Thursday, April 26, 2007

Good and Bad Bills Passed And/Or Failed from Conservative Viewpoint

Jerry Cox with Family Council sent out a letter, as he does after every legislative session ,giving a summary of the good and bad bills that passed and/or failed. He included seventeen good bills that passed; nine good bills that failed, and ten bad bills defeated. Jerry's entire article can be read at this link:

SB 959 Banning Gay Adoption and Foster Care was named as one of the good bills that failed. In his introduction Jerry included this interesting paragraph on this bill.

"The same day the House Judiciary Committee rejected the bill to ban homosexuals from adopting children, they passed a bill by Sen. Percy Malone (D) Arkadelphia that bans smokers from being foster parents. The same lawmakers who told us they couldn’t support our ban on homosexual foster care because children were in desperate need of foster homes didn’t hesitate to reduce the number of potential foster homes by baring smokers from being foster parents. While Family Council doesn’t condone either one, it is a sad day when lawmakers think it is more acceptable to be gay than to smoke cigarettes. The ACLU worked tirelessly on behalf of the homosexuals, but didn’t lift a finger to help the smokers keep their right to be foster parents."

Below are the other details on this bill included in the Family Council letter. Family Council is now in the process of determining when and how to put this issue before the people for a vote. Raising the money for this project is a big concern. Any donation toward this project can be sent to Family Council,414 S Pulaski St., Suite 2, Little Rock, AR 72201.

"Defeated: Banning Gay Adoption and Foster Care: SB 959: Senator Shawn Womack of Mountain Home. In 2006, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services’ regulations banning homosexuals from serving as foster parents. The Court ruled that the Child Welfare Agency Review Board that set the policy had no authority to do so. The Court stated that the issue of regulating gay foster parenting was an issue more appropriately addressed by the legislature. The court did not rule on whether or not a ban on homosexual foster parents would be constitutional.

"Family Council worked with Senator Womack to draft the strongest law of this type in the nation. The law banned homosexuals from serving as foster parents or adopting children. The law also banned couples living together out of wedlock from adopting for serving as foster parents. The law drafted for Arkansas was patterned after Florida’s ban on gay adoption and Utah’s ban on adoption or foster care by cohabiting couples. The Florida law has been upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Utah law remains in force. The Arkansas Senate passed the bill. Here is how they voted.

"Twenty senators voted to ban gay adoption: Altus, Baker, Bisbee, Book out, Capps, Critter, Farris, Glover, Hendrix, Horn, G. Jeffers, B. Johnson, Livery, Malone, Miller, Pritchard, Trusty, Whitaker, Wilkinson, Womack

"Seven senators voted against banning gay adoption: Argue, Brown, Bridles, Crumbly, Madison, Salmon, Steele

"Seven senators did not vote: Hill, J. Jeffers, Luke, T. Smith

"Two senators were had excused absences: Broadway, Taylor

"On two previous occasions, the Arkansas House of Representatives had debated the issue of gay adoption. In both cases, the legislation had been assigned to the Aging, Children, Youth, and Military Affairs Committee. In spite of appeals by members of the House of Representatives, Speaker Benny Petrus of Stuttgart assigned the bill to the House Judiciary Committee. This move effectively killed the bill. The House Judiciary Committee is a liberal and inexperienced committee and has only two Republican members out of 20. Kathy Webb, the legislature’s only openly lesbian member, is a member of the Judiciary Committee. In spite of the fact that similar laws in Florida, Utah, and Mississippi have been allowed to stand, Governor Mike Beebe undermined the bill by questioning its constitutionality.

"The bill to ban gay adoptions and foster care was debated for almost 2 hours in the House Judiciary Committee. Here is our commentary on how each member dealt with or didn’t deal with the issue. At the end, a voice vote was taken. There was no roll call. We have no official way of knowing how each member voted. However, some did tell how they voted after the meeting. Some told us where they stood before the hearing began.

"1. Robert Jeffery (Chairman), (D) Camden: Indicated before the hearing began that he would support the bill. He did a good job of
moderating the hearing. He provided ample time for a “do pass” motion to be made. We were unable to determine if he voted when the voice vote was taken.
2. Jon Woods (R) Springdale: Voted for the bill and made the “do pass” motion, but did not speak in favor of the bill.
3. John Paul Wells (D) Paris: Voted for the bill but did not speak in favor of the bill.
4. Lamont Cornwell (D) Benton: Voted for the bill but did not speak in favor of the bill.
5. Aaron Burkes (R) Lowell: Voted for the bill but did not speak in favor of the bill.
6. Steven Breedlove (D) Greenwood: Indicated that he opposed gay adoption. Did not attend the hearings on the bill.
7. Charlotte Wagner (D) Manila: Indicated that she opposed gay adoption. Did not speak for the bill. We were unable to
determine how she voted on the voice vote.
8. Tommy Baker (D) Osceola: Rep. Baker told one of his constituents that he would support the bill. He did not speak for the bill.
We were unable to determine how he voted on the voice vote.
9. Bubba Powers (D) Hope: Indicated to one of his constituents that he opposed gay adoption. Did not speak for the bill. Asked
negative questions during the hearing. We were unable to determine how he voted on the voice vote.
10. Robert Moore (D) Arkansas City: Did not speak for or against the bill. We were unable to determine how he voted.
11. Earnest Brown (D) Pine Bluff: Did not speak for or against the bill. We were unable to determine how Rep. Earnest Brown
voted on the voice vote.
12. Jerry Brown (D) Wynne: Did not speak for or against the bill. We were unable to determine how Rep. Jerry Brown voted on
the voice vote.
13. Mark Pate (D) Bald Knob: Did not attend the hearing on the bill. He was present when the vote was taken. We were unable to
determine how he voted on the voice vote.
14. Joan Cash (D) Jonesboro: When contacted by a retired minister who was one of her constituents, she would not tell him how she
planned to vote or if she would be attending the hearing on the bill. She did not speak for or against the bill. We were unable
to determine how Rep. Cash voted on the voice vote.
15. Tracy Pennants (D) Fort Smith: Voted against the bill and spoke negatively about the bill.
16. Will Bond (D) Jacksonville: Voted against the bill but did not speak against the bill.
17. Chris Thyer (D) Jonesboro: Voted against the bill but did not speak against the bill.
18. David Johnson (D) Little Rock: Voted against the bill and asked negative questions of the sponsor of the bill.
19. Kathy Webb (D) Little Rock: Voted against the bill, spoke against the bill, and spoke negatively toward a person who testified
for the bill.
20. Steve Harrelson (D) Texarkana: Voted against the bill. Spoke against the bill. In the opinion of Family Council, Rep.
Harrelson was unnecessarily rude to a witness who testified in favor of the bill.

"After the bill to ban gay adoptions failed to pass the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Frank Glide well (R) of Fort Smith asked that the bill be placed on the House Agenda for the purpose of voting to pull the bill out of the committee and bring it to a vote of the entire House of Representatives. Speaker Benny Petrus opposed the move to pull the bill out of the committee with a floor vote. Over the weekend before the session ended, the motion to pull the bill out of the committee mysteriously disappeared from the House Agenda. Rep. Glide well inquired as to why his motion had been removed from the agenda. He was told that the Speaker thought he wanted the motion pulled down. Rep. Glide well informed the speaker that this was not the case. With only two days left in the session and short of the 67 votes needed the pull the bill out of the committee, Rep. Glide well did not have the motion placed back on the agenda. "

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Texas Senate Overwhelmingly Opposes HPV Vaccination-for-Girls Mandate

Sue Madison of Fayetteville filed a bill requiring Department of Health to make HPV Vaccine available for "each girl twelve years of age and older" this legislative session in Arkansas. She withdrew the bill (SB 954) after it received little support.

Citizen Link Daily Update reported the following at this link:

"On Monday, [April 23, 07] the Texas Senate voted 30-1 to override Gov. Rick Perry's order that would have required schoolgirls to be vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted infection that causes cervical cancer. [The bill to bar this vaccination order by Governor Rick Perry was overwhelmingly approved by the Texas House last month.]

"The House passed the legislation last month. It now goes to the governor, who can sign it, veto it or let it become law without his signature, which would happen in 10 days. Both houses have enough votes to override his veto.

“I’m hopeful he’ll be respectful of the vote of the people,” said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Free Market Foundation, an organization associated with Focus on the Family. “They don’t want the power of the Legislature usurped in this way.”

"In February, Perry outraged the state and nation when he issued an executive order to require the HPV vaccine for all girls entering the sixth grade.

"Sen. Glenn Hegar told The Associated Press that passing the legislation sets a precedent that “we as a Legislature have a voice and we get to decide what vaccines are mandated in the state of Texas and which vaccines are not.”'

For another newspaper story see this link: Title of article is "Senate approves bill blocking Gov. Perry’s HPV vaccine order" By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON Associated Press in the Herald Democrat

Friday, April 06, 2007

ArkansasWatch on Vacation: Will Be Back on the 4th of July

I would like to thank those of you who view this site regularly. As much as I love it, "feeding the beast" (coming up with fresh material that might be worth reading every day) is quite a strain on my creative energies. I find myself getting crankier, and I don't like that. I find myself making mistakes too often and I don't like that. It is clear to me that I need to step back for a while and dedicate myself to my new position matching the right group health plans with businesses in NWA.

For all the negative things I have said, I still believe that this is the best country on earth, and Arkansas is the best state in the Union. It is my love of state, country, and the people therein that drives even my rants. I see the storm coming, and for the love of all those things I try to warn its coming. I need a break from the frustration of looking too hard at what our "leaders" are doing to us.

Debbie has said that she might post some on occasion, and our archives are full of stories that have current application, so it is not like we will be going "off the air". Perhaps check back monthly instead of daily. And by all means mark us in your calendars for July 4th as a day to come back.

Still, I need to step away from the negative energy of figting the bad guys for a while- and sometimes crossing swords with those who are usually good guys. I need to remember who I really (I hope) am. I need to find time and ways to praise and not rebuke, to feel success and not frustration and alarm. I can't do that in the current apathetic landscape.

It is the Easter Season. I wish you all a Good Friday. He is risen. And He will rule, in this world or the next. Even if we don't get it fixed in this life, it is gonna get fixed. I just wish that inbetween then and now we would not have to go through all the pain that stupidity and disobedience can bring. There I go again! I gotta let go now!

See you on the 4th.

Rockefeller Foundation Paid Protest Organizers

This May Day march for illegal aliens was brought to you in part by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation.

On Thursday The Morning News, the state's 2nd largest newspaper chain, ran as its lead story a report on a "study" from "The Rockefeller Foundation" concluding that immigrants- legal and illegal- were good for Arkansas.

What they failed to mention is that "The Rockefeller Foundation" was hardly an unbiased look at the situation. According to World Net Daily, "radical immigrant groups – including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) and the National Council of La Raza (La Raza, which means "The Race") – not only share a revolutionary agenda of conquering America's southwest, but they also share common funding sources, notably the Ford and Rockefeller foundations?"

These were the groups that organized the protests for illegal aliens in our streets last May. For all we know, they could be planning another march right now. Let's hope they bother to get the permits in Springdale this time. The last two times they flouted the law and did not get the "required" permits. Since they have media cover, they know it is unPC to enforce the law against them. Last year, the only people that the police demanded the permits from were a handful of counter-protestors. When they could not produce them, they were told to leave. Meanwhile, the La Raza protesters were allowed to carry on their demonstration without the required permits. This uneven enforcement of the law causes respect for the law to be lowered in the eyes of all citizens. I for one hope that it is not repeated.

But I digress. My main point is that when you hear "The Rockefeller Foundation" says illegal aliens are good for Arkansas, understand that they are not unbiased, evenhanded observors just trying to be "fair". The foundation has been taken over by radicals with an agenda, to the point that they are funding the groups demanding amnesty. Any claims about what their "study" says concerning the effects of illegal immigration in Arkansas should be taken with an ocean of salt.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Morning News in All Out Effort to Push Illegal Immigration

The Springdale Morning News had as their lead story a report from the Rockefeller Foundation that immigrants- legal and illegal, were "good" for Arkansas's economy. The report documented that most of the immigrants were from Mexico and South America, and that the majority of the "immigrants" in Arkansas were here illegally. That part I believe. The part about them contributing more than they cost us, I don't believe. But the Morning News wants you to believe it.

Just in case you missed the lead story on the front page, the front page of the "Nation and World" section also had a pro-illegal alien story, this time below the fold but still prominent. Surely two large pro-"immigrant" stories in one day was enough to get the point?

But NO, the lead editorial today was yet another pro-illegal proganda effort- ripping on State Representative Jon Woods for introducing a bill that would have helped curb illegal immigration. Not one, not two, but three pro-ilegal stories in one paper in one day. The "experts" studies were cited as evidence that you should not believe your own eyes and ears that illegal aliens are turning our cities into crime-infested third-world slums.

It is clear that this is one of those issues that you simply cannot trust the corporate media to tell you the truth about. Their corporate masters can buy lots of ads you see. Cheap labor is good for business, at least the businesses that cheat by exploiting it. It is bad for the rest of business because, among other reasons, the illegals siphon off their excess earnings and instead of spending it in the community, they send it back "home".

Not to worry, our illegal immigrant problem is about to be solved by the implosion of our economy due to the mis-rule of our corporate masters and their political sock-puppets we call "elected officials" (And of course, the ones that get elected are the ones whose names we know because of frequent and favorable media coverage by these very same presstitutes). Yep, once the bottom falls out and the dollar collapses (remember where you heard it) those illegals that snuck in here will sneak out the same way. We will be left with the mess, the debt, and the burden of fighting any wars needed to keep whatever might be left of our freedom.

I don't know what reward the presstitutes think they are going to get out of this. What reward do they get by participating in turning the United States into a third world nation? Maybe they think if they betray the rest of us well enough the big-money boys will let them live in gated communities with them- safely insulated from the ghetto they helped create for the rest of us by constantly using their position to shout down opposition to open-borders globalist madness.

If that is what they are thinking, they had better think again. When the bottom falls out, the illegals may depart, but the natives are going to be restless. Very much so.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Session Over: A Draw, Barely

A victory for conservatives? That's thinking defensively. At best we got a tie, sometimes called a "Mexican Standoff". To illustrate both concepts, here is a "Mexican Tie".

Click THURSDAY below and scroll down for analysis.

Ken Hatfield for Arkansas Athletic Director

Not a publicity hound: I had a hard time finding a good picture of Hatflield, had to settle for B&W.

I suggest Ken Hatfield be the next Athletic Director at the University of Arkansas. Hatfield has a reputation as a man of integrity and a good man to work for. He is already in the area (Springdale). Most of all, Hatfield is a winner- he is the winningest football coach in U of A history. Here are some things I picked up on the web about him...

Only Nutt, Holtz and Hatfield took the Hogs to six straight bowl games. Hatfield did it in six years (1984-89) and compiled a record of 55-17-1 (.760). Holtz boasts Arkansas’ second-best winning mark of .735 (60-21-2) and Frank Broyles is third at .708 (114-58-5).

Nutt is sixth in winning percentage (.610) but his record of 64-41 ranks second in UA history for victories. In his ninth season, Nutt’s tenure is third-longest behind Frank Broyles (19 seasons) and Fred Thomsen (13).

Hatfield was not just a winner at the U of A, he was a winner across the board, except for the end at Rice. He was one of only three active coaches to lead three different programs to top-20 seasons and was the only active Division IA coach to gain 10-win seasons at three different schools.

Even at Rice, there were some great successes. In his first Rice season, he became only the second Southwest Conference coach to win a league championship at two different schools. Rice's share of the 1994 SWC title was its first since 1957.

It was the same story in 1996. Hatfield became the first Western Athletic Conference mentor to win coach of the year honors at two league schools when the Houston Chronicle accorded him that honor following the Owls' 7-4 season. Hatfield was head coach at the U.S. Air Force Academy when the Falcons entered the WAC in 1980, and three years later he was the coach of the year, not only in the league but nationally as well.

The national coach of the year in 1983 at Air Force, he has been successful at every coaching stop. He led the Air Force to successive bowl trips in 1982-83, then took Arkansas to dominance in the SWC with six bowl trips in his six seasons in Fayetteville. The Houston Post named Hatfield the SWC's coach of the decade in the 1980's. The Razorbacks were league champions in 1988 and '89 before he moved on to Clemson. By winning another title in his first season back in the league, Hatfield joined a short list of SWC coaches who won three straight titles.

Clemson remained one of the best programs in college football under Hatfield. His first team in 1990 compiled a 10-2 record, including a 30-0 win over Illinois in the Hall of Fame Bowl in Tampa, Fla. The '91 squad won the ACC championship, and the '93 team went 8-3 to win a berth in the Peach Bowl vs. Kentucky.

And of course, Hatfield first rose to prominence by turning around the program at the Air Force Academy.

Hatfield is the man who can guide the U of A Athletic Department out of the very serious mess it is in. He can find the right kind of men to be coaches and give them the support they need to stay here. His roots are U of A roots. Let's back Ken Hatflield for A.D..

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

We Need to Repent

At least we still have one basketball coach on the payroll.

I guess the Altman family got culture shock moving from the quiet, dignified Catholic University of Creighton to the intensely secular U of A. Maybe he was used to having a God, not pretending he was one. We have deified atheletics in this state. It consumes far more of our time, energy, attention, and effort than other things that I believe God thinks are more important. And yet, the people who run the University and the people who run the state are interconnected.

Our whole ruling class continues to lead us to ruin, and yet they could not be our ruling class without our permission. We as a people, and they as rulers, have been playing games with God. Hypocrite leaders are quick to use His name to assure hypocrite voters that they are "OK", but try seriously seeking out and doing His will and they look at you like you are some kind of embarassment. Well, they are the embarassment. A guy from a serious Catholic University comes down here and he knows it. Even pagans know it. Remember that Toyota plant we lost a couple of months back? Shinto Japanese businessmen liked what they saw in Tupelo MS (home of the American Family Association where they do try to live out their faith in every area of life including government) better than Arkansas and at the last minute put the billion-dollar plant there. And to think Arkansans elected this secular-liberal ticket in part because they were concerned that "the bible-thumpers" would scare off business. It turns out foreign businessmen LIKE the values and results in communities where people take their faith seriously, instead of just playing games with God.

Why, not ten days ago why had a column in a regional paper where they tried to use the parable of the Good Samaritan to justify homosexual adoption and foster parenting. Is there anyone out there who really believes that Jesus Christ told the parable of the Good Samaratin to encourage people to support homosexuals using the power of the state to obtain access to young children? He said "do not hinder the little children from coming to Me".

The examples are too numerous to document. We are playing games with God, using His name and His Word to justify our own will rather than seek out His. We have a ruling class that tries to give us bread and circuses and sometimes acknowledges Him with their lips, but if they followed Him with their hearts there is no way we would have the policies that we do. We will continue to get jolts from reality like Altman and Toyota, until many of the people of this state repent of their hypocrisy. Just be who you say you are and support leaders who do the same.

Notes from All Over as Session Ends

The Legislative session should end today, and not on a good note. Rep. Frank Glidewell is not even going to try to rescue SB959 (ban on queer foster parenting). It needed rescue from the committee it was sent to by Speaker Benny Petrus, because, it is widelyt believed, Petrus knew it would get an "unfair trial" in the House Judiciary Committee. He wanted it killed under this scenario. I am disappointed. It seems like it would have at least given the voters in this state a chance to see who the phonies are. Has Glidewell chosen not making other legislators mad at him over pinning one on the bad guys? I don't know.

Get this crazy exchange about Rep. John Woods bill to make it a crime to harbor illegal aliens. In another day and time, my father broke this law, and I might have done so myself for a single day- though in my case the fellow was trying to get back to Mexico. Still, get a load of this from the Morning News...

"Sen. Irma Hunter Brown, D-Little Rock. "The only way you're going to find out who's harboring an illegal immigrant is to go on a witch hunt or start going after people who don't look like you," she said."

Me: what an idiotic comment. A "witch hunt" is supposed to be a politcal persecution of those with unpopular views, not the prosecution of someone harboring an actual criminal. For example, "hate crimes" legislation that would shut me up for expressing views on this blog would be a "witch hunt". A bill which arrested me for harboring a fugitive who bombed an abortion clinic would not be. She should look it up.

Woods said there are about "63,000 people that live in Springdale, and between 7,000 and 9,000 can't speak English." Obviously trying to answer her "people who don't look like you" comment. People whose mind can only think in cliches have to do stuff like this. I see a whole deck of "race cards" stacked in her brain, ready to be played as a substitute for debating issues.

"Speaking a language other than English is not a crime and mentioning that as a reason for the bill raises the issue of whether supporters "are trying to pick and choose who we let in," Brown said.

Well, duh. Of course we are trying to pick and choose who we let in. We would be irresponsible not to. Now some of the big corporations who want cheap labor are not so picky. Their main interest is flooding the labor market so that the constitueints of Sen. Brown face a tough time finding a decent job, and stagnant wages. Apparently, protecting their interests in not on the Senator's plate.

In other notes: Got my mail piece from Senator John McCain with his "survey". It completely avoided social issues and just had borders as one question under "Homeland Security". It phrased the question in such a way as you were agreeing to "guest workers" as you agreed to "tighten the border". Who does he get to write these things? It might actuall cost him support in this state's GOP primary.

Mass. Governor Mitt Romney on the other hand, is riding high with a whopping $23 million raised- neck and neck with Clinton for the lead. The media is reporting that he raised the money, but saying nothing about HOW. I suspect that Mormons across the country are sending money to one of their own. Someone who has the resources should check into "the Mormon Connection", but then it would be un-PC to mention it. Just like some other things I could mention about Mormonism would be un-PC, though still true.

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Opposing Ideals

Power to the Sheeple! The pressure is on from all sides for people to reject "ideologies". The latest call comes from David Brooks writing in the NWA version of the Demo-zette. Brooks wants Republicans to forget about the limited government ideology of Goldwater and Reagan. He contrasts ideological people with "regular people" and redefines "freedom" to mean that the government should provide for all your needs. It is a repackaging of the old siren song to forget about your beliefs and just accept the new order of things. Just take the free food offered on the end of that fish hook....

The powers that run both Democratic and Republican parties don't want anyone to have an ideology, because such people are too hard to manipulate. They prefer nice, compliant sheep, thoughtlessly bleating away peacefully in the fields, right up until the moment they are fleeced and/or eaten.

Last October we got another siren-singer trying to get us to forgo ideology, none other than Bill Clinton. Its the same argument, so here I re-print what I said last October....


Bill Clinton was in Jonesboro yesterday. The article was short, but here is how Clinton ended it: "
This year's balloting comes down to a clear choice between common sense politics and extremism, he said.

"If you're an ideologue, you have to live in a state of denial. To me, you have to live in a reality-based world," Clinton said. "To the ideologues evidence is irrelevant and reason is a waste of time. What I see all around the country is that people want to get away from ideology."

An ideology is an integrated system of thought about life or human culture. An idealogue CAN be defined as an idealist, or it can be defined as someone who adheres to an integrated system of thought. The kind of integration necessary for logical consistency. It does not surprise me that a man who can stand with his wife on the steps of a church with a large Bible under his arm on Easter Sunday and hours later get oral sex from an intern under the Oval Office desk would be strongly opposed to "logical consistency" and "integrated systems of thought". Clinton is the King of Compartmentalization. He feels threatened by people with integrity.

Integrity is defined as "unimpared; a firm adherence to a code, esp. of moral or artistic values; undivided." Bill Clinton has divided his mind. You can't have integrity without a moral code, that is to say, an ideaology. Clinton has made every compromise you can imagine to get where he is, and it bothers him that some people are not willing to.

Or maybe Clinton is an idealouge too, but his idealogy is the protection, advancement, and glorification of Bill Clinton. To him, someone who is not willing to lie and cheat to get ahead is "not realistic". But the man who can't even settle on "what the meaning of is is" cannot be trusted to define reality for the rest of us. Reality is that you can get a shortcut to power if you spin, threaten, twist, bribe, and tell people what they want to hear even if you know it is not true. Even idealists know that. But the person of integrity will not take "power" if the price to get it is the corruption of ones own soul.

Someday, when the terrible price for believing foolishness has made itself known, we can only hope that people will seek out idealogues as rulers, for those are the only kind of people capable of governing honestly and consistently. The rest, whose only idealogy is to make yourself look good no matter what the long term costs, will lead us to ruin.

The truth is that our political system, including much of the media, does hate and distrust those with a firm ideaology. That is because people with an ideology are too hard to manipulate. Our rulers would prefer that our emotions, not our ideas, control our lives. That way they can simply have two cults of personality, one the Bush cult and the other the Clinton cult, who can be swayed and manipulated completely apart from policy. At that point, they can do anything they want to us. Clinton could be against policy X one day, and Bush for it, and the cultists of the two would rail at one another. The following year, they could switch positions and the same people would still rail at one another, defending the policies they previously attacked when their champion opposed it.

Now more than ever, we need an ideology. We need a system of connected thought that gives integrity to public policy.