton. Well, that and the three-piece suit he was wearing. Or, maybe I can’t fully trust his policy positions and I must keep part of me wrapped up and protected from his charming deception.

The color blue? Could it be that I was sending a signal to the governor — “I know you are really an economic liberal at heart, aren’t you? You like the color blue, yes? Feeling ‘blue state’ when it comes to your position on entitlement programs?” Or, maybe I was feeling blue because he is such a great communicator and I wished I could have embraced the message he was spreading with his fancy talking! I guess it could be nothing more than a hint as to the color in which I should redo my bathroom. Guess I should keep my eyes open for the next white sale at Kohls!

I don’t know whether or not Huckabee enjoys an adult beverage every now and again. That might be frowned upon given his position as a Southern Baptist minister. But, let me tell you something … he becomes even more of a hoot when you get some Miller Lite in him! At least some points remain consistent in my dream and waking states. In both instances, I feel the need to drink heavily when presidential candidates are in my kitchen. You should have seen the liquor bottles that Ted Kennedy and I left scattered across my breakfast bar back in 1980!

What about Hannah Montana? Well, Mike Huckabee has the same initials … just flipped! Maybe he fancies himself as Hannah Montana when he looks in the mirror. He has a secret identity that he hides from the world. What alternate personality does Huckabee keep locked inside? Club kid freaked out on E? Superhero who drives around in the night protecting the righteous from threats of evolution education … a Caped Crusader for Creationism, perhaps? Game show host on obscure Panamanian cable channel?

It could be that he saw how the youth vote is working for Obama and he is laying the groundwork for 2016. At least some of the kids at that concert will be old enough to vote by then. In my dream, I did enjoy being at a show at which I could see over the heads of everyone else in the audience. Must have been how my mom felt when she took me to see Debbie Gibson.

Or, maybe I’m just avoiding the obvious answer. My subconscious was mocking me. You may not believe me, but I pitched the idea for a brilliant character named “Elaine Maine” (I also offered “Gertie Missouri” … I wasn’t picky about the name) to Disney two decades ago. I got laughed out of the executive suite. Laugh, indeed. Miley Cyrus has the entertainment empire that should be mine! These dreams at 2:00am just remind me of what should have been …