Boycotting BP.

From New York to Florida and points between, folks angry over the 19,000 barrels of crude oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico daily, have begun a number of boycotts of BP.

A CNN article reports that an online movement to boycott BP is growing at a rate of better than 25,000 names a day. There are two "Boycott BP" Facebook pages .... a larger one with more than 191,000 fans (as of this writing) and a much smaller one with just over 7,000 fans.

Clearly, many people are frustrated over the oil spill, but I question the effectiveness of a boycott. While the CNN article reports that there has been a 30% decline in the amount of gasoline delivered to BP stations in parts of Florida within the past few days, I suspect it is the independent station owners who are most hit by the boycott and not BP. BP does not own any gas stations in the US.

While those boycotting the gasoline produced by the oil giant may feel some sort of "moral victory" with their attempt to punish BP, it's very possible that the aluminum can, that holds their beer or soft drink, was made with aluminum manufactured by BP subsidiary Arco Aluminum. Like most international companies, BP has it's finger in many pies, so to speak, and probably won't be harmed by the boycotts.

Sure, people are frustrated and angry, but the oil spill was not intentional; it was an accident. This situation is a PR nightmare for the company and I have no doubt that they are doing all that is humanly possible to fix the problem as quickly as they can. The idea that this boycott will force BP to clean up the mess any faster is naive.
Recently, President Obama told us of his daughter coming to him and asking the question, "Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?'” The question is cute, coming from a 12 year old child. However, the overgrown children boycotting BP should realize that this problem can't be fixed over night.

Read the Bill, Doofus.

When I first learned that neither Attorney General Eric Holder or Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had bothered to read the controversial Arizona immigration bill [S.B. 1070] before criticizing the bill, I was neither shocked or surprised. That's the sort of thing I've come to expect from Democrat politicians and their toadies.

Likewise, I can't really say that I was shocked that Republican Congressman Connie Mack would do the same, but I was a bit disheartened. We know that the words "Democrat" and "responsible politician" are polar opposites. I realize, too, that the GOP has it's own share of air-heads as well. I only wish we had another alternative than replacing Democratic nincompoops with Republican ones.

To the best of my knowledge, Connie Mack has not openly admitted that he hasn't read Arizona's S.B. 1070 but, after reading his recent piece in the Washington Post [Why conservatives should oppose Arizona's immigration law], I can't imagine that he has.
Otherwise, how could he possibly maintain, as he does, that "This law clearly challenges citizens' freedoms, and it does so by putting some Americans at risk of losing their freedoms while others stand little or no chance of being affected." ?

Mack goes on to compare Arizona's new immigration law with the government (under Democratic President FDR) placing U.S. citizens of Japanese descent in detention camps during WWII.

He continues, "The Arizona immigration law reminds us of how fear and distrust can lead to bad laws and even more government overreach into the private sector and our private lives."

As pointed out in Kirk Adams' piece (also from the Washington Post) the Arizona bill simply mirrors federal immigration law by making it a state crime to be in this country illegally. Contrary to folks like Holder, Napolitano and Mack, law enforcement cannot simply walk up to a person and say, "Can I see your papers?"

Adam's points out in his article that California has a similar law already in place - California Penal Code Section 834b . Maybe the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco should boycott themselves.

Update:
Thanks to Les Femmes - The Truth for pointing out that the Frog Says, "Read the Bill! Then Secure the Border!"

Some Versions of the Past are a Bit Fishy.

We were supposed to be different.

Growing up in the 1960's, we "baby-boomers" were convinced that we had, somehow or other, created a new world unlike any that had come before. We were, in our minds, revolutionaries. Our music was unsurpassed. Unlike "popular" music of the (ancient) past, ours would forever remain on the forefront of the culture. We smirked, in our smug, superior way, at the Muzak of Lawrence Welk blissfully unaware that John Lennon and Paul McCartney would become the Lawrence Welk of the 1990's and beyond.

As the recent controversy surrounding Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal proves, my fellow baby boomers who seek to advance in the political ranks continue to bring us all (willingly or not) back to the days of the Vietnam war. Today, 35 years after the fall of Saigon, 64 year old politicians running for the U.S. Senate view service in Vietnam as a resume enhancement; so much so, that stretching the truth misspeaking lying about having served in Vietnam comes easy for them.

In the words of Henry Allen:

O,the stained souls, the small-hours doubts, the troubled manhood of so many American men who didn't go to Vietnam when they could have -- the strange guilt they seem to feel when they confront Vietnam veterans.

I may have, for a brief moment, felt that same said "strange guilt" this past weekend while I listened to a Vietnam vet as he attempted to mesmerize someone young enough to be his son with tales of his year long stay in Vietnam. As much as I would have liked to join in the conversation with similar stories, I was not, however, tempted to do as Richard Blumenthal had done.I would not lie about having been in that war myself when the truth was that I have never been in the military.

Like many of my generation, I had absolutely no desire to fight in Vietnam. The reasons we may have given in those days for not wanting to go were far more noble than the actual truth. We would go on and on about the immorality and illegality of the war. We would speak of the corrupt South Vietnamese regime. But, we were, contrary to Richard Cohen, "spoiled shirkers". We were, by and large, more inclined to remain in the world of "sex, drugs and rock and roll" that was the United States.

We were undisciplined and anti-authority. The uncensored "Fish Cheer" was our anthem.

Anti-war protests were the order of the day. I submit that these protests were actually more anti-draft than anti-war. A wikipedia article claims
"The draft lottery had social and economic consequences because it generated resistance to military service and the resisters, draft evaders or "draft dodgers", were generally young, well educated, healthy men."
My recollection of those days is different. As I recall, those of us, like myself, who managed to get high numbers in the lottery didn't bother protesting any longer.

Over the years, I've come to realize that much of what we hear from those of us who protested the Vietnam war is a colorized, glossy version of reality. I believe that it is this fantasy version of the Vietnam era (error?) which fuels much of the Liberalism of today. I, for one, am willing to admit that I was not as noble then as I should have been. I wish more of my fellow baby-boomers would admit the truth as well.

Tomorrow's Post.

I'll be working an extra shift today so there will be no time for a lengthy post. However, with the job I'll be doing this morning, it will be easy enough to take my mind away from my rather boring task and instead, think about tomorrow's post.

Reading Richard Cohen's piece in the Washington Post today reminds me of something I already knew; my fellow, self-centered baby-boomers will not allow us to get over the Vietnam war. As long as one baby-boomer draws breathe, the war (and the anti-war protests) will be fought over and over again.

There isn't enough time for me to write about it today; so, I'll think about it today at work and post my thoughts on it tomorrow.

I'm sure all you non-baby-boomers are looking forward to it.

"Woman Priest" denied Catholic Funeral.

As expected, Liberals in the media are angry over Janine Denomme's excommunication and the Catholic Church's refusal to allow Denomme a Catholic funeral.

An article on the Huffington Post claims that Denomme was ordained a priest in April by a group called Roman Catholic Womenpriests. That's wrong, of course. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the "ordination" of women. Catholic women who pursue ordination excommunicate themselves from the Church. Denomme was aware of this but, she had "'always wanted to be a priest,' and decided to be ordained anyway."

For the life of me, I cannot understand the logic of the women who decide to call themselves Roman Catholic priests. Each one knows that Church teaching forbids the ordination of women and of course, each one disagrees with this teaching....each one believes the Church is in error. Why, then, do they wish to remain in the Church? I cannot understand why anyone would call themselves Catholic if they do not believe what the Church teaches - not just on the ordination of women but on the question of abortion or birth control or a variety of other issues. Can you imagine the reaction towards someone who wished to be called Jewish or Muslim though all the while insisting that Jesus Christ was the Son of God? Given her views on women in the priesthood, it would have seemed logical and consistent for Denomme to leave the Catholic Church and convert to the Episcopal church as Episcopal Bishop Diane Jardine Bruce did in 1986.

Prior to her illicit ordination in April, Denomme was diagnosed with cancer. She died May 17, according to her partner, Circuit Court of Cook County Judge Nancy Katz.

Although I feel sorry for Denomme, the refusal, by the Chicago Archdiocese, to allow her a Catholic funeral was the proper decision and completely understandable to those of us who follow Catholic teaching. Not only did she participate in an unlawful ordination but Denomme was in a long time lesbian relationship. As if those two were not enough, her "partner" was non - Catholic.

The media will use this tragedy to further bash the Catholic Church - as demonstrated in this video of Chicago's CBS2 Chief correspondent, Jay Levine.

The supporters of women's ordination will shamelessly use Denomme's tragic death by cancer to further their cause. Countless people watching the linked video or reading of Denomme's story will sympathize and call for the Church to change. Thankfully for all of us, the Church will not bend to popular opinion. The Church will remain steadfast and for this we should all be grateful.