She Has Nothing For Which She Should Apologize

Betty Brown was in the papers recently. She's a congresswoman from North Texas, and the Texas legislature, standard bearers for individual liberty that they are, are discussing voting rights. The legislature is considering requiring that citizens provide proof of identification at the polling station in order to vote. Some liberal crybabies are all up in arms about this, saying stupid things like Ramey Ko did - that people of Asian descent might have problems because their voters' cards might have their legal name (like Ho Won Sok), while their drivers' licenses or other identification would have their commonly used English name (like Wally).

Talk about a whiner. Betty Brown had a perfectly reasonable answer to this (according to this Chron.com article - Note - the article I linked to appears to no longer be available):

Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese - I understand it's a rather difficult language - do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here? ... Can't you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for idenfication purposes that's easier for Americans to deal with?

Of course the liberal pussyfooters in the legislature, who I'm sure WANT us all speaking Chinese, got all up in arms about this very reasonable request, demanding that Betty Brown apologize (source: Keyetv news in Austin).

I say Kudos to Ms Brown for sticking up for America! We all know that it's perfectly reasonable to ask voters to prove they are who they say they are at the polls, what with the rampant voter fraud that's been going on recently. Just look at all the statistics to back up this very real threat: wait, I can't find actual statistics showing proof of voter fraud running rampant in Texas, so you'll just have to trust me and Ms. Brown and the supporters of this legislation that it's a Very Real Threat on the grounds of conjecture and rhetoric.

I think this is a very easily solved problem. Since people have enough trouble coming up with one name, and these Asian-Americans have, in many cases, come up with two already, I think we should simplify ("streamline") the process. Rather than have these "Americans" come up with their own names, I propose we take names that are easily understandable. The surname "Brown" is indubitably understandable, as it's one of the most common surnames in America. I think she would be honored at the thought of lending her surname to these Asians with difficult-to pronounce names like "Park," "Lee," or "Kim." That solves half the problem. Now for first names. Obviously one would be hard pressed to find a name more easily understandable or clearly red-blooded American than "Bubba." I mean, he was Forrest Gump's best good friend, and Texas native Bubba Smith played for the Michigan State Spartans - you know, the state with Detroit - the city that made America great, and source of Texas' best selling Pickup! And really, Bubba Brown is very clearly going to be easy for people to pronounce. The catch is, that name would only work for half of the population. I think for the other half, we need to go with something just as American as Apple Pie - something straight out of an Archie Comic book - Veronica is too long - people would potentially get confused. No, I think the solution has to come from Veronica's nemesis - "Betty." I mean, what's more American than Betty White, or Peggy Hill's famous Apple Brown Betty? Come to think of it, it's like Peggy Hill's Brown Betty in Reverse - Betty Brown!

Wow, I just realized, that would be the same name as the person who made this very simple, reasonable request in the first place! What an homage - to take the name of the person who is so clearly concerned for protecting your ability to participate in our way of life! I'm sure Rep. Brown would be moved beyond words at such an honor. And deep down, you know you would be, too.

"The Vast Majority Already Comply"

That was part of the argument in favor of Indiana's Voter ID law, oral arguments on which were heard by the Court today.

I presume the argument is that it's ok to let the minority not be heard, because the vast majority can be. I understood America to be a land where citizens got a vote, not those citizens with the means to get a picture ID, or those citizens without an ID who can afford to take a day off within 10 days of the election to affirm their vote.

I understand the fear of voter fraud. But I find it wrong to deny American People a vote in a Free Country because of restrictions placed upon them by the Government. When the Government can determine who may or may not vote by passing legislation, then we cease to become a democracy or a democratic republic. I fear the Court will find differently than I, but I have difficulty swallowing the argument that it's OK to deny a right reserved for all based on their inability to obey a legislative act.

The Gay Agenda

For the past several years, I've had my opinion on homosexuality and gay marriage and whatnot. Basically, my view is if you are gay, then be gay, just don't make a big deal out of it. And if you want to get married, then go get married. Of course, my view seems to be the minority view out there.

So imagine my surprise when I read about the lastest activist decision regarding gay marriage. Apparently, the Maryland Supreme Court granted the petition and heard the plaintiff's case for the right to marry. Their conclusions were little short of an activist decision/judiciary legislation from the bench, which those on the right disdain with such ferocity.

The court actually wrote that plaintiffs "point to several Maryland precedents that, if viewed literally, appear to support the proposition that a statute receives strict scrutiny analysis under Article 46 if sex is at all a factor in determining whether certain individuals are entitled to the benefits provided by the particular legislative enactment under review." (quote was pointed out on The Debate Link article hyperlinked above - David Schraub is a brilliant undergrad) The Court then stated that reading such precedents literally is "beguiling."

Let's edit that to make it a little easier to understand. The Court says that by reading what the courts have said in the past regarding Maryland's Equal Protection Act literally, then it looks like the government would have to prove that banning gay marriage is necessary to further a compelling government interest, and that no less restrictive alternative means are available. The law is presumptively invalid. However, applying such a "literal" interpretation of what has been said before is misleading, or delusional. And therefore, it cannot be right, so it's perfectly legitimate to craft a decision WE (the Court) want to have - namely, a ban on gay marriage.

Rather than try to explain the many things that are wrong with this decision, I would point you to The Debate Link and David Schraub, who has done an outstanding job writing on the topic.