Interracial Couples

An idiot Justice-of-the-Peace in Louisiana has refused to marry a couple because they are interracial.

Yes, seriously. You don't have to check your calendar, it really is 2009.

His reason? "He was concerned for the children who might be born of the relationship..."

Yeah.

Children of interracial marriages never amount to anything.

Just ask, I don't know....President Obama.

or Tiger Woods.

or Derek Jeter.

Hard to imagine people like this still alive. The only good thing, I guess, is the near-universal denunciations that have crashed down upon this moron.

Hypocrites

Two items in the news, both of which show us why the dictionary contains the word "hypocrite".

First, NOW blasts Letterman, and is planning all sorts of juicy retribution.

"As 'the boss,' he is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace — and he did that with sex," O'Neill (President of N.O.W.) said. "This places all employees — including employees who happen to be women — in an awkward, confusing and demoralizing situation."

A powerful man with a public forum like Letterman, O'Neill said, can get away with turning women into sex objects because "he can crack a few jokes and publicly apologize for his mistakes."

"It is this kind of hypocrisy that perpetuates the image of men in power preying on women, while many look the other way," O'Neill said.

NOW urged CBS to take immediate action against Letterman for his lewd behavior...

Really? Really??

Did NOW just come up with this stance? The biggest "boss" in the United States is the President. The most vulnerable employee is arguably an intern.

Where was NOW when the disbarred former President was turning women into sex objects? Silent, that's where.

Hypocrite 2-- the Black Caucus. They claim that they are out to protect the poor and disadvantaged from being preyed on by the rich and powerful. Their defense of Charley Rangel gets them the title this week.

The Black Caucus should not have protected Rangel this week. They should have disowned him and attacked him themselves, months ago.

Not because Charley didn't pay taxes. Not because he didn't list a few assets on his disclosure form (what's a few million between friends, heh?).

No, because of a reprehensible thing he did that Congress isn't even investigating him for.

That sonuvabitch took over 4 rent controlled apartments for his own use--three he cobbled together for a huge duplex. The fourth he uses as his campaign office!

That's three apartments that poor people-- the people the Black Caucus claims to represent-- could have used.

Worse, according to the New York Times, Charley has been silent about abuses his landlord has allegedly perpetrated on the good people of Harlem. Why? Perhaps in exchange for 3 extra apartments he never should have had, at ridiculously low rents (the Times estimated he was saving about $4,000 per month)?

And yet the Black Caucus protects him--instead of riding him out on a rail.

Shameful behavior on the part of Letterman and Rangel.

Greater shame falls on NOW and the Black Caucus for failure to protect their constituents.

Unemployment "Insurance"

As an employer who pays unemployment insurance, I have a question in the face of yet another extension of benefits, which, again, I will pay for:

Here in NY everyone contributes a little each week towards the 6 month standard unemployment benefit package. Fine. It works like insurance. There are few, if any, restrictions on what a person can do while unemployed--presumably they are looking for a job.

But when the payments get extended beyond the 6 month period, the "fund" no longer has the money to pay for the benefits. They come from two sources- former employers and the taxpayers.

Is it unreasonable to ask that anyone receiving extended benefits report each day for "work" (except for those times actually interviewing, etc.?). Is it unreasonable to ask the unemployed to perform functions that might serve the community in exchange for the extended benefits? Working at soup kitchens, helping out at day care centers, fixing up playgrounds and ball fields, delivering meals-on-wheels, reading to folks at hospitals and nursing centers, etc?

Wouldn't that help our communities, provide services to our other needy, as well as weed out those who are working off the books, or who are delaying re-entering the workforce for some reason?

And wouldn't that help the long-term unemployed combat depression by getting them out of the house each day with a purpose?

Just a question or two as the Senate prepares to vote.