WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003

WHY EURO-WEENIES HATE GEORGE BUSH.

President Bush will be facing demonstrators in England today.  No big news.  American presidents face demonstrations everywhere they go .. .even in this country. 

I think, though, I have a bit of a handle on why so many Europeans literally hate George Bush.  I can explain it with this scenario:

You're walking down the street when you notice a house on fire.  The flames are just beginning to lick at some windows.  From inside that house you hear screams.  A mother is pleading for someone to come help her look for her babies.

You're frozen with fear out there on that sidewalk.  You know there are children in that house, and you know the mother is in there trying to save them.  You know they may all die, but you can't move out of your tracks on that sidewalk.  You're afraid.  After all, what if you get burned trying to save those people?  What if you die?  Maybe the flames will die out on their own?  You're perfectly willing to stand in the yard with a garden hose trying to contain the flames .. but actually going in there?  No way!

While you're standing there doing nothing, here comes this swaggering American in a cowboy hat.  A damned Texan.   The Texan sees the fire, hears the screams for help, throws down his hat and runs into the house.  Minutes later he emerges with the woman and her children.  They're safe. 

What about you?  You feel like a coward.  That Texan has made you feel small .. he took your manhood.  He showed you for the coward that you are in front of all of those people who were watching the spectacle.  Those people know that they were more like you than like the Texan; after all, they stood by you in doing nothing.  God, you hate him so.  You hate him because he displayed the courage you only wish you had.  Oh, you're glad he rescued that woman and her children; but why couldn't it have been you? 

Suck it up, Europe.  It's not like this is the first time Americans have had to do the job you should have done in the first place, and it probably won't be the last.

GAY MARRIAGES.  OH .. THE HUMANITY!

Oh boy.  Here I go setting myself up for another few days of incredibly vicious hate mail from self-proclaimed Christians out there.  Nothing gets those folks more angry at me then when I indicate that I don't share their hatred and fear of homosexuals.  That's OK though.  I can handle it.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the state cannot discriminate against gay and lesbian couples in the recognition of marriages.  The Massachusetts  legislature now has 180 days to come up with a way to give homosexual couples the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy under Massachusetts law.  So, to put it in the common vernacular, it looks like gay marriages will soon be legal in Massachusetts.

OK .. here we have a judicial action, soon to be a judicial action which is sure to be controversial.  My first and really my only concern here is whether or not the action taken by the Massachusetts Supreme Court could lead somehow to a threat to my life, liberty or property, either through force or fraud.  Try as hard as I might, I couldn't dream up the scenario where this would happen.  Just which one of my rights is violated if, through the operation of law, the estate of a deceased gay man can pass to his gay partner?  What do I lose if a lesbian can file a joint federal income tax return with her lesbian partner in marriage?  Nothing .. that's what ... nothing.  Not a thing.

So can someone tell me on just what basis I'm supposed to rant and rave against the idea of the law recognizing  a committed relationship between two people who truly love each other but who happen to be of the same sex?  Just what have I lost here?  What am I going to lose if every state in the union steps forward and legalizes, as they say, "gay marriage?  Every single right that I have under the law today I will have under the law after gays and lesbians get their state issued marriage licenses.

Some of you are going to tell me that this is an affront to your religious beliefs.  I respect that.  But those are religious beliefs and have no role in the operation of government.  Your religious beliefs are between you, your God, your family and your church.  They are not to be guidelines for the operation of your government.  Our government was founded on a principle of equal treatment under the law.  Your religion may not be comfortable with that concept.  Fine.  Live your own life in strict accordance with your religious principles if you wish, but don't try to use the police power of government to compel others to live by them also.

You may also tell me that you don't think that children should be raised by homosexual couples.  I'll agree with you on that.  I firmly believe that children need mothers and fathers.  A young girl or boy has many lessons to learn before they're kicked out of  the nest, and some of those lessons are uniquely designed to be taught by mothers, some by fathers.  Do you want a law recognizing the value of children being raised by mothers and fathers; a law banning adoption by same-sex couples?  Fine.  I'm with you there too.

Some of the people who will object loudly to this decision will go to the corner store today to purchase their copy of People magazine and then wander off to their homes in time to catch Entertainment Tonight on the tube.  They will ooh and ahhhh over the latest news and gossip about their favorite celebrities.  These are the same celebrities who engage in a series of four-month marriages.  They're also the same celebrities who get pregnant and then wonder out loud in anxiously awaited interviews about whether or not they'll get married to the father at some time in the future.  Maybe so, maybe not.  The Hollywood crowd has made a mockery of the idea of marriage and of raising children in mother-father households.  If you want to focus your righteous rage somewhere ... try Hollywood.

There is a solution here.  State governments could set up two distinct legal relationships between adults.  There could be marriages and there could be civil unions.  The laws of the state would grant certain privileges and rights to people who have formed state-recognized civil unions.  These would be the rights and privileges generally afforded to heterosexual couples today.  As for marriages?  Let the church's handle those.  Create a system whereby governments recognize civil unions, and churches recognize marriages.  If people want to be "married" let them go to a church and have their civil union recognized and blessed by the church.  Otherwise, you simple remain "partners," but with all of the legal rights and privileges that the government grants to those who's unions are recognized by a church.

In the meantime ... unless you can tell me how the Massachusetts decision is going to effect your rights under the law, it's my position that you have nothing to gripe about.

DELTA STATES ITS POSITION

Well, at least now we know where Delta Airlines stands ... firmly on the necks of Atlanta taxpayers. 

For those of you not from Atlanta ... here are your crib notes:

1.  The federal government has ordered Atlanta to fix some long-ignored sewer problems.  The cost will be over $3 billion dollars.

2.  The current mayor wants to triple water and sewer fees over the next few years to fix the problem.  It is certain that these increases will drive both businesses and residents out of the city.

3.  The governor of Georgia and some elected officials want the city to consider other options; options like the privatization of Hartsfield International Airport.  The governor and these elected officials know that the city of Sydney, Australia recently received a lease payment in excess of $3 billion for the operation of its airport, an airport that is substantially smaller than Hartsfield.

4.  The federal government has a program whereby Hartsfield could be leased to a private operator, with the proceeds of that lease going to the city of Atlanta.  This federal program gives any "dominant carrier" at an airport the right to veto such a privatization effort.  Delta Airlines is the "dominant carrier" at Hartsfield.

5.  Delta Airlines has now announced that it will veto any privatization effort at Hartsfield. that would divert any funds to the city of Atlanta.

Other airlines oppose the privatization also ... but Delta is the only one with in a position to block the move.

Well ... that pretty well covers things, doesn't it?  Delta has their excuses, of course.  They will say that running the airport is essentially a break even proposition ... and that the city just couldn't realize any money from a lease arrangement without affecting the airlines or the passengers who use the airport.  This, my friends, is essentially the exact same argument that is used whenever any group of people finds it in their interests keep some business enterprise under government control rather than turning it over to the free market.  Robert Poole, a transportation expert with the Reason Foundation, says that airlines don't want to lose the power to veto projects that might bring new competition to airports.

Politicians, of course, hate the privatization idea also.  Former Mayor Maynard Jackson had a restaurant at the airport.  His former wife had a snack stand.  The former husband of our current mayor has, or had a concession at the airport.  One or more of her children worked for that concession.  These arrangements would, of course, be in jeopardy if the airport were managed by a private organization.

So ... the 175,000 or so Atlanta sewer and water ratepayers are going to take it you know where ... while Delta sits back and protects its turf at Hartsfield.  That's called being a good corporate citizen.

NOT ASK FOR A REFUND FOR AN OVERPAYMENT?  LIKE HELL!

Another twist to Atlanta's financial woes.

Now a court has ruled that the city has illegally collected some license fees from attorneys practicing in the city.  Refunds are due.  So here comes the Atlanta Bar Association pleading with member attorneys to forego collection of the overpaid fees .. just let the city keep the money to help ease the financial crisis.

Isn't this rather bizarre behavior from a group of lawyers?  A government uses the threat of force to illegally seize money from a group of lawyers, and then the lawyers say "Well, that's OK.  Yeah, you took the money illegally, but we know you need it so we're just going to go ahead and let you keep it."  Yeah .. that's what being a lawyer ... that's what defending the rule of law is all about.

WHY DEMOCRATS DON'T LIKE THE NEW DRUG BENEFITS BILL

Democrats are setting the stage for an effort to kill the Medicare prescription benefits bill.  They will be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.  

Democrats are looking for a way to demonize this bill for two basic reasons:

1.  The bill is the creation of a Republican House and a Republican Senate, and it will be signed by a Republican President.  Democrats  know that Republicans will be telling the wrinkled class: "Hey, the Democrats never did this for you! But we did!"

2.  The bill  allows private companies to step in and compete with Medicare in six cities ... but not until 2010!  Democrats have relied on "Mediscare" tactics for years to frighten seniors into voting against Republicans.  If these seniors find out that private sector options might be preferable to a government-run system Democrats will have lost much of their control over the votes of this segment of society ... a segment that votes hard.

So, how are Democrats going to kill the bill?  They'll lie about it!  They'll say, for instance, that corporations will kick seniors off their retiree insurance programs.  Sorry, that's not so!  There are federal (taxpayer) subsidies in the bill to corporations to keep them from doing just that!

Stay tuned.  Fun food fight on the way.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

Uh oh ... they're out there at Michael Jackson's playground looking for evidence of something.  They say they're just looking for clues in an ongoing criminal investigation.  Let's bet it's not for getting into a barroom brawl.

Drat!  Once again I forgot to link you to my weekly World Net Daily column!

A look into the inner workings of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  It's ugly.

Thomas Sowell has a problem with high-IQ judges.  He says they turn simple realities into complex metaphysics.  This explains why our Constitution seems so basically simple to us .. but some judges can make it so intricate and complicated.  This is good.

OK .. now you just have to read this one.  The College Republicans have been kicked off the campus at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.  And why?  Because the College Republicans didn't want to amend their by-laws to allow Democrats, Greens or Nazis into their club.  They wanted to be an organization for ....  college Republicans.  Imagine that.

Oh I just love this.  Jay Bryant writes:  "When he (Ted Kennedy)  was a younger man, Kennedy was surely an excellent swimmer, but for the past thirty-odd years, his principal value has been to serve as an object lesson on the inherent weakness of any political system based on heredity."  This column was brought on by Kennedy calling Bush's political appointments "Neanderthal's"

Michelle Malkin (be still my heart) has something to say about the environmental extremists and animal rights zealots.  She calls them bomb-throwing Birkenstock brats.  Hey ... I had a pair of Birkenstocks once!

GET EMAIL FROM NEAL!

We're all set and ready to start signing people up for the Boortz Blast, Neal's FREE email newsletter launching soon. Each issue will include exclusive content so if you can't get enough of Neal, you've gotta sign up! Also, we will never, ever, ever sell our lists.