The roads in Pennsylvania

I had noted previously that, on my brief trip to the Bluegrass State, the roads were better in Ohio and Kentucky than they are in Pennsylvania, despite the keystone State having a much higher gasoline tax to fund roadbuilding and maintenance. Well, I drove back today, all the way from Louisville to Ashland in Kentucky, 167 miles, and Interstate 64 was in really good shape. There were a couple of spots on the journey in which road maintenance was going on as I passed.

Then, in wild, wonderful West Virginia, Interstates 64 and 79 were also in great shape. West Virginia’s gasoline taxes, exclusive of the 18.4¢ federal gasoline tax, are higher than Kentucky’s, at 34.60¢ per gallon, but still lower than Pennsylvania’s 51.60¢ per gallon, but the roads on which I traveled were in excellent shape.

So, why can’t we do that in Pennsylvania? We pay significantly more in gasoline taxes, and we have several main roads that have separate funding through tolls. The Pennsylvania Turnpike, a toll road, is in pretty good shape, but the tolls to pay for that are high. In the meantime, Interstate 81, very much a major thoroughfare, needs major work throughout its length. There are I-81 projects ongoing, but they are way, way, way overdue. Realistically, I-81 needs to be widened to at least three lanes in each direction for its entire length, due to the heavy commercial truck traffic it sees, but, other than around Harrisburg, the state capital, it’s two lanes from the Maryland border through at least Hazleton, and the roadway is rough and worn.

If Kentucky, a poorer state than Pennsylvania, can have I-64 widened to three lanes in each direction for most of the way between Lexington and Louisville, and then well east of Lexington, as well as having widened Interstate 75 to three lanes past Richmond south of Lexington, roads which see less traffic than I-81, why can’t Pennsylvania do at least as well?

Donald Trump and “The Right Stuff”

In Tom Wolfe’s excellent book “The Right Stuff”, he explains how, in aviation, any major change in technology changes the rules of the game in terms of who stands at the top of the “Pyramid”, i.e., who had the top status in the aviation world. He points out how, after World War II, when propeller planes became obsolete, there were The Old Guys, the “Bitter old bastards who could fly the hell out of a prop fighter and still thought that’s what the game was all about”, but they couldn’t adjust to the new technology of the jet age, and were soon left behind and replaced by a new generation of jet jockeys.

That’s what may be happening in politics, with Donald Trump playing the role of Chuck Yeager. The rules of politics are changing and the Old Guys, the “Bitter old bastards”, don’t like it one bit. And thus you hear the carping from the likes of George Will and Michael Medved (or RINO-ved), as I have come to think of him). Trump is not playing the game by the old rules, meaning their rules. The old rules say you have to be “Serious” and “Electable”, and Trump is supposedly neither. But serious and electable is what got us John McCain and, most especially, Mitt Romney. And candidates, especially Republican candidates, are supposed to be deferential to the press, lest they “Offend” someone.

Trump doesn’t care about any of that. He is breaking the old rules and writing new ones. The old rules sat that, when an enemy calls you a racist, you immediately backed down and started apologizing. But recently, when a pesky reporter tried to attack Trump for using the term “Anchor Baby”, calling it “Offensive”, Trump would have none of it. He responded with “You have a better term?” and when the pest didn’t, he said “Then I’m using ‘Anchor baby’ “. When’s the last time a Republican showed that kind of guts? And that’s why the GOP base loves him. Trump may not be a “Doctrinaire Conservative” on every issue, but they would rather have him than some mush-mouth from the Republican Establishment, the inside-the-Beltway elites who think that they know best and who have made a career out of sneering at “Outsiders” like Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

Can Trump win? Who knows? But he’s proving that you can play by new rules and win over normal Americans while sticking it to the Elites in the political-journalist-pundit class who have been running things for far too long. It is, to borrow a line from Caddyshack, the Slobs vs the Snobs, and the snobs are starting to get worried.

Walking around UK

My best friend (Class of 1976) and I (Class of 1977) spent a couple hours walking around campus today. Being Labor Day, it was pretty much deserted, but I left The First Street Journal’s name and web address on a couple of blackboards in the Whitehall Classroom Building; let’s see if anyone actually checks in on the site.

From The New York Times:

Iran’s Unsung Plutonium Concession in Nuclear Deal

By William J Broad | September 7, 2015

At first glance, the metals that give atom bombs their destructive fury might seem interchangeable: Uranium and plutonium are both more valuable than gold. Both captivate would-be atomic powers. And both fueled bombs that leveled Japanese cities — uranium at Hiroshima and plutonium at Nagasaki.

But to see them as equal is to ignore a crucial difference: Of the 15,000 or so nuclear warheads on the planet, atomic experts say, more than 95 percent rely on plutonium to ignite their firestorms.

As a fuel for weapons, plutonium packs a far greater punch than uranium, and in bulk can be easier and cheaper to produce. Which is why some nuclear experts voice incomprehension at what they see as a lopsided focus on uranium in evaluations of the deal reached with Iran — under which Tehran would forsake the production of plutonium.

“It was an incredibly big breakthrough,” said Siegfried S. Hecker, a Stanford professor and former director of the Los Alamos weapons lab in New Mexico, the birthplace of the bomb. “But nobody seems to care.”

Nearly two years of negotiations went into the landmark deal, which would limit Iran’s production of uranium and plutonium in exchange for the end of international oil and financial sanctions. It was finalized in July and is set for a congressional vote this month. Last week, President Obama secured commitments for enough votes to put the agreement in place over fierce Republican opposition.

But in the dauntingly complex analyses that preceded that political alignment, questions and criticism revolved almost exclusively around uranium — how much of it Iran would be allowed to enrich and stockpile, and how compliance would be verified.

Atomic experts call the uranium focus potentially misleading, because it is the lesser path to the bomb.

In secret, three decades ago, Iran began exploring the plutonium path and was perhaps only months from inaugurating a plant for its production when, last year, as negotiations gained momentum, it abruptly agreed to a fundamental redesign that would end the facility’s potential for making substantial amounts of bomb fuel.

There’s more at the original.

But, let’s be blunt here: much of the opposition is because many people, the Editor included, do not trust Iran not to break its given word, not to try to cheat, and the verification protocols in the agreement are very, very weak.

Nevertheless, President Obama has presented the Congress with a fait accompli, because te agreement is not just between the United States and Iran, but several civilized nations and Iran. If the Congress chooses to reject the agreement — something unlikely, because the President has already lined up the 34 votes needed to sustain a veto of a rejection law — that still leaves the United Kingdom and France and Germany as having that agreement with Iran in force, and there’s nothing that Iran might want from the United States in trade that it can’t get from those other countries. A Congressional rejection, over the President’s veto, would mean that American sanctions would remain in place, but Iran would still be denied nothing it wants, other than, perhaps, from where they’d prefer to buy.

And count on it: American businesses, looking for new markets, will support an agreement which would allow more trade with Iran.

This agreement will stand, whether we like it or not.

From Around the Blogroll

The Editor is in the Bluegrass State, having driven here yesterday. Depending upon where, I saw gasoline prices from $2.379 to $2.569 in Pennsylvania, but regular unleaded was in the $2.159 to $2.179 range in Ohio, yet Ohio’s roads sure seemed to be in a lot better shape than those in the Keystone State. Yet, according to the American Petroleum Institute, state gasoline taxes in Pennsylvania are 51.6¢ per gallon, while they are only 28.0¢ per gallon in Ohio, both figures exclusive of the 18.4¢ per gallon federal excise tax. How can the Buckeye State do so much more with considerably less?

Kentucky’s gasoline taxes are 26.0¢ per gallon, and the roads seem to be in better shape than in Pennsylvania. Your Editor doesn’t object to fuel taxes: they are taxes paid directly for a particular government purpose, the building and maintaining of the roads. But he would like to see these things done more efficiently than seems to be the case in Pennsylvania. And note: a lot of the major roads in the Keystone State are toll roads, so some of the major highways — the Pennsylvania Turnpike and parts of Interstates 80 and 78 — have additional revenue streams for their maintenance.

And now, on to the Blogroll!

Rule 5 Blogging: Sweden!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Scarlett Johansson in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

Today: the Swedes!


Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: Sweden!’ »

Kim Davis and The Law of the Land

We have hear a lot about Kim Davis, the clerk who would not sign the marriage license for a Gay Couple saying it was against her Conscience. And for Kim following her conscience she was arrested and placed in Jail for Contempt of Court. It was said “She did not follow the Law of The Land.” The question was asked, “What Law Did She Not Follow?” I’m willing to be there is no law saying any two human beings may marry regardless of the sex of either one. One can say the Constitution says we may not discriminate. It has been said/implied that heterosexual marriage discriminates against gay couples.

From 1992 Webster’s Best Seller

Strange that the definition did not say it was a law.

However, back to Kim Davis. She is in Jail for not following the “Law of the Land”. Can someone cite in the Code of Federal Regulations (known as CFR’s) where this law is??? Don’t look, it’s not there. It is a New Right made up out of thin air by the Supreme Court. Now below are excerpts from the Constitution, which is the Law Of The Land. One is for making laws by Congress, and the other one is the role of the Supremes. In reading the Supremes, it says nothing about their ability to MAKE LAW. So, the simple question is, how is Gay “Marriage” the Law of the Land?

U.S. Constitution
Article I
Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Why is Kim Davis in jail? The best I can compare this to is the Civil Rights struggles of the 50’s where the law of the land said there was no means in it to discriminate.

Originally Plessy vs Ferguson got it wrong, but Brown vs Board of Education got it right.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954).

This case is a consolidation of several different cases from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. Several black children (through their legal representatives, Ps) sought admission to public schools that required or permitted segregation based on race. The plaintiffs alleged that segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In all but one case, a three judge federal district court cited Plessy v. Ferguson in denying relief under the “separate but equal” doctrine. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs contended that segregated schools were not and could not be made equal and that they were therefore deprived of equal protection of the laws.

Is the race-based segregation of children into “separate but equal” public schools constitutional?
Holding and Rule (Warren)
No. The race-based segregation of children into “separate but equal” public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is unconstitutional.
Segregation of children in the public schools solely on the basis of race denies to black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the physical facilities and other may be equal. Education in public schools is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the role of public education in American life today. The separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, which applied to transportation, has no place in the field of public education.

Separating black children from others solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The impact of segregation is greater when it has the sanction of law. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law tends to impede the educational and mental development of black children and deprives them of some of the benefits they would receive in an integrated school system. Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority and any language to the contrary in Plessy v. Ferguson is rejected.

Question is, how can the thinking of these two cases show the outcome of gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage. Last I checked, no matter what two same sex couples do, it will not produce an equal outcome of opposite sex couples left to its own nature of Biology.

Free Kim Davis.

Illiteracy in America

Illiteracy in America

Reading is a critical part of everyday life, from knowing where to turn on a highway to reading the label on a package of food we are about to eat. Despite the fact that the United States is an economic and political leader, illiteracy among adults still continues to be an issue throughout the country and finding a solution to the problem has proven difficult. Many are seeking solutions, however, including Bill Gates of Microsoft and Bob Parsons GoDaddy founder. Yet, the statistics regarding illiteracy in the United States are startling.

Number of Illiterate People in the United States

According to the United States Department of Education, approximately 32 million adults in the country are unable to read. This means that almost 14 percent of the entire adult population is considered illiterate. Among developed countries, the United States ranks 16th for adult reading skills. Globally, about 774 million adults who are over the age of 15 are considered illiterate.

Low Proficiency Level

Not all adults who are considered illiterate are unable to read at all. In fact, between 20 and 23 percent of adults in the country who are considered illiterate can read at the below or at the basic proficiency level. Around 30 million adults in the United States cannot comprehend material written at the fifth grade level while 63 million adults read below the eighth grade level.

Age and Geography Factors

Older Americans are more likely to have adequate reading skills as approximately one-third of adults aged 65 or older struggle with reading. In 2013, California’s Long Beach was ranked as the most illiterate city in the country with Mesa, Arizona and Aurora, Colorado close behind. The District of Columbia was ranked as the most literate city with Seattle and Minneapolis in second and third.

Literacy and Poverty

Among American’s who receive food stamps, 75 percent perform at the lowest two levels of literacy and 90 percent of students who drop out of high school, many of whom read at below proficiency levels, are on public assistance. As many as two-thirds of students who cannot read proficiently by the end of the fourth grade have a higher chance of incarceration or ending up on public assistance. In fact, over 70 percent of American inmates cannot read above the fourth grade level. Almost 85 percent of juveniles who end up in the court system are functionally illiterate.

In 2013, studies showed that 14 percent of the population could not read and that 21 percent of the adult population read below a fifth grade level. Ten years prior, in 2003, a similar study found that 14 percent of adults could not read and 29 percent could read only at a basic level. This indicated that there had been no change in literacy in the United States in ten years. There are many organizations attempting to rectify the situation through adult reading programs, including the Stepping Stone Foundation. These groups hope to address the issues of illiteracy in the United States in an effort to reduce poverty and the incidence of crime committed by those who are unable to read fluently.

It’s pretty sad when the teenagers are smarter than the adults

From The New York Times:

Missouri Teenagers Protest a Transgender Student’s Use of the Girls’ Bathroom

By Karen Workman | September 1, 2015

Lila Perry, a transgender student at Hillsboro High School, talked to reporters on Monday after a protest against her (sic) use of the girls’ bathrooms and locker room. Credit Robert Cohen/St. Louis Post-Dispatch, via Associated Press

A transgender high school student in Missouri is facing backlash from her (sic) peers after requesting to use the girls’ bathrooms and locker room.

More than 100 students at Hillsboro High School, about an hour south of St Louis, walked out of class on Monday in protest.

“I’m hoping this dies down,” said Lila Perry, the 17-year-old who began identifying as a girl publicly in February. “I don’t want my entire senior year to be like this.”

Meaning: Mr Perry had been publicly identifying as a male up until February; everyone in school knew him as a male.

Ms. (sic) Perry, who began feeling “more like a girl than a boy” when she (sic) was 13, said school officials gave her (sic) permission to use the girls’ facilities as the new school year began.

The district’s superintendent, Aaron D. Cornman, issued a statement saying the district “accepts all students no matter race, nationality/ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.”

The student protest came on the heels of a school board meeting on Thursday attended by so many parents it had to be moved to a bigger location.

“My goal is for the district and parents to have a policy discussion,” said Derrick Good, a lawyer who has two daughters in the district and wants students to use either facilities based on their biological sex or other gender-neutral facilities.

There’s more at the link.

But it’s amazing: the (supposed) adults in the room couldn’t understand that this boy, with a penis and testicles, with XY chromosomes, who had been reared as a boy for his entire life, and who had been known to the girls as a boy for all of that time, is actually a boy. It took the common sense of the teenaged girls to recognize that “Lila” Perry was really a boy, regardless of how he dressed or what he said he was.

There is a TLC program called “I am Jazz,” about another boy who self-identifies as a girl. He dresses like a girl, plays with the girls, hangs out with the girls, but he was born a boy, and is still a boy. On the show, “Jazz” complains that the teenaged boys flirt with the girls, but won’t flirt with him. Duh! Of course they don’t flirt with him, because he’s a boy, not a girl, and the teenaged boys have enough common sense to realize it.

This is a huge problem with liberalism: to hold leftist positions, you have to give up your common sense. We can have sympathy for whatever psychological problems that Mr Perry and “Jazz” happen to have, but feeling sympathy for them does not mean that sensible people should reaffirm and support their delusions. The education professionals, who have apparently had all of the common sense educated right out of them, are apparently unable to see what every amphibian and reptile and bird and mammal can recognize, the difference between males and females of the species; it’s pretty bad when the highly educated professionals are less intelligent than a salamander or an iguana.

Even the left-wing sites are starting to pile on to the Clinton e-mail scandal

Remember: Politico is not a right-wing news site:

Clinton aides pushed to view top-secret material on handhelds, emails show

Newly released emails show top-level security officials at State expressing apparent concern about the requests.

By Josh Gerstein | 09/02/15, 01:59 PM EDT

Qvid? Me anxiovs svm?

Hillary Clinton’s aides appear to have pushed for handheld devices capable of handling classified material soon after Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state — a request that was discussed by senior security personnel at the agency, according to newly-disclosed emails.

Some of those top-level security officials also appeared to have concerns about requests from Clinton’s aides that they be permitted to view “SECRET” and “TOP SECRET” material on personal electronic devices, the heavily-redacted emails indicate.

Since a furor erupted in March over Clinton’s decision to use a personal email account and server as her exclusive email during her four years as America’s top diplomat, the State Department has steadfastly refused to say who at the agency–if anyone–approved her use of the private arrangement.

The newly-disclosed emails shed some light on that mystery by indicating that the State Department’s senior leadership on security issues had at least some knowledge of devices Clinton and her senior aides used. However, the messages don’t definitively show that anyone at State formally approved Clinton’s account or made an assessment of potential security risks posed by her using the family server, housed at the time at the Chappaqua, N.Y. home she shares with President Bill Clinton.

The newly-disclosed documents show that less than two weeks after Clinton assumed her post, several top-level security officials exchanged a series of messages with the subject line: “PDAs for S and S Staff.” “S” is a State Department abbreviation for the secretary and his or her office.

Much of the text of the emails was deleted from copies the State Department released recently in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. However, the messages show that a request for portable devices that could handle classified information seemed to cause some consternation among the security personnel.

There’s more at the original, noting that State Department security officials, including then-Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell — who later (sort of) resigned after the Benghazi massacre — was concerned about this, but there’s no noted attempts to suggest to the Secretary of State that this was a bad idea, one against regulations and probably against the law.

Perhaps I’m being overly optimistic, but Mrs Clinton seems to be resembling a piece of toast, which has fallen on the floor, buttered side down.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and hypocrisy on the left

Kim Davis, the County Clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, has been in the news ever since the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v Hodges, requiring all states to recognize and license homosexual “marriages.” Mrs Davis lost her final appeal, when the Supreme Court declined to take her appeal of a ruling that she must issue marriage licenses, something she ceased doing following the same-sex “marriage” ruling.

The Lexington Herald-Leader editorialized last Thursday:

Rowan clerk faces big decision on job

After her latest legal setback, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has some decisions to make.

If she continues to defy the law and a court order, U.S. District Judge David Bunning has no choice but to find her in contempt and order her fined, imprisoned or both.

If her conscience really won’t let her issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, she should resign the $80,000 a year post that has long supported her family.

Davis, a Democrat, was elected last November to succeed her mother after working for her mother in the clerk’s office for 27 years. Davis now employs her son in the office.

It’s astounding that in almost three decades on the public payroll, Davis never sorted out the roles of government and religion under the U.S. Constitution that she swore to uphold. And it’s worth noting that 117 of Kentucky’s 120 county clerks are still issuing marriage licenses.

On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to delay Bunning’s order that Davis resume issuing marriage licences by Monday. The panel said Davis has “little or no likelihood” of winning her appeal.

And it’s true enough that Mrs Davis had little likelihood of winning her appeal; she lost it. But the editors continued:

Nothing reveals the absurdity of her position more clearly than her lawyer’s response to the latest ruling against her. Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver continues to insist that elected public officials have a constitutional right to pick and choose which of their government duties they will perform based on their religious beliefs — in other words, that public officials can use religion to discriminate against certain citizens.

Nothing could be more un-American. What he is advocating would destroy the rule of law, a foundation of our republic. And imagine the chaos, given the wide range of religious beliefs.

So, there we have it: on August 27th, the editors said that government officials cannot and should not pick and choose what laws they will obey.

And so we come to yesterday’s editorial, in which they wrote:

Thursday, the same-sex marriage circus will continue as Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her deputies appear before U.S. District Judge David Bunning, accompanied by an entourage of lawyers, reporters and photographers, supporters and opponents of both sides, cell-phone videos running as they wave signs and shout encouragement and derision.

We will not question Davis’ sincerity, although we disagree with her interpretation of just what authority she was elected to enforce.

But there can’t be any question that political operatives have been eager to bend this issue to their objectives, godly or not.

Some of Davis’ supporters held signs Tuesday declaring that if Gov. Steve Beshear doesn’t intervene on Davis’ behalf, they will withhold votes from his son, Andy, who is running for attorney general. The younger Beshear’s opponent, Sen. Whitney Westerfield, R-Hopkinsville, appeared at a Frankfort rally supporting Davis.

So did Republican gubernatorial nominee Matt Bevin who railed against his opponent, current Attorney General Jack Conway, for saving taxpayers both money and humilitation by declining to appeal a U.S. District Court ruling against Kentucky’s anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.

That amendment itself, passed in 2004, was clearly a wedge issue used to mobilize conservative voters for Republican candidates that year.

In other words, the editors of what my best friend Ken calls the Herald-Liberal approved Kentucky state Attorney General Jack Conway declining to do his duty, which included defending the Commonwealth’s state constitution in federal court, because he supported same-sex “marriage.” It seems as though the editors are less concerned with officials doing their duty than which duties they are supposed to perform.

I chose the Herald-Leader‘s comments because it is the closest major news source to Morehead, Kentucky, where the County Clerk’s office is located,1 but the editors are hardly the only examples of this hypocrisy on the left. The good people at the Delaware Liberal want to use physical force to remove Kim Davis from her position, yet the same website, and same writer, supports President Obama’s choosing which laws he wants to enforce concerning immigration.

Well, let’s go out west, where the San Francisco Chronicle editorialized that “when Davis is serving in an official government capacity, she needs to follow the law, even when she disagrees with it,” and that the state legislature should impeach her if she continues to refuse to issue marriage licenses. But, just a few weeks ago, the very same editors held, after the murder of Kathryn Steinle by an illegal immigrant whom ICE wanted deported but whom the sheriff simply released, that some “sensible steps (should be taken) to help ensure that San Francisco’s sanctuary city policies do not inadvertently become shields for criminals who should be deported,” never saying that the City by the Bay should obey federal law, period, and end its “sanctuary city” policies.

Let’s face it: if it weren’t for double standards, the left would have no standards at all.

As for The First Street Journal, we very regrettably agree that Mrs Davis must either find a way to square issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples with her conscience,2 or resign. It’s unlikely that she will find another $80,000 a year job in Morehead; the median family income in Rowan County was $33,081 according to the 2010 census, and she may have to choose between feeding her family today or obeying her conscience, and that’s a tough choice. We applaud her courage and her toughness, but she cannot choose to both be a functionary of the government and refuse to perform a duty that the government specifies she do.

  1. Between the seventh and eleventh grades, I delivered the Lexington Herald morning newspaper, and Lexington Leader afternoon newspaper in Mt Sterling, Kentucky. In 1983, the two papers merged to form the Herald-Leader. The Herald-Leader has a great sports section as far as University of Kentucky basketball is concerned, but, other than that, it’s a fairly mediocre middle market sized newspaper.
  2. The Editor agrees with Mrs Davis’ position; it does not matter what other people might like or say, the relationship between two men or two women is not a marriage, no matter what the law or a piece of paper may say.