We will be out of town visiting my husband’s family, well, my family, so I will not be posting for the rest of this week.

I hope you have a happy and safe holiday weekend.

In order to stimulate the economy and meet pressing infrastructure needs, the Vermont congressional delegation is seeking to waive the state and local match requirement for all federally-funded highway, transit and rail projects through September 2009.

The move would give Vermont and other states facing tight budgets a much-needed boost to improve roads and bridges, support public transit agencies and upgrade rail lines at no additional cost to the federal government.

Transportation officials have reported that because of growing budget deficits at the state and local level, many ready-to-go projects simply cannot move forward without untying the strings of the required match. Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, states are typically required to meet a 10 or 20 percent match for federally funded projects.

This is a really bad idea. As it is, these projects never should have become centralized, thank you FDR. True, that policy in general helps small states and may have some merit, but to completely remove the local factor is just wrong.

For one thing, the states should have some stake in their own infrastructure.

When my oldest son was having problems in the public school, I was looking at private schools. There was one school I looked at that I really liked a lot. They had a rigorous academic program and were not afraid to challenge a student who was looking for more work. (That was one of the problems we had with the PS.)

When I sat down with the principal to discuss financing, she told me that even the poorest families had to make some kind of contribution, even if it ended up being a small amount, because they wanted the parents to be personally invested in their child’s education. They understood the importance of having to make a personal monetary contribution in order to fully take the matter seriously.

This story illustrates why I oppose so much of what the government does, including our ridiculous income tax structure where people in the lower-middle class income bracket on down actually get money from the IRS above and beyond what was withheld from their paychecks.

The same principle applies to this transportation funding scheme. The states need to have some sort of investment in order to take seriously the responsibility of maintaining their own infrastructure.

If you think the infrastructure is neglected now, wait until the states learn that they can hold out for the Federal government to pay for all of it.

The second problem with this has to do with control. Once we cede power to the Federal government, we lose local control. Well, what’s left of it.

Sure, we will still have the ability to raise money for local projects that the Federal government won’t fund, but we will be so dependent on Federal funds, we won’t even go there.

As it stands, the likelihood of a project getting the go-ahead is based largely on whether or not it will get Federal funding. Let’s not make it 100% dependent on that.

I know, this is only going to be a temporary program, so it’s no big deal.

It’s kind of like when crack dealers give out a free sample. They know you’ll be back.

This is what we can expect more of over the next few years. The Federal government will use our economic hard times to push through any legislation that furthers their agenda of creating a more powerful Federal government under the guise of stimulating the economy.

President-Elect Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff-Designate, Rahm Emanuel, put it best.

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.”

Expect big things. Big government things.

(Something tells me this category will explode in the next year.)

This is why I am always a day or three behind on posting things that spread like wildfire on the internet. I happen to strongly dislike making an ass of myself with incorrect information, so I don’t.

The story, if you can’t watch video: Liberal bloggers, TV commentators, and even Jon Stewart, made a big deal out of a clip that showed world leaders not shaking hands with President Bush.

“Bush Snubbed!” “Bush Has Cooties!”

Turns out, Bush already shook all their hands. The video goes on to show lots of friendly interactions with President Bush and world leaders.

Oops!

This happens so often, I am going to need to start a category for it.

Yesterday, a few of the blogs I read were talking about the site Typealyzer. You to enter your URL and it analyzes your content to determine your Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

I ran my two primary blogs through it. It was interesting, but not surprising, that they showed two different personalities.

My other blog, All Things Hold Together, which is my creative outlet and my crafting, recipe, and general life interests blog, resulted in ESFP type.

The entertaining and friendly type. They are especially attuned to pleasure and beauty and like to fill their surroundings with soft fabrics, bright colors and sweet smells. They live in the present moment and don’t like to plan ahead - they are always in risk of exhausting themselves.

They enjoy work that makes them able to help other people in a concrete and visible way. They tend to avoid conflicts and rarely initiate confrontation - qualities that can make it hard for them in management positions.

Those of you who only know my She’s Right persona are probably thinking, No way, but that is exactly how I am on that blog.

The analysis of She’s Right resulted in the INTP type.

The logical and analytical type. They are especially attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.

They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

I’ve always felt like these two blogs represented the two sides of my personality, I guess it’s true.

I looked at a more in-depth explanation of each type on the internet and the INTP type is very much like me - logical (almost to a fault), mathematical (my major in college), second-guesses oneself. But the ENTP type is a lot like me, too, in some ways.

Now I want to take a test to see what type it says I am, just out of curiosity.

You can analyze your own blog at Typealyzer.

I was reading a very thoughtful piece on Pajamas Media entitled, Christians and Gays Behaving Badly, by Elizabeth Scalia.

I had never heard of her, so I read the tagline and learned that she is the blogger at The Anchoress. No wonder it was such a thoughtful piece. I have been reading that blog for a couple of months and it is very good. (I have to add that to my blog roll. Done)

She has some thoughts on California’s Prop. 8 and the aftermath, calling out both the Christians and the gays.

To the gays,

Tearing others down does not build up. Instead of bullying the electorate, the gay community needs to calmly make their case, ask for support, and bring it to a vote as many times as it takes. If the Christians are wrong to proselytize without actually getting to know their neighbors, well, the gays are also wrong to browbeat, intimidate, or ruin others, instead of working within the democratic process.

To the Christians,

The Christians at Castro need to remember that Jesus joined others in community. Excusing nothing, he loved others, even in all their faults and — only when asked to — he healed them. He never just said, “Hey, I’m going to whip a little faith on you, whether you want it or not.”

She concludes with,

Meanwhile, the churches should reconsider their roles in authenticating marriage. Governments issue birth certificates; churches issue baptismal certificates. Governments issue death certificates; churches pray the funerals. Governments issue divorces; Churches annul. Both work within their separate and necessary spheres, serving the corporeal and the spiritual. It is only in the issue of marriage that church and state have commingled authority. That should perhaps change, and soon. Let the government certify and the churches sanctify according to their rites and sacraments.

I agree that civil and religious marriage should be separate, but I think the reason that marriage is such a problematic topic is that in all of the examples she cites, marriage is the only one that uses the same language in both the secular and religious sense.

The word “marriage” is being changed, and not everyone approves.

The other issue being ignored in this debate, at large, is that religion is not the only reason for defining marriage as it has always been defined. The other is tradition. Not everyone is ready to let go of the traditional meaning of marriage. Surely no one believes that 52% of Californians are religious conservatives. Therefore, there must be something else at work here that goes beyond religious belief.

Surely the Christians and gays involved in this publicly are making the most noise, but in order to find a solution, we need to open up the discussion beyond those narrow factions.

The latest offender: gay marriage is a civil rights struggle.

Let’s get one thing clear, it‘s not. There is no one being denied the right to marry. The problem is that some people do not like the current definition of what a marriage is.

A marriage, as it has existed in the United States of America, is a union between one man and one woman.

No one is being prevented from entering a marriage based on any criteria. A gay person can get married. But, why would one want to enter a union between a man and a woman if one prefers the same sex? That is the problem.

The issue at hand here is whether or not we want to redefine marriage to include same sex unions.

This is not about denying a group of people their civil rights or treating them like second-class citizens. Claims that it is such belittle the real civil rights struggles that happened in this country.

Can gays vote? Do gays ride in the back of the bus? Do gays eat at separate lunch counters and have to use separate bathroom facilities? Are there “straight only” establishments?

I think the reason that people try to equate gay marriage with the civil rights movement is because that battle was already won and no one wants to go back there. We all know that it was wrong and no one wants to be labeled as someone who wants to deny civil rights or discriminate.

The fact is gays are not subject to a separate code of laws or set of conditions. They can get married! The problem is that “married” means “joined in a union with a member of the opposite sex,” and that is not what they want to do.

This is a discussion about changing the definition of marriage, nothing more, nothing less.

We can have that discussion, but let’s quit with the dramatics and stop pretending that this is a civil rights issue because it isn’t.

Added: It turns out, Dennis Prager makes a similar point, more powerfully than I.

One has to either be ignorant of segregation laws and the routine humiliations experienced by blacks during the era of Jim Crow, or one has to be callous to black suffering, to equate that to a person not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex.

A few minutes later, I heard him tell his brother, “Wait, I can’t go out there. Mom said she would confiscate my gun. She’s trying to take away my Second Amendment rights, man!”

I have no idea where he gets this stuff.

It’s been an interesting two weeks. I have gotten all of my political commentary from either very right-wing or very left-wing blogs, and have not read any mainstream opinion. It is like visiting two different planets. No, I mean more so than usual.

Why do people on the left keep saying that this election was the defeat of conservatism? Conservatism was on the ballot? I wish someone had told me. The only thing I saw was two guys both fighting over who could expand government more to solve our problems.

Conservatism is not dead. Conservatives are now struggling to figure out what to do about the GOP. Is it too far in with Big Government to be saved?

This news is not promising. I read on Alphecca this morning that five Republicans introduced the new Assault Weapons Ban. Apparently, they wanted to make sure that the Republican Party was really dead to conservatives who were clinging to this last morsel of principle left in the Party’s platform.

Here’s what I think. The Republican Party does not need to continue to try to be Democrat-lite. Why? If you want to be a Democrat, go do it. People don’t like to vote for the Democrat in Republican clothing when they can just vote for a Democrat.

As for the party, get a spine. Come up with some basic principles that are essential to conservatism - smaller, more efficient federal government, more power to the states - and to the people - to make decisions on the local level, keep your grubby hands off the Constitution (if you use the phrase “living document,” you are automatically kicked out), you know, the basics.

Then, any candidate that doesn’t want to be on board gets shunned. No money. No campaigning on his or her behalf. Nothing.

How awesome would it be if when a Republican gets all Big Government and mushy on the issues, other prominent Republicans just kind of looked at him with this “What on God’s green earth are you talking about, you fool?” expression?

Answer: So awesome.

Seriously. What has the GOP got to lose? It’s time to get real about standing for something.

BURLINGTON SCHOOLS SEEKING PEER MODELS FOR PRESCHOOL
By Jeanne Collins, Superintendent of Schools - Burlington School District, Colchester Ave
Wed, 12 November 2008

The Burlington School District Essential early Education Preschool is looking for 3 & 4 year olds with good play, communication and behavior skills.

Slots Available: 3 Mornings a week or 3 Afternoons a week

“A GREAT PRE-SCHOOL EXPERIENCE”
MUST BE A BURLINGTON RESIDENT

Advertising for children who can be good role models does not exactly leave one with the best impression of the public pre-school, does it?

They should have just said: “Openings available for your well-behaved child with good communication and play skills to learn poor behavior, bad words, and how to fight with other children.”

Good behavior does not rub off on 3 and 4 year olds, but bad behavior does. In fact, it rubs off on children of all ages. And it is very hard to undo, trust me.

First, we watched the episode of Terminator:The Sarah Connor Chronicles from Monday. We actually record it on a VHS tape. Can you imagine? We are like relics from the Stone Age or something.

That show totally kicks. I can’t believe it is a series; it’s totally movie quality. And it has taken the Terminator franchise from cheesy sci-fi movie to pure awesomeness. I know the sequels took it beyond the original, but the show just brings it to another level.

So, after that was over, we got drawn into a documentary about Lee Atwater on Frontline on PBS, called Boogie Man:The Lee Atwater Story. It was really good. Atwater was just before my time, so I didn’t know a lot about him or the election of George H. W. Bush. Bob said that he remembered the election of 1988, though, and it was really nasty. (He voted for Dukakis - can you freaking believe it?)

The first presidential election I was old enough to vote in was 1996. Yes, I voted for Dole. I was old enough to vote in 1994, though. That was a good year to be a Republican. 2008, not so much.

So, what’s on your minds today? Consider this an open thread.