Dave Easterly’s Bravo Sierra Blog

Vote for me!

Attack Politics - “Business As Usual” That Needs a “Going OUT of Business” Sign

Here’s a letter from the local fish wrapper:

Let’s get past the negative approach to elections
Chris Talkington’s July 23 letter to the editor belittles three Republican politicians because they did not serve in the military (”… hunkering in his lawyer’s foxhole … snookered five deferments to escape Vietnam …”), while describing a Democrat who did serve as a “patriot in uniform.” Talkington contends, thereby, that the Democrat would advance veterans’ issues and infers the Republicans would not.

The political bias of his comments would be less obvious had he expressed similar condemnation regarding a former Democrat U.S. president who actively avoided military service (while struggling to remain politically viable) and who actually wrote of loathing the military.

Can’t we get beyond the ad hominem attacks that serve no purpose and only alienate civil discourse? Support your candidates for their positive positions on issue, rather than assail and impugn the motives, character and patriotism of others.

CHERYL KAATZ

Buhl

Since the Times News has a tendency to NOT post many of my responses, I figured I could put it here, too. So here’s what I had to say back:

I’ve seen this sort of bad behavior on both sides of the aisle. I remember quite frequently hearing that people who support bringing the troops home safely and letting the Arabs fix their own problems were “unpatriotic” and “didn’t support the troops.” I’ve been a life-long supporter of Republicans even as far as supporting GWB in 2000 but I’ve had fellow Republicans attack me as “unpatriotic” for saying invading Iraq was a mistake even before the first bombs were dropped.

I just can’t see getting angry at the Dems for taking a play out of “our” book when many Republicans (and certain media mouthpieces that spew the neocon faction of the party’s ‘party line’ as if it were unbiased news) have ALSO not only failed to raise the bar for civil discourse but have buried the bar at a new low by, to borrow Ms. Kaatz’s words, “impugn(ing) the motives, character and patriotism of others.”

What was that old adage about a mote in one person’s eye and a beam in the eye of another?

Do you have thoughts on this? If so, please leave a comment….

The “Gay Marriage” debate in our local fish-wrap newspaper…

So here I sit, reading a big, drawn out “back and forth” between two people - both of whom I respect very much and consider dear friends - on each side of an issue that probably won’t be decided anytime before I get ready for retirement. On the left is the always articulate and extremely bright and logical Mr. J.A. and on the religious right is the remarkably principled, honest, and sincere Mr. R.M.. I don’t think it is necessary to point out to you, gentle reader, upon which side of this divisive issue these two fine gentlemen land. And so… I submitted a response that is SURE to anger the “social” conservatives because it doesn’t condemn gay marriage and will BEYOND DOUBT infuriate the Left Wing because it doesn’t make guarantees of special protections for a minority. Yet I think my response is perhaps UNIQUELY moderate. Perhaps you, kind reader, will share with me YOUR thoughts?

Anyway - Here goes:

***UPDATE - The local paper censors apparently felt that my response to this discussion wasn’t worthy of being approved for the comments section of their website (magicvalley.com) so here is the only place you’ll see my little rant… ***

I consider myself both a very conservative person AND a completely non-religious person. As such, I find it difficult to understand the willingness of other conservatives to attempt to impose a specific version or interpretation of morality upon others. Any attempt to legislate something that reserves a right for a specific group of consenting adults and denies that same right to some OTHER consenting adults - no matter what the difference or distinction between those groups - diminishes the freedom of us all. After all, who is to say that some day you or I won’t be in a minority that is similarly denied a basic right?

The argument that somehow these couples being able to declare themselves “legally married” somehow diminishes more traditional marriages also strikes me as a reflection upon the marriages only of those who use that baseless and illogical claim to defend their (usually purely religious and dogmatic) position. Two men or two women having a ceremony or getting a piece of “official” paper to show their love and commitment to one another certainly hasn’t diminished MY ‘traditional’ marriage to my lovely and wonderful wife! If it diminishes your marriage, well that would be your own problem and not one that should be put in the hands of politicians! I mean, look at how horribly they screw everything ELSE up! The worst thing that could happen to the institution of marriage (’traditional’ or otherwise) is to get politicians even MORE involved so they can make it as broken and messed up as everything else touched by their incompetence.

I say 100% removal of the state (i.e. all government, all levels - not just the individual 50 states) from marriage is the right answer. Churches that want to have gay weddings will have their patrons and those who refuse will have theirs. And if non-religious, secular-minded folks want to tie the knot then a civil ceremony would be a “contractual agreement” between those legally able to enter in to contracts, thus ending the completely unfounded and unrealistic “What next? Marrying your pets or a baby?” nonsense because NEITHER of these can enter into a contract.

Only a few simple rules of equality and respect should apply - Gay people should NOT be able to FORCE anyone who doesn’t want to recognize their type of marriage in to accepting it… And if people don’t want to recognize ’straight’ marriage as a grounds for special privileges then the same rule and EQUAL treatment should apply. For example, an insurance company that wants to recognize gay couples’ marriages can give them the “family coverage” deal that straights get or NOT. Even the insurance companies that don’t offer “family coverage” to gay couples could and mostly WOULD still offer each partner separate INDIVIDUAL policies, so nobody is DENIED anything! Those who do offer the better coverage get the gay couples’ money and business. The other companies miss out. If it turns out that on average gay people eat healthier, take better care of themselves, and are more physically fit (not trying to play on a stereotype, but just making an example) then the free market might determine that it _could_ be CHEAPER to insure a gay couple and so they and their customers win in the long run. If that isn’t the case, it just isn’t the case. But if rates go UP for the straights because of “those darned salad-eatin’, gym-goin’ gays” then us straight people have NO legitimate reason to complain! I would call that fair and equal to all, wouldn’t you?

Also - we should either give every domestic partner couple regardless of gender or “on paper” marital status the same tax breaks OR _nobody_ should get them. 100% total equality!

If people could accept that sort of compromise I think we’d all argue less and spend more time getting along and solving BIGGER issues like getting rid of our incompetent politicians, restoring our Constitutional Republic to a proper working order, shrinking the size and expense of runaway Big Government, fixing our economy, and making sure our nation has a future better than its present. Sadly, I don’t see it happening any time soon…

My speech from the Ron Paul Center Grand Opening

Grand Opening Speech

Hello ladies, gentlemen, distinguished candidates, members of the press, and concerned citizens. I would like to thank everyone for coming out for the grand opening of this, the Twin Falls County Ron Paul Center. I have to begin by saying a special “Thank you” to a few people. First and foremost I want to thank Mr. Hamilton Armstrong for the use of this facility. His generosity and his commitment to helping the cause of Individual Liberty, Limited Constitutional Government, and true Conservative principles are remarkable. Next I would like to thank Mr. Gregory Nemitz for taking time out of his busy campaign schedule to come speak to us today. As most of you probably know, Mr. Nemitz - from right here in beautiful Twin Falls - will be on the primary ballot on May 27th to represent Idaho’s 2nd Congressional District in the House. I also want to thank the folks from the official Ron Paul campaign for working with us to bring Congressman Ron Paul to Twin Falls later this month. Also, I want to say a special thanks to Mr. Rick Martin for all of his hard work to help coordinate this event, Dr. Paul’s upcoming visit, and much, much more. And last but never least I want to thank the Twin Falls County GOP Central Committee for all of their work over the years and we all look forward to joining them in promoting lower taxes, responsible and accountable government, and candidates who truly support the principles and platform of the Republican Party.

Much has been said and written about our group of Republican candidates. It has been said that the “Ron Paul Republicans” are trying to “take over” or to in some way subvert the Party. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can understand how some people might misinterpret the fact that we have many candidates running for the first time for Precinct Committee Person positions, but we are running to help the Party and promote its principles. It should also be mentioned that not all of the first time Precinct Committee Person candidates are Ron Paul supporters. It is no coincidence that in a year when the Republican Party has a candidate who has inspired one of the most significant grass roots movements in recent memory that those same people have been inspired to learn how the political process works from the ground up. But this is not about one Presidential candidate, but rather about no longer being apathetic about the political process as a whole. Regardless of the outcome of the primary elections we intend to continue to work WITH the party to advance our shared goals. I believe it needs to be clear that we want to support and assist the Party in our community and throughout our great state beyond this election season and for many more years to come.

And with that out of the way, I want to provide an update on the status of the Ron Paul Hope For America campaign in our area and on the people who are a part of this great, patriotic endeavor. At this moment the Ron Paul meetup at meetup.com has 60 active signups and most of those signups represent families of at least 2 or more registered voters. This means that we have well over 100 actively engaged people working in various capacities to support not only Dr. Ron Paul but also other candidates who support true conservative principles. We also have in Twin Falls County alone a total of 27 candidates for 45 Precinct Committee Person positions. We also have candidates running in other neighboring counties including Jerome and Cassia counties. Some of these candidates are running to represent precincts whose seats have been vacant for quite a while. We hope to prove to the fine people already seated on the Central Committee that our level of commitment to the Party is just as strong as our enthusiasm.

We hope that you will join us in the Hope For America campaign to restore the rule of law and respect for the Constitution, and preserve our Liberties for which so many great Americans have fought and sacrificed. Thank you. Are there any questions?

Why I will continue to support Ron Paul no matter what…

Before someone asks me to switch allegiance after the disappointing results of Feb. 5, I would have to tell them read this speech from 1984. If they can show me that another candidate has shown the same level of courage, consistency, and foresight then I will consider them. Until then all the other candidates are merely pretenders who offer more “politics as usual” to the detriment of our precious Liberty and the economic future of the country I love so dearly. To read the speech in its entirety, continue below.
Continue reading Why I will continue to support Ron Paul no matter what……

A little perspective…

How do the other campaigns and the mainstream media explain THIS:

Special thanks to Andrew Bunde for finding and sending this to me!

Today’s Dose of Irony

I found this amusing - particularly the bottom line with the total number of results.

Giving a little for liberty sure feels good… :)

Why war with Iran may be inevitable…

First read THIS ARTICLE from our friends at the BBC. Then go back and look at THIS POST that I wrote on 9/11/07. I think most people can see that the only way Iran can realistically “attack” America is through the dollar and so they have begun. They pose no military strategic threat to America outside the Middle East, but look for the rhetoric to justify ANOTHER unnecessary and unconstitutional war to be ratcheted up yet another notch very soon. Please - let your Congress Critters know that they MUST oppose any legislation to authorize further entanglement of our military in yet another Middle Eastern country. And tell them to FIX the value of our currency by allowing _honest_ money to compete with our worthless Federal Reserve Note fiat currency so that true market principles can determine once and for all which is better for the economy on Main Street and let Wall Street take care of itself.

Another reason to like Ron Paul…

Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat) Server at www.ronpaul2008.com

Linux and Apache for “teh w1n” @ RonPaul2008.com