DADvocate

There's a big hullaballo in Tennessee over the state's plan to crackdown on Tennesseans who go into neighboring states to buy cigarettes.

Smokers who cross the state line to buy cheaper cigarettes could see their cars searched or seized as Tennessee tax agents start cracking down on the practice, revenue officials announced Friday.

Stores in border towns have seen business dip since July 1, when the state more than tripled its tax on cigarettes to 62 cents — a bump that made per-pack taxes in Tennessee higher than any of its neighbors.

Laws already on the books prohibit people from bringing more than two cartons of smokes across the line on any one trip, and now David Remke with the state Revenue Department is warning Tennesseans that his staff plans on enforcing the often-ignored rule.

He said the state is out to protect its corner stores and tobacco shops.

"It's not fair to them that they've lost a lot of their business," said Remke, director of special investigations. "Really from this point forward, people need to be aware" of the law.

Emphasis added

"protect its corner stores and tobacco shops", if that's not a classic case of BS, I don't know what is. The states only interested in "protecting" its tax income. People from other states think Revenue Commissioner Reagan Farr, you've managed to make your state look dumber faster than Fat Phil Fulmer could if he started recruiting at Leavenworth. I agree.

Tennessee is bordered by eight neighboring states, tied with Missouri. (I thought it was only seven.) If Tennessee lowered its cigarette taxes to less than all the neighboring states, or at least the majority, people from neighboring states would come to Tennessee to buy cigarettes, likely increasing Tennessee's overall tax revenues from cigarettes. Plus, Tennessee has one of the heftiest sales taxes in the country. People from other states coming to Tennessee to buy cigarettes would probably buy a few other products in the process, thereby further increasing Tennessee's tax revenues.

This got me thinking about health care costs. Hillary and others are pushing "free" health care. Which means free for those that don't pay taxes or don't have clever CPAs. I recall that for each year that I do my income taxed I come close but never quite make the cut to claim any medical expenses for deductions.

Checking the IRS guidelines on medical deductions I find "You can deduct only the amount of your medical and dental expenses that is more than 7.5% of your adjusted gross income (Form 1040, line 38)." (Emphasis added) The example the IRS gives:

Your adjusted gross income is $40,000, 7.5% of which is $3,000. You paid medical expenses of $2,500. You cannot deduct any of your medical expenses because they are not more than 7.5% of your adjusted gross income.

Looking at the median family income of $58,526 reported by the Census Bureau for 2006, the typical American family would have to incur over $4,389.45 in medical expenses before getting an income tax break. That's over $84 per week. For most of us the medical deductions for medical care are worthless.

Instead of creating a huge, expensive bureaucracy, why doesn't the government give us a better tax break on what we spend on health care? If I could just deduct what I pay on health insurance it would be major. Or, if my employer could get a better break for paying for insurance so that it could pay 100% of the premiums.

A plan along these lines would allow us the freedom to continue to choose our health care providers as we wish. Such a plan would continue to reward innovation in medical care that has made our system one of the best in the world.

But, it seems no matter what the circumstance, be it cigarettes or health care, politicians and bureaucrats can only think in terms of higher taxes and wielding more power which increasingly put the populace under their thumb. Of course, that's a big reason many people go into politics or become bureaucrats, they like having power over others.

Several other's have already blogged on this incident where Tanya Rider languished in her wrecked car for eight days while the police did nothing and then suspected her husband had killed her. (When you put your son's football above blogging, many times you're Johnny come lately.) In hearing and reading the accounts, it seems the police were not reacting to the situation as much as they were reacting to it being a man whose spouse was missing.

Consider these two sentences written by Heather Nauert in an article at FoxNews "(Yes, they correctly feared that her husband might have hurt her. That is so often the case with missing women.) So police likely did the right thing by giving him a polygraph test, but why not "ping" her mobile phone, too?" Even the proverbial "right-wing" FoxNews considers suspecting the husband of harm, devoid of evidence, is the correct thing. The bias is deeply embedded in our culture.

Watch the husband's reaction here. He makes the point that once the police made it a criminal investigation against him, they found Tanya within an hour.

Police excuse their behavior as a matter of policy.

"It's not that we didn't take him seriously," Chinnick said. "We don't take every missing person report on adults. ... If we did, we'd be doing nothing but going after missing person reports."

Adults are entitled to privacy if they decide to do something out of the ordinary, and Chinnick said Rider's initial missing person report did not contain either of the two elements that would trigger an immediate search: evidence of foul play or unusual vulnerability such as age, mental condition or lack of critical medications.

According to this policy, you can be kidnapped, raped, murdered, etc. and the police will take no action unless they have hard "evidence of foul play" or "unusual vulnerability such as age, mental condition or lack of critical medications." If that is truly the policy, it is a horrible one. I suspect they took a look at Tom Rider with his beard, scruffy look and ball cap and decided "who wouldn't want to leave him" or "he's pulled a Scott Peterson."

Does it take a woman nearly dying for people to realize bias against men is bad?

For the first time ever, I've seen a study that concludes men are happier than women. (Study report here.) My son had turned on the TV for a few minutes this morning and Good Morning America was on and reporting this story.

In the 1970s, a range of surveys on the topic found women to be happier than men. Today, studies suggest a happiness gap.

"We find that women have become less happy or less satisfied with their lives over time and less happy relative to men," said Betsey Stevenson, an economist at the Wharton School. "Surprising, perhaps, given the increased opportunities and choices for women in the modern world."

The study found that women feel they have too many choices and too many responsibilities, which adds to their feelings of sadness. Women are now often stretched and stressed between the workplace and home. "Women end up with a lot more responsibility and men play a lot more than women do," one subject said.

Funny thing, I don't remember so much concern when women were happier than men. I don't remember any concern when this study showed that women were happier after divorce than men. (With a 50% divorce rate in the U.S., how can more men be happy than women?) Or when this global study showing women being happier than men was published.

A New York Times article points out:

Since the 1960s, men have gradually cut back on activities they find unpleasant. They now work less and relax more.

Over the same span, women have replaced housework with paid work — and, as a result, are spending almost as much time doing things they don’t enjoy as in the past. Forty years ago, a typical woman spent about 23 hours a week in an activity considered unpleasant, or 40 more minutes than a typical man. Today, with men working less, the gap is 90 minutes.

---

What has changed — and what seems to be the most likely explanation for the happiness trends — is that women now have a much longer to-do list than they once did (including helping their aging parents). They can’t possibly get it all done, and many end up feeling as if they are somehow falling short.

Mr. Krueger’s data, for instance, shows that the average time devoted to dusting has fallen significantly in recent decades. There haven’t been any dust-related technological breakthroughs, so houses are probably just dirtier than they used to be. I imagine that the new American dustiness affects women’s happiness more than men’s.

Well, so much for bringing home the bacon and frying it up in a pan because you're a woman. BTW - DrHelen points out that plenty of men are caring for aging parents. Plus, there have been "dust-related technological breakthroughs." Apparently the writer never heard of a HEPA filter for a vacuum cleaner or any of the numerous air purifiers on the market, less dust in the air - less dust on the furniture. Plus, there are lots of other cool dusting tools. But, as the writer points out, many men just aren't bothered by dust.


Alan Krueger in a different study with the same conclusion notes - "Second, different people have different emotional responses to the same activities, and the mix of preferences could be changing over time." In other words, which activities that bring happiness is subjective. My personal example is mowing lawns. Within limits, I enjoy mowing my lawn. I intentionally bought a house with a large lawn because I like lawns and mowing is is generally a pleasure. I have a friend who bought a condo because he didn't want to mow anything.

Good Morning America did a woman on the street thing, asking women what they thought. Of the two women I saw the first woman stated she thought she was happy and probably as happy as any man. She may well be. The study didn't say all men were happier than all women. The other woman said that she thought men should be just as miserable as her. (She didn't sound like she was joking.) If she wasn't joking, it's easy to see why she's unhappy.

My favorite reaction was a comment left at ABC.com.

Of course women are less happy than men-these so-called "choices" women have are not really choices at all. The problem is with the feminist movement stopping when women began regularly entering the workforce. Women have made strides in education and career, but have remained the sole caretaker of the family. America's "family values" thread is an underlying force that drives men and women to believe that women should still take the majority of household/childcare work upon themselves. American men are all to willing to let their working wives do most or all of the household chores and care for the children while they prioritize their careers and social time for themselves. This article is a clear, concise warning that the feminist movement needs to target the American family and the division of household labor between men and women.L.V., M.S. Labor Relations & Human Resources
Posted by:
workmom71 1:01 PM

The feminist movement stopped!? Remained sole caretaker?! - Not any family I know.

But this is the clincher:

This article is a clear, concise warning that the feminist movement needs to target the American family and the division of household labor between men and women.L.V., M.S. Labor Relations & Human Resources

What an incredible sense of entitlement. Yep, essentially we need to change the entire world to make sure women are happy. (Much of which we've already done in order to make women happier and they end up less happy.)

The researchers did note the feminist's movements role.

Finally, the changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness. The increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions may have led to an increased likelihood of believing that one’s life is not measuring up. Similarly, women may now compare their lives to a broader group, including men, and find their lives more likely to come up short in this assessment. Or women may simply find the complexity and increased pressure in their modern lives to have come at the cost of happiness.

It appears to me that too many women have bought the lie that you can be everything, do everything and have everything. Men know that all you really need is a living wage, a couple of buddies and good beer. :-)

My favorite take on happiness comes in the words of J. Krishnamurti.

Question: Are you happy or not?
Krishnamurti: The boy asks `Are you happy or not? I never thought about it. I never thought `Am I or not?'
Happiness is not something of which you are conscious, you cannot ask yourself `Am I happy?' The moment you ask that question, you are unhappy. Happiness is something that comes, not because you are seeking it but because you are doing something which really interests you. You are doing something because you love it; in the very doing of it, there is something which is called happiness; but, if you are conscious that you are happy, it is already gone. The moment you say `I am happy', is not happiness already gone?
You understand what I am talking about? Please ask your teachers to explain all these things; and if they do not understand and they do not explain it you search it out, do not accept anything. Do not be browbeaten, do not be bullied by the older people. Find out, enquire, search and never be satisfied; then, you will find out what it is to be happy.
January 22, 1954

My best personal experience with being happy came during my divorce process. I was broke and miserable like the divorce study above says. But, I decided I wanted to do as many positive things as I could. I began helping co-workers with tasks they needed help with such as paint rooms in their houses. I helped the local Lions Club sell food on the Fourth of July and so on. I eventually even made a few extra dollars cutting and putting up tobacco. (Have you ever stood, hanging tobacco, on a loose round rail 30 feet off the ground at the top of a 5 bent barn? You'll be happy just to survive.)

It really wasn't about being happy but about doing something positive with my life. I had some great experiences, made some good friends and learned a lot. I have to agree with Krishnamurti. If you seek happiness, you won't find it. But, "Find out, enquire, search and never be satisfied; then, you will find out what it is to be happy." Please don't confuse "never be satisfied" with being a chronically dissatisfied person though. What I believe he means is don't be complacent but keep searching always.

I mentioned the Jena 6 here the other day. Not necessarily judging the merits of the Jena 6 case one way or the other, I'm struck (once again) by the hypocrisy of the left and the race baiters.

For beginners, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton showed up. One doesn't have to look far to see that Sharpton and Jackson have quite a problem of being racist themselves.

The leftist Southern Studies.org posted several times regarding racism and the Duke lacrosse team. Once the truth came out Southern Studies emphasis was on defending their erroneous, unjust assumptions, etc. without ever facing up to their own rich, white male hating bias. Check out their posts here. But they are all over fighting "injustice" over the Jena 6.

Leftist blog, Knoxviews, in dear ole Tennessee, had this to say about the Duke case.

And you thought the UT football program had discipline problems.

Thus I have quoted every post I could find in its entirety regarding the Duke lacrosse case searching for "lacrosse" at Knoxviews. But again, they have plenty to say about Jena 6 including promoting "Jena 6 protest, peace march, and benefit concert today" and, as I've noted before, accusing Snopes.com of being racist because Snopes doesn't give the prescribed leftist interpretation of the Jena situation. You'll find nary a peep about Mary Winkler except in a comment here or there by a dissenter trying to break through the rusted shut minds at Knoxviews.

Justice doesn't have racial, gender or class boundaries but the left thinks it does.

How can you commit premeditated murder, escape plan and all, get minimal prison time, plus a car and house? God only knows but Mary Winkler did it. The link is to DrHelen. Read the comments for excellent discussion.

At the least this is a sign of how sick our society has become, especially in terms of misguided feminist propaganda. No man is safe. Such cases seem more and more common. A woman kills her husband, makes the now stale claim that she was abused, everyone feels sorry for her and somehow ignores she committed the ultimate act of abuse by murdering someone.

Hell, O.J. was less guilty than this woman. He most likely committed his crime in a fit of rage rather than having a premeditated plan.

Yes, I think I made the right decision here. My life expectancy has probably increased 20-30 years.

I know very little about the Jena 6 other than I read at the links here and a couple of other places. Cruising around I found this post "The Jena 6 demonstration is today. Is Snopes racist too?". The interesting aspect of this post is that in search of the "facts," the writer visited Snopes.

But Snopes didn't fully agree with that writer's opinion. So what to do? Accuse Snopes of being racist, of course. And fascist, etc.

All the facts still aren't in, but in a world where facism seems to be growing, it does make those who want justice to prevail in our land a little nervous to find biased reporting at every turn. When even the urban myth people are creating myths, it does seem to be getting pretty creepy out there.

Of course, the writer could be accusing Snopes of "facism," which I'm not sure of the definition. Maybe it's sticking out your tongue and otherwise making disgusting faces at others. But I'm assuming this enlightened liberal hasn't discovered the beauty of spellcheckers yet.

Plus, if the facts "still aren't in", how come the writer is complaining about injustice. Because she's already made up her mind without the facts? Sounds like it.

Remember, if you disagree with the opinion of a liberal/progressive you're a racist, fascist, Nazi or worse. The facts be damned.

DrHelen pointed out an excellent article by Glenn Sacks and Ned Holstein regarding Mary Winkler seeking custody of her children.

A killer shoots his spouse in the back, and then pulls the phone cord out of the jack so the victim can't call 911. As the victim slowly bleeds to death, the killer abducts their three children and flees to another state.

An Amber Alert is declared for the missing children, and the killer is hunted down by police, caught and tried. Were the killer a man, he would be locked away for life. However, this killer is a woman, Mary Winkler. The kid gloves treatment she has received from the legal system demonstrates how courts tilt heavily in favor of women when adjudicating claims of domestic abuse.

---

Mary Winkler's claims of abuse were largely uncorroborated during the trial. According to the testimony from Matthew Winkler's oldest daughter, Patricia, the dead father – who as he lay dying looked at his wife and asked "why?" – was a good man and did not abuse her mother.

Emphasis added

Many nursery rhymes are based on historical, political or other social events. In that rather satirical spirit I decided to write a rhyme about Mary Winkler.

Poor, little Mary shot her husband in the back
She couldn't give him just a whack..
She watched as he lay there and bled.
Then she grabbed her two kids and fled.

Poor, little Mary, was your husband big and mean?
It's OK that you did this terrible thing.
Oh, Mary, you poor little mistreated daisy,
We can all see he drove you crazy.

Poor, little Mary, it's OK you killed your guy.
No one will ever stop to wonder why
They won't even throw you in the can.
It's fine for a woman to kill a man.

Feel free to copy and distribute this little rhyme. If you want to write one, submit it in the comments and I'll post it if I like it. Please write it to sound like a nursery rhyme, like:

Lizzie Borden took an axe
And gave her mother forty whacks.
And when she saw what she had done
She gave her father forty-one.

I'm tired of rewarding and praising sociopathic women for killing men.

For the past week and a half I've been way too busy with my real life. My oldest son is starting college at the University of Cincinnati. His first day of classes is tomorrow. He's quite excited and enthusiastic. I just hope he continues to be so.

Since I work 10 minutes or less from U.C., I can occasionally meet him for lunch or dinner after work. I like being close, just in case.

Last week I had one of those days that parents love. My 11 year old daughter's school had parent/teacher conferences. I talked with 5 of her 6 teachers. My daughter has straight A's. Even better, every teacher included the word "wonderful" to describe my daughter in their first sentence.

She also played starting center in a basketball tournament over the weekend. Her team won third place. At this point she is a defensive and rebounding standout but needs to improve her scoring. I'm sure that will come and there's no need to make a big issue of it.

My other son, who started high school this year, is an outstanding lineman on a 3-0 freshman football team. He's gotten to play some JV ball also. He works hard at it and deserves what he's earned. People have whispered hopes that his class will be the nucleus of a state championship in a couple of years. From what I've seen, this may come true.

The freshman quarterback is already a better passer than the starting varsity quarterback. The freshman also have a solid running back and a couple of good receivers. The real surprise so far this year is the place kicker/kick returner.

Yes, the same kid does both. I've seen him put kick offs in the end zone from his own 40 yard line. He hits extra points better than the varsity kicker. (A couple of times he's kicked in place of the varsity kicker.) And, his kick returning is stellar. He has one return for a touchdown in a varsity game. He's had others that were called back due to penalties. He's amazingly fast for a 14 year old.

I don't claim much credit for my kids' performance. A cornerstone of my parenting philosophy is don't mess them up. I expect good grades but they make better grades than I expect. I want them to play sports but they play more and perform better than I could have reasonably hoped. I give them encouragement, praise and modest rewards. And, I try to help them live their dreams, not mine.

But, my kids have enriched my life and taught me more than I could ever enrich theirs or teach them. For that, I am eternally grateful.

GoldnI says,

And finally...let's be honest here. What conservative students want is not free speech, it's not "ideological diversity." If given the opportunity, they'd take control of the campus discourse and use it to drown out liberal voices.

So, I really don't have sympathy for them. It's hard to be a liberal in the South with people trying to shout you down all the time, but I understand that it's my burden to bear.

Boo hoo.

In other words she afraid conservative might behave as liberals in charge of colleges and universities do.

I chose three easy links to find. Examples of liberal bias in education are too numerous to list here.

Instapundit linked to America is gone? by Eric at Classical Values. Primarily, the post argues that Hillary as would be a step backwards for the country. (I agree.) Eric also discusses Hillary's plan to use Bill during her potential presidency.

At least, that's the only logical interpretation I have to give this characterization of what the country will be if Hillary Clinton is elected president:

Yesterday, before hundreds of union members and their families at a Labor Day picnic in Sioux City, Iowa, Mrs. Clinton suggested one role for her husband should she be elected: repairing the country's reputation in the world after what the Clintons and other critics charge is the damage done during the Bush years.

"The day I'm elected," she said, "I'm going to be asking distinguished Americans -- including my husband -- of both parties, to start traveling around the world, and not just talking to governments and leaders, but talking directly to people and telling them that America is back."

Most of all, further on in the post, Eric coins a great term, "comegalomania," to describe the Clinton's relationship.

Like Eric and Glenn, I've heard of codependency and even "mutually supportive symbiotic relationship," but never comegalomania. I like it.

The one thing I keep coming back to is, if Hillary is such an ambitious, liberated woman, why has she ridden her husband's coattails to get where she is and why does she continue to ride her husband's coattails in attempt to further her career? Hillary has never stood on her own. She is gradually working Bill into her campaign more and more, the YouTube ad, comments such as this, etc. As much as she wants to pretend to be an independent liberated woman, Hillary still needs a man to hold her hand.

This country needs a break for the Clinton/Bush regimes. If you're liberal show some brains and vote for someone else.

Since I added the NOLA links I figured I better click on them every once in a while. I clicked on Metroblogging and found a nifty link to We're all Oprah fodder in New Orleans by Ken Foster at Salon.com.

More than insight into the experience of living in New Orleans at the present, the article gives insight into the workings of the media. In particular, Foster shows how the media doesn't come looking to see what it there but tried to create what they want to find there.

Meanwhile, a producer from one of the networks is on the phone with me, looking for a "typical family" who is mourning the loss of a loved one due to violent crime. I begin spouting off candidates. There is no shortage. The producer interrupts me: "We don't want it to be a teenager, or gang related, or have anything to do with drugs." This, of course, eliminates the majority of the homicides in town. Instead, I offer cases that are in the court system and the complications they have met reaching trial. "Well, we aren't really interested in that," the producer says. "What we're looking for is a case that hasn't gone to trial because of police incompetence." The list of stipulations whittles the pool down to a handful of victims, exclusively white. When I mention this, the producer gets defensive. I suggest a handful of other tragic cases, but their trails aren't as cold as she'd like. I feel like a salesman in a boutique, working with a customer who wants to try everything on.

"This is a great opportunity for you tell your story," they tell us. The term "great opportunity" is their currency, particularly when trying to persuade someone to speak of the dead. An acquaintance recently had the "great opportunity" to speak to the media about the homicide of her husband. "But aren't you angry with the police?" they asked, unaware that she came from a family that had worked in law enforcement for generations.

If the media tried to report what was actually happening in NOLA, they'd have a good story. But, instead, they have to put their special slant and the reality of New Orleans today gets lost.

Explain this one to me. Morra Aarons of BlogHer.com and Mary Katharine Ham of Townhall.com appeared on CNN Newsroom Sunday, Sept. 2. They had this exchange concerning Larry Craig and John Edwards.

AARONS: You know what, I think you're stuck in the family values of the '70s and '90s. You know, I mean, someone said, if you want a friend in Washington, you know, get a dog. And I think you see that with Craig in the past couple days. I mean, he has been in Washington for 30 years. People ran from him as quick as they could. And I just think it's really sad.

You know, I'm sorry that he had to live a lie, but he has kind of a hypocrite all these years. And his chickens came home to roost and he had no friends this weekend. They got him out of there quicker than you could say "closet."

HAM: Well, and he did shoot himself in the foot to some extent by pleading guilty. And that really made a huge difference, I think.

AARONS: And by not telling his party leadership until recently. I think that, you know, he didn't behave, he didn't follow the rules. They got him out of there, in a safe seat, no less.

HARRIS: Mary Katharine, do you want to see Senator Craig back in Washington, maybe just to say good-bye to the staff, maybe to make this resignation formal? Do you want the specter of all the cameras? And what do you think?

HAM: Well, I think as a guy who, like Morra said, who has been there for 30 years, he deserves the chance to come back and close the deal and say good-bye to folks. But as far as a political career, no, I think it's over.

HARRIS: So, Mary Katharine, what's the story? I missed this one about John Edwards and the hypocrisy here with an SUV. What, is he railing against SUVs and he is traveling around the country? What's this story here?

HAM: Yes. He is -- the man who owns two SUVs, at least two, is telling us that they should not drive SUVs. And, you know, as we say in North Carolina, which is where I'm from, that boy ain't right. He was born without a shame bone. And he really is just yucking it up out on the trail out there. And I don't think that plays well with people. It's liberal overreaching, especially when you can see the two SUVs in his driveway.

AARONS: Mary Katharine, with all due respect, I don't think you can call it liberal overreaching. You know, he buys carbon offsets. He was the first candidate actually to declare a carbon neutral campaign. And the fact that when he said, and the first candidate to do so, we may have to stop driving SUVs if we want to save our planet. Special interests said, oh, well, there goes Michigan. It just shows how toxic the system is.

Emphasis added.

Aarons calls Craig a hypocrite. I can't really argue with that assessment. There seems to be a large gap between Craig's actions and professed beliefs. But, in virtually the very next breath, Aaron defends John Edwards' hypocritical position on global warming.

I almost wonder if Aarons is joking. But when I watched it on TV she seemed completely serious. Maybe I'm too dense to get the joke.

Edwards, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and their ilk are preparing the ground work for a modern day feudal system in which the privileged few live in their castles and ride (and fly) in their fine carriages while the rest of us labor only to be allowed heavily restricted "privileges." They will live in idyllic settings blemished by nary a windmill while we live in lands unfit for "them."

Edwards, Gore, Kennedy, et al pose a greater threat to our future than Craig ever did or ever will. How anyone believes these people have anything to offer that will make this land a better place to live is beyond me.

During the past week, I've been hearing radio ads sponsored by Kentucky Vehicle Enforcement to "Leave More Space for Trucks." (Press release HERE.) While the program is called " “TICKETING AGGRESSIVE CARS AND TRUCKS”, the emphasis seems to be heavily on ticketing cars.

Ten or more times a week, I drive the AA Highway (Hwy. 9) from Maysville, KY to Alexandria, KY 10 or more times. It is a fairly new highway, relatively straight but with lots of hills and side roads. Passing lanes go up most of the hills. For the 15 miles closest to Alexandria it is a four lane divided highway.

As one might expect, I've seen my share of bad driving and the trucks scare me a lot more than the cars. Although the speed limit is 55 mph, trucks often exceed 70, sometimes 80 mph. I suspect they avoid getting caught by using CB radios or such. I've seen truck pass on double yellow lines. The worst I've seen is when a truck passed over a double yellow line going up a hill with a passing lane and car was in the left passing lane passing another car in the right lane. Fortunately, no one topped the hill coming in the opposite direction.

Recently, semi ran a traffic light and killed a 14 year old girl on the AA Highway. The traffic light has caution lights that flash when the light is turning red on the side of the road a quarter of a mile before the traffic light. Yet, for some reason, Kentucky seems to think it's more important to go after cars than trucks.

Telling drivers to give trucks their space stands as a good bit of wisdom. The way too many of the maniac drivers operate their rigs, they need a road of their own. When I taught my son to drive, I told him to stay away from semis and other big trucks because of the obvious dangers. But ticketing cars instead of truck is ridiculous until I only see trucks driving within 5 mph of the speed limit, not tailgating cars and practicing other safe driving rules.

Senator Larry Craig has announced his resignation following the scandal that ensued sex solicitation in the men's room at the Minneapolis airport becoming public knowledge. He resigned in the shame that those of non-heterosexual orientation often face.

The liberal Democratic left often makes a big deal of championing the cause of gays. But they failed to come to the aid of Craig. Why? Is it that they don't really care about those of diverse sexual orientation?

Larry Craig was born and raised in Idaho. I've never been to Idaho but I can imagine that residents of the rural, agrarian state typically do not take kindly to people of homosexual or bisexual orientation, especially during Craig's formative years during the 1950's and 1960's.

Like many people growing up in Craig's circumstances, Craig may have fought against his urges, but not with full success. Desiring a career in politics and being fully aware of the stigma and shame places upon gays, bisexuals, etc, he tried to hide his sexuality. And, he did so for many years.

Whether or not Craig was actually soliciting sex in the restroom is not relevant at this point. The left's reaction is. Some lefty bloggers crowed and giggled over Craig's plight while they should have been more concerned with fighting for the rights of those with other sexual orientations whose cause they claim to champion.

A heterosexual man, or woman, can seek partners for sexual encounters in bars, coffee shop, libraries, the Oval office, outside restrooms, and grocery stores. But, because of the stigma placed on homosexuality, etc, men like Craig cannot seek partners in public places but are relegated to the back alleys and restrooms.

Indeed, by their criticism of Craig or by their silence the lefty "supporters" of gay/lesbian rights contribute to the continuation of gays/lesbians/bisexuals continuing to be scorned and stigmatized in our society just for the momentary pleasure of watching a Republican Senator writhe in pain and bite the dust. If you really hold a set of values to be valuable and an inalienable human right, you don't sacrifice those rights for pleasure or to possibly gain a little power. No, you fight for those rights. And, obviously, lefties only fight for a right when it gives them pleasure or power, not because it is a right.

Shame on them.

UPDATE: Here are some values listed in a Planned Parenthood classroom activity.

Process or Relativist World View
1. Sexuality is a natural and positive life force with both sensual and spiritual aspects.
2. Sex does not have to be confined to marriage; pleasure, love, and celebration are goals in themselves.
3. Tolerance or acceptance of same-gender relationships.
4. God’s purpose for sex is to celebrate life; masturbation, oral sex, and same-gender relationships can express the celebratory and communion nature of sex.
5. Flexible, egalitarian gender roles.
6. Emphasis on people and their relationships rather than on what they do genitally.

If they really believe this stuff how come they haven't spoke out in defense of Craig? Don't ask, don't tell policies in the military, discrimination is everywhere. Yes, Larry Craig's alleged actions are repulsive to most of us. At rest stops on the Interstate and many other public places, I won't allow my children to go to the restroom alone but go to a convenient store or fast food place instead, especially at night. But, if we lived in a tolerant, accepting society as described by Planned Parenthood, Larry Craig wouldn't have felt compelled to hide his sexuality in restrooms and such places.

Here is what Planned Parenthood says regarding homophobia at Teenwire:

Homophobia is negative feelings about people who are (or appear to be) gay, lesbian, or bisexual. It's caused by ignorance, misinformation, or lack of understanding about what lesbian, gay, bisexual, and straight people are really like and how they really appear. Sometimes it shows itself in obvious ways, like gay men and lesbians being beaten up or being denied a job.

Yet, the left seems to be completely willing to perpetuate these prejudices when it comes to an unsympathetic Republican Senator. Next week they'll be complaining about the lack of progress which they themselves hindered, and calling conservatives "fascist Nazis."

(Hat tip to The Anchoress.)

UPDATE 2:Mark Steyn has some thoughts.

The left gives the impression that a Republican senator caught in a whorehouse ought immediately to say, "You're right. I should have supported earmarks for hookers in the 2005 appropriations bill." That's the reason why sex scandals take down Republicans but not Democrats: Sex-wise, the left's standards are that whatever's your bag is cool – which is the equivalent of no standards. Thus, Monica Lewinsky was a "grown woman" free to make her own decisions on the carpet of the Oval Office. Without agreed "moral standards," all you have is the law. When it's no longer clear something is wrong, all you can do is make it illegal.

The left promotes "rights" only when it serves to bring more power to the left. They are not rights at all but chips to be played in a poker game only when they can bring more power to the left. The left does not care about true rights any more than they cared about their much heralded value of "diversity" when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court.

Hat tip to Instapundit.