I got lucky: the post right before this one was written yesterday. I spent nearly half an hour writing, trying to put my thoughts into something even slightly resembling coherency...and then it wouldn't publish. I'm not sure why it wouldn't post, I'm just glad that when I logged on today, it was there, waiting for me to re-publish it.
Anyway, I'm taking a short sabbatical: 40 days, starting tomorrow. For any who don't know, tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent. Normally I don't celebrate Lent - I've thought about how it isn't Biblical, and I think the way some people celebrate Lent really isn't appropriate - especially those who do something rediculous like give up chocolate or sweets so they can lose weight over Lent. Personally, I was planning to give up two things this year: television and blogging. I've decided to keep television, at least to finish season 4 of 24, but I'm definitely giving up blogging and computer games for Lent, in the hopes that I can dedicate the gargantuan amounts of time that I devote to those pursuits to looking after my spiritual life, which is always in need of improvement.
I'd appreciate prayers for God's strength so I can keep this committment.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Monday, February 27, 2006
The Left's Fatal Flaw...
I'm getting tired of all of the arguments coming from the Left (and a few from the Right) about the "Separation of Church and State." As time goes on, the debate escalates, and it has especially gone to a new level since John Roberts and Samuel Alito were nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court. The thing that disturbed me the most about the confirmation hearings of these two justices was the argumentation used by the Left - and I'm not talking about the personal attacks by the likes of blowhards such as Sen. Kennedy, I'm referring to the Judiciary Committee Democrats saturating the debate with this Roe v. Wade nonsense.
The first thing that upsets me over the Roe v. Wade debate is that we've been debating it since it was decided in 1973; and really, the debate has gone on much longer than that, because the abortion was being debated before the Roe case even came to court. But let's face it: Roe is not going away anytime soon, even if conservative judges do dominated the Supreme Court. I believe that the outcry by the Left would be too much to sustain the decision to overturn Roe. Of course, my main problem with Roe is that it asserts that women have a Constitutional right to have abortions...maybe my copy of the Constitution was missiong that particular clause, but I don't ever remember reading about that anywhere. When it gets right down to it, Roe is just another example of extraconstitutional power being userped by the Supreme Court.
But the other thing that got me upset over the Roe debate in those confirmation hearings is the presence of issues of such higher importance, such as the eminent domain debate (the Kelo case). For those of you not familiar with the Kelo case, here is what happened: a city in the North East (New London, Connecticut) wanted to condemn 115 residences and give their property over to a private company for the development of retail businesses, including resort hotels & shopping centers. Traditionally, eminent domain was used for things such as roads & highways - it was used for projects for "public use". Specifically, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Basically, this means that the government can take your property to build a park or a freeway, as long as they pay fair market price for it. The main problem with the Kelo case is that the government of New London exceeded their power, condemning the properties of those people who wouldn't sell and were essentially blocking these business' building project. After their homes were condemned, these residents had no choice but to move out - and they were no longer offered "just compensation" for their loss - no matter what shape their home was in, or how valuable it was, it was now worthless, because the government had declared it to be condemned. And the most grevious breach of authority in the Kelo case occurred when the government of New London gave those properties over to private companies. The rationalle? The new businesses would increase tax revenues, and thus this abomination was taking place to give funds for 'public use.' The problem? Under this rationalle, any property could be taken from anyone just to be given over to a company in the interests of increasing tax revenues. And across America, this has been happening. There was a clause in the case stating that state governments could pass laws to outlaw this practice, but let's be reasonable: this case gives state and loval governments unprecedented powers that they have never before possessed. Power corrupts, and these laws likely won't be passed until the voters demand it...and it is very likely that by then, it will be too late.
I go through all of that to say that there were more important issues at stake than Roe. Teddy Kennedy, Joseph Biden, and Dick Durban knew, or could pretty reasonably guess how Roberts and Alito would vote on abortion cases, but they found it necessary to play to the cameras, showboating for an issue that shouldn't even be the purview of the United States Supreme Court.
But the Church/State debate goes beyond Roe v. Wade and the Court's userpation of power. Many on the Left are arguing that the arguments of religious people sould be shut down. The reasoning behind their arguments is that religious people should not be allowed to dictate morality to the rest of the nation. The problem with this argument is that, technically, every person on the earth belongs to a religious worldview. Strictly defined, a religion is a system of beliefs, whether or not those beliefs include belief in the supernatural, or a god or gods. The Supreme Court has affirmed twice in the past that Secular Humanism is a religion (see my first post for more details). By that standard, if it is unconstitutional to teach Intelligent Design theory or Creationism (or even mention that alternatives to evolution exist), than the teaching of evolution theory itself should be outlawed as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
The main problem with the evolution/ID debate is the intellectual dishonesty of many on the side of evolution: for one thing, Darwin himself rejected his own theory. For another thing, science has no opinion on the divine. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, and for as much evidence as scientists may have gathered for evolution, there is just as much evidence for God's existence. Science has the fossil record, radiometric dating, and the geologic record. Religion has miraculous healings and proven accurate historical records, as well as many, many prophecies written hundreds of years before their fulfillment.
The crux of the matter is this: the debate over the separation of church and state will not be solved through the eliminating or censoring the other side's point of view - that will onlyescalate the debate. If secularists want religious Americans to back down, they're going about it the wrong way. For millions of religious people across America, we see our way of life being threatened by a secular society that increasingly tells us that not only is our opinion illegitimate, but that it should not be heard at all. While telling us this, they seek to drive our views out of every aspect of public life, whether it be the removal of "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (which children are not required to say) or the removal of displays of the 10 Commandments from courthouses (as if the mere presence of a display of a religious standard of law will somehow influence judges to turn America into a theocracy).
What happens when you back a wild animal into a corner? It becomes even more aggressive, and begins to take extreme measures to fight for its life. In the history of America, religious people have hardly fit the stereotype of a wild animal (with a few notable exceptions - the Salem Witch Trials being one), but no group is totally free of blemish. Overall, Christian America has been a stabilizing factor in American history. It is because of Christian America that the slide into absolute moral relativism has been slowed. But Christians are losing the fight, and have been, little by little, for some time. It is extremely disengenuous for secular America to complain about the pushback, when secularists and moral relativists have been pushing their lack of morality upon Christians for years, whether through the form of legalizing abhorrent behaviors, restricting religious freedoms and the expression of religious viewpoints (in schools & elsewhere), or by allowing America to be bombarded with immorality through the lifting of decency standards in media. Christians are losing, but we are fighting back. And if you have a problem with that, then get over it. We're Americans too, and we do have rights.
The first thing that upsets me over the Roe v. Wade debate is that we've been debating it since it was decided in 1973; and really, the debate has gone on much longer than that, because the abortion was being debated before the Roe case even came to court. But let's face it: Roe is not going away anytime soon, even if conservative judges do dominated the Supreme Court. I believe that the outcry by the Left would be too much to sustain the decision to overturn Roe. Of course, my main problem with Roe is that it asserts that women have a Constitutional right to have abortions...maybe my copy of the Constitution was missiong that particular clause, but I don't ever remember reading about that anywhere. When it gets right down to it, Roe is just another example of extraconstitutional power being userped by the Supreme Court.
But the other thing that got me upset over the Roe debate in those confirmation hearings is the presence of issues of such higher importance, such as the eminent domain debate (the Kelo case). For those of you not familiar with the Kelo case, here is what happened: a city in the North East (New London, Connecticut) wanted to condemn 115 residences and give their property over to a private company for the development of retail businesses, including resort hotels & shopping centers. Traditionally, eminent domain was used for things such as roads & highways - it was used for projects for "public use". Specifically, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Basically, this means that the government can take your property to build a park or a freeway, as long as they pay fair market price for it. The main problem with the Kelo case is that the government of New London exceeded their power, condemning the properties of those people who wouldn't sell and were essentially blocking these business' building project. After their homes were condemned, these residents had no choice but to move out - and they were no longer offered "just compensation" for their loss - no matter what shape their home was in, or how valuable it was, it was now worthless, because the government had declared it to be condemned. And the most grevious breach of authority in the Kelo case occurred when the government of New London gave those properties over to private companies. The rationalle? The new businesses would increase tax revenues, and thus this abomination was taking place to give funds for 'public use.' The problem? Under this rationalle, any property could be taken from anyone just to be given over to a company in the interests of increasing tax revenues. And across America, this has been happening. There was a clause in the case stating that state governments could pass laws to outlaw this practice, but let's be reasonable: this case gives state and loval governments unprecedented powers that they have never before possessed. Power corrupts, and these laws likely won't be passed until the voters demand it...and it is very likely that by then, it will be too late.
I go through all of that to say that there were more important issues at stake than Roe. Teddy Kennedy, Joseph Biden, and Dick Durban knew, or could pretty reasonably guess how Roberts and Alito would vote on abortion cases, but they found it necessary to play to the cameras, showboating for an issue that shouldn't even be the purview of the United States Supreme Court.
But the Church/State debate goes beyond Roe v. Wade and the Court's userpation of power. Many on the Left are arguing that the arguments of religious people sould be shut down. The reasoning behind their arguments is that religious people should not be allowed to dictate morality to the rest of the nation. The problem with this argument is that, technically, every person on the earth belongs to a religious worldview. Strictly defined, a religion is a system of beliefs, whether or not those beliefs include belief in the supernatural, or a god or gods. The Supreme Court has affirmed twice in the past that Secular Humanism is a religion (see my first post for more details). By that standard, if it is unconstitutional to teach Intelligent Design theory or Creationism (or even mention that alternatives to evolution exist), than the teaching of evolution theory itself should be outlawed as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
The main problem with the evolution/ID debate is the intellectual dishonesty of many on the side of evolution: for one thing, Darwin himself rejected his own theory. For another thing, science has no opinion on the divine. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, and for as much evidence as scientists may have gathered for evolution, there is just as much evidence for God's existence. Science has the fossil record, radiometric dating, and the geologic record. Religion has miraculous healings and proven accurate historical records, as well as many, many prophecies written hundreds of years before their fulfillment.
The crux of the matter is this: the debate over the separation of church and state will not be solved through the eliminating or censoring the other side's point of view - that will onlyescalate the debate. If secularists want religious Americans to back down, they're going about it the wrong way. For millions of religious people across America, we see our way of life being threatened by a secular society that increasingly tells us that not only is our opinion illegitimate, but that it should not be heard at all. While telling us this, they seek to drive our views out of every aspect of public life, whether it be the removal of "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (which children are not required to say) or the removal of displays of the 10 Commandments from courthouses (as if the mere presence of a display of a religious standard of law will somehow influence judges to turn America into a theocracy).
What happens when you back a wild animal into a corner? It becomes even more aggressive, and begins to take extreme measures to fight for its life. In the history of America, religious people have hardly fit the stereotype of a wild animal (with a few notable exceptions - the Salem Witch Trials being one), but no group is totally free of blemish. Overall, Christian America has been a stabilizing factor in American history. It is because of Christian America that the slide into absolute moral relativism has been slowed. But Christians are losing the fight, and have been, little by little, for some time. It is extremely disengenuous for secular America to complain about the pushback, when secularists and moral relativists have been pushing their lack of morality upon Christians for years, whether through the form of legalizing abhorrent behaviors, restricting religious freedoms and the expression of religious viewpoints (in schools & elsewhere), or by allowing America to be bombarded with immorality through the lifting of decency standards in media. Christians are losing, but we are fighting back. And if you have a problem with that, then get over it. We're Americans too, and we do have rights.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Well, the debate over the ports has escalated to the next level. Congress is threatening to pass a bill to stall the transfer of ownership of the ports to DPW, and now President Bush is threatening to veto any bill hindering the port deal. Tom Delay came out against the President, saying President Bush is making a mistake. Apparently, the acquisition of P&O by DPW will also affect one or two ports in Texas which have military uses, and authorities in Texas are worried about the implications of turning those ports, along with major ports up and down the East Coast, over to a business run by a terrorist-supporting government.
When it gets right down to it, I'm conflicted over the port issue. Economically, I have no doubt that it'll work out fine, but from a national security perspactive, it's questionable, to say the least. I've heard arguments that it'll work out fine, on the basis that DPW will be controlling port operations, but not port security. That'd work fine for me if it weren't for the fact that our port security hasn't been, and still isn't where it should be.
Another scarry thought: I agree with Chuckie Schumer (shudder) - he came out on FOXNews the other day, stating that given a choice, he'd choose Halliburton to run the ports over DPW. Frankly, I don't think that'd be a bad idea in the least - not only would it solve so many problems with the DPW deal, but it'd send so many Democrats into convulsions...
In a recent column, Michelle Malkin points out the utter hypocrisy of the Left concerning racial profiling: Democrats in Congress have been anti-profiling for years upon years, yet when it comes to this port deal, they oppose it because DPW is run by the UAE. More than just a little disingenuous, if you ask me, even though I find myself agreeing with the Dems on this one...it's the reason for my disagreement that is at question. Hillary Clinton has proven conclusively over the past several months that she is willing to say pretty much anything if she thinks it'll win her political points, and none of the Democrats in Congress have shown much substantive support for national security concerns - they preach a good sermon, but when it comes to substantive action, they leave much to be desired. But now it becomes quite clear why these Democrats are so adamantly protesting this port deal: the Teamsters Union is opposed to the deal. Even if they were in support of, or eve indifferent to this port deal, these Democrats cannot afford to lose the support of the unions, their largest fund-raising base. No major surprises here.
When it gets right down to it, I'm conflicted over the port issue. Economically, I have no doubt that it'll work out fine, but from a national security perspactive, it's questionable, to say the least. I've heard arguments that it'll work out fine, on the basis that DPW will be controlling port operations, but not port security. That'd work fine for me if it weren't for the fact that our port security hasn't been, and still isn't where it should be.
Another scarry thought: I agree with Chuckie Schumer (shudder) - he came out on FOXNews the other day, stating that given a choice, he'd choose Halliburton to run the ports over DPW. Frankly, I don't think that'd be a bad idea in the least - not only would it solve so many problems with the DPW deal, but it'd send so many Democrats into convulsions...
In a recent column, Michelle Malkin points out the utter hypocrisy of the Left concerning racial profiling: Democrats in Congress have been anti-profiling for years upon years, yet when it comes to this port deal, they oppose it because DPW is run by the UAE. More than just a little disingenuous, if you ask me, even though I find myself agreeing with the Dems on this one...it's the reason for my disagreement that is at question. Hillary Clinton has proven conclusively over the past several months that she is willing to say pretty much anything if she thinks it'll win her political points, and none of the Democrats in Congress have shown much substantive support for national security concerns - they preach a good sermon, but when it comes to substantive action, they leave much to be desired. But now it becomes quite clear why these Democrats are so adamantly protesting this port deal: the Teamsters Union is opposed to the deal. Even if they were in support of, or eve indifferent to this port deal, these Democrats cannot afford to lose the support of the unions, their largest fund-raising base. No major surprises here.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
You mean there are actually people out there who want to kill us?
You never would've guessed it from the Democrats' behavior in recent years. After 9/11, the nation was unified for just over 2 weeks. Today, partisanship is tearing the US political system apart. If anyone among you doesn't believe that, I offer up "Cheney-gate" as exhibit 1, and officially close the case. When a vice-presidential hunting accident carries the headlines for an entire week, with conspiracy theories coming even from Democratic Congressmen, you know we have a problem.
But now I actually find myself in a rather akward position...I'm actually agreeing with the Democrats. It becomes more akward still when Hillary Clinton is the Democrat in question. However, on the issue of the operations of 6 major US ports being taken over by a company run out of the United Arab Emirates, I have to agree with anyone who is against it. Time Magazine recently put out a rather disengenuous article criticizing opposition to the port deal on the basis that the opposition stems from the fact that one of the 9/11 hijackers was born there, and that several of the hijackers passed through the UAE on their way to the US. The Time article, however, conveniently leaves out the fact that several banks in Dubai were used to route money used for the 9/11 hijackers. The UAE has only become a friend to the US in very recent years (post 9/11), probably because they (unlike Saddam Hussein), realized that if they didn't play very, very nice, they would be bombed back to the stone age. However, the fact that they've been friendly doesn't establish a basis to trust them with our ports, unless we can, at the very least, establish beyond a resonable doubt that the Dubai Ports World (the company taking ownership of the ports) has absolutely no ties to any terrorist organization...but the fact that they are centralized in Dubai is enough of a link to say that they shouldn't be trusted with such a key national security issue as monitoring what comes in and out of the US through our ports.
My question is, where is the US in all of this? Here's my point: Dubai Ports World is taking control of the ports because it is buying out P&O, the company that used to control the ports...a British company. Why are we outsourcing our ports? Why can't the US take care of its own national security? I would want a UAE company taking control of our ports just as much as I'd want Britain, China, Russia, Australia, or any other nation controling such a vital national security concern. Bill Frist says that he has no objection to outsourcing control over our ports...he just wants the company controlling the ports to make sense from a national security standpoint. With all due respect to Senator Frist...you must be insane. Only US control makes sense from a national security standpoint...and that's just common sense.
But from a purely political perspective, the current debate over this takeover of our ports is almost laughable. Democratic Senators have been actively working to against US national security for years now. 9/11 shook everyone to the core, and in its wake, politicians in Washington stood together and said, "Enough is enough." They authorized the war in Afghanistan, so that we could strike at the heart of Al-Qaida. They passed the Patriot Act so that our government could effectively stop terrorists within the US before they could attack. Then, President Bush decided to take the War on Terror to the next level by attacking Iraq and taking out Saddam Hussein, and it was like an epidemic of ADHD broke out among Democrats across the US. Suddenly, Bush=Hitler, with the Patriot Act turning the FBI into the Gestapo, and GTMO became a concentration camp. These Democratic Senators have shown such concern for the terrorists who have been trying to kill our soldiers (and succeeding all too often) that they actually want foreign terrorists to recieve protection under the Bill of Rights!!!!!
I don't know what planet these Senators (such as Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer) are living on, but the last time I checked, the US Constitution only applied to US citizens...but these Congressmen denied that we had an enemy and alleged that we were illegally detaining these 'insurgents' or 'enemy combatants' (because Heaven forbid we call them what they are: TERRORISTS), and that they are entitiled to 'due process under the law.' Guess what? I'm entitled to due process. So are most of the people that I know. Do you want to know why? Because we're all US citizens!!!! These Congressmen have acted as though we have no terrorist enemies, blocking the President at every turn as he tries to make America secure...and now, all of a sudden, guess what? We have an enemy! Who'd a thunk it?
From the administration's perspective, this port deal is one of two things: either it's a monumental screw-up, or it's a brilliant political maneuver (or it could be a monumental screw-up that could become a brilliant political maneuver). Either way, it's outed the Democrats for what they are: partisan political hacks. Ever since the first bomb dropped in Iraq, they've acted as though we have no enemies. Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Minority Leader, was even gloating that "we killed the Patriot Act" back in December when the Democrats filibustered its extension, even though it is that Act that gives our government the tools to "connect the dots" to prevent future terrorist attacks, something the administration didn't (and couldn't) do prior to 9/11. The Dems have repeatedly come out against racial profiling, yet they are now profiling Dubai Port World because it is centered in an Arab nation.
If there was ever any doubt as to whether Dibai Port World's takeover of our ports was a bad idea, confirmation came in yesterday, when Jimmy Carter came out and said that he saw nothing wrong with it. This was a bit of a surprise, coming from Carter, who has publicly opposed President Bush on pretty much everything (something former presidents just don't do if they have any class at all...but who said Carter & Clinton have class?). A good way to measure whether it's a good idea: if Jimmy Carter is for it, run for the hills.
But now I actually find myself in a rather akward position...I'm actually agreeing with the Democrats. It becomes more akward still when Hillary Clinton is the Democrat in question. However, on the issue of the operations of 6 major US ports being taken over by a company run out of the United Arab Emirates, I have to agree with anyone who is against it. Time Magazine recently put out a rather disengenuous article criticizing opposition to the port deal on the basis that the opposition stems from the fact that one of the 9/11 hijackers was born there, and that several of the hijackers passed through the UAE on their way to the US. The Time article, however, conveniently leaves out the fact that several banks in Dubai were used to route money used for the 9/11 hijackers. The UAE has only become a friend to the US in very recent years (post 9/11), probably because they (unlike Saddam Hussein), realized that if they didn't play very, very nice, they would be bombed back to the stone age. However, the fact that they've been friendly doesn't establish a basis to trust them with our ports, unless we can, at the very least, establish beyond a resonable doubt that the Dubai Ports World (the company taking ownership of the ports) has absolutely no ties to any terrorist organization...but the fact that they are centralized in Dubai is enough of a link to say that they shouldn't be trusted with such a key national security issue as monitoring what comes in and out of the US through our ports.
My question is, where is the US in all of this? Here's my point: Dubai Ports World is taking control of the ports because it is buying out P&O, the company that used to control the ports...a British company. Why are we outsourcing our ports? Why can't the US take care of its own national security? I would want a UAE company taking control of our ports just as much as I'd want Britain, China, Russia, Australia, or any other nation controling such a vital national security concern. Bill Frist says that he has no objection to outsourcing control over our ports...he just wants the company controlling the ports to make sense from a national security standpoint. With all due respect to Senator Frist...you must be insane. Only US control makes sense from a national security standpoint...and that's just common sense.
But from a purely political perspective, the current debate over this takeover of our ports is almost laughable. Democratic Senators have been actively working to against US national security for years now. 9/11 shook everyone to the core, and in its wake, politicians in Washington stood together and said, "Enough is enough." They authorized the war in Afghanistan, so that we could strike at the heart of Al-Qaida. They passed the Patriot Act so that our government could effectively stop terrorists within the US before they could attack. Then, President Bush decided to take the War on Terror to the next level by attacking Iraq and taking out Saddam Hussein, and it was like an epidemic of ADHD broke out among Democrats across the US. Suddenly, Bush=Hitler, with the Patriot Act turning the FBI into the Gestapo, and GTMO became a concentration camp. These Democratic Senators have shown such concern for the terrorists who have been trying to kill our soldiers (and succeeding all too often) that they actually want foreign terrorists to recieve protection under the Bill of Rights!!!!!
I don't know what planet these Senators (such as Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer) are living on, but the last time I checked, the US Constitution only applied to US citizens...but these Congressmen denied that we had an enemy and alleged that we were illegally detaining these 'insurgents' or 'enemy combatants' (because Heaven forbid we call them what they are: TERRORISTS), and that they are entitiled to 'due process under the law.' Guess what? I'm entitled to due process. So are most of the people that I know. Do you want to know why? Because we're all US citizens!!!! These Congressmen have acted as though we have no terrorist enemies, blocking the President at every turn as he tries to make America secure...and now, all of a sudden, guess what? We have an enemy! Who'd a thunk it?
From the administration's perspective, this port deal is one of two things: either it's a monumental screw-up, or it's a brilliant political maneuver (or it could be a monumental screw-up that could become a brilliant political maneuver). Either way, it's outed the Democrats for what they are: partisan political hacks. Ever since the first bomb dropped in Iraq, they've acted as though we have no enemies. Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Minority Leader, was even gloating that "we killed the Patriot Act" back in December when the Democrats filibustered its extension, even though it is that Act that gives our government the tools to "connect the dots" to prevent future terrorist attacks, something the administration didn't (and couldn't) do prior to 9/11. The Dems have repeatedly come out against racial profiling, yet they are now profiling Dubai Port World because it is centered in an Arab nation.
If there was ever any doubt as to whether Dibai Port World's takeover of our ports was a bad idea, confirmation came in yesterday, when Jimmy Carter came out and said that he saw nothing wrong with it. This was a bit of a surprise, coming from Carter, who has publicly opposed President Bush on pretty much everything (something former presidents just don't do if they have any class at all...but who said Carter & Clinton have class?). A good way to measure whether it's a good idea: if Jimmy Carter is for it, run for the hills.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
This Dick Cheney thing has officially gotten out of hand. The press went berserk for the first few days of the 'scandal' trying to get the Vice President to talk, trying to catch Scott McClellan in some admission of guilt on the administration's part, trying anything thay can to make this story more than it is. Now that Cheney's talked (he was interviewed by FoxNew's Brit Hume yesterday), it's still not enough. Why? Because everyone knows that FoxNews is nothing but a lap dog for the Bush admin.
Give me a break.
In other news (real news), Russia is now warning the US not to mount a strike against Iran, for fear of what a strike will potentially do to the Muslim world. On one level, that is a valid concern...but what about what will happen in the Muslim world if Iran gains nuclear capability? Personally, I think the Middle East is going to go up in flames either way - it's just a question of who fires the first shot. If the US and/or Israel invades Iran, it definitely won't be pretty. Essential, yes, but it'll be a big mess. Of course, with this warning coming from Russia, there are also questions about their own economic interests in Iran. It's pretty well known that Russia and China are both in bed with the current Iranian regime, which is bad news for us diplomatically.
Olympic news: a Russian athlete has been thrown out of the Olympics and stripped of her medal due to a doping charge. It's gotta suck to be her, especially after all the work she's put in. Let this be a lesson: cheaters never prosper.
This one's for Aaron:
Over a dozen Baptist churches have been burned in Alabama since Feb. 2. Why this isn't making the national press, I don't know...they seem to be too infatuated with Dick Cheney to care. Authorities have offered a $10,000 reward - $5,000 from the government of Alabama, and another $5,000 from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. There is speculation as to the motives behind the burnings. They were first thought to be racially motivated, but both white and black churches have been burned, leaving investigators in a bind as to the true motives of the arsonists. There is speculation that the churches are being burned by some anti-Christian or anti-Baptist group or person, and even that Baptist churches are being targeted as a response to Westboro Baptist, the church whose pastor and members have protested at the funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq, saying that Americans are dying there because "God hates fags". Either way, the investigation seems to have stalled, as they aren't sure as to the motives, or whether the fires are being set by a single arsonist or one or several copycats.
Also in the "More important than Cheney's hunting accident" department, it looks like the government is going to do something about the takeover of 6 US ports by a company based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates...a nation known for its scenic beaches, and its penchant for fine wines and terrorists....that's right, a company based in a nation friendly to Al-Qaida (with ties to 9/11) is set to take control over six US ports: New York, Baltimore, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The company is merging with the London company that originally controlled the ports. The merger has been approved by the federal government, but apparently they are now giving it a second look. Thank goodness. One 9/11 was enough for me. We really don't need another.
UPDATE: The case against Dick Cheney is closed. No charges are set to be filed against the Vice President. The White House press corps, however, is investigating the fact that this information was not made known to them until 45.3 minutes after the case was officially closed. Scott McClellan is expected to hold a press conference to deal with this scandal within the hour.
Give me a break.
In other news (real news), Russia is now warning the US not to mount a strike against Iran, for fear of what a strike will potentially do to the Muslim world. On one level, that is a valid concern...but what about what will happen in the Muslim world if Iran gains nuclear capability? Personally, I think the Middle East is going to go up in flames either way - it's just a question of who fires the first shot. If the US and/or Israel invades Iran, it definitely won't be pretty. Essential, yes, but it'll be a big mess. Of course, with this warning coming from Russia, there are also questions about their own economic interests in Iran. It's pretty well known that Russia and China are both in bed with the current Iranian regime, which is bad news for us diplomatically.
Olympic news: a Russian athlete has been thrown out of the Olympics and stripped of her medal due to a doping charge. It's gotta suck to be her, especially after all the work she's put in. Let this be a lesson: cheaters never prosper.
This one's for Aaron:
Over a dozen Baptist churches have been burned in Alabama since Feb. 2. Why this isn't making the national press, I don't know...they seem to be too infatuated with Dick Cheney to care. Authorities have offered a $10,000 reward - $5,000 from the government of Alabama, and another $5,000 from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. There is speculation as to the motives behind the burnings. They were first thought to be racially motivated, but both white and black churches have been burned, leaving investigators in a bind as to the true motives of the arsonists. There is speculation that the churches are being burned by some anti-Christian or anti-Baptist group or person, and even that Baptist churches are being targeted as a response to Westboro Baptist, the church whose pastor and members have protested at the funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq, saying that Americans are dying there because "God hates fags". Either way, the investigation seems to have stalled, as they aren't sure as to the motives, or whether the fires are being set by a single arsonist or one or several copycats.
Also in the "More important than Cheney's hunting accident" department, it looks like the government is going to do something about the takeover of 6 US ports by a company based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates...a nation known for its scenic beaches, and its penchant for fine wines and terrorists....that's right, a company based in a nation friendly to Al-Qaida (with ties to 9/11) is set to take control over six US ports: New York, Baltimore, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The company is merging with the London company that originally controlled the ports. The merger has been approved by the federal government, but apparently they are now giving it a second look. Thank goodness. One 9/11 was enough for me. We really don't need another.
UPDATE: The case against Dick Cheney is closed. No charges are set to be filed against the Vice President. The White House press corps, however, is investigating the fact that this information was not made known to them until 45.3 minutes after the case was officially closed. Scott McClellan is expected to hold a press conference to deal with this scandal within the hour.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
This would be some disappointing news if the Cold War were still on...but it's over: US Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir caused a stir when he wore a red jacket with the letters "CCCP" on the front - the Russian acronym for the USSR. Apparently, it was a gift from a Russian skater that he had a relationship with. No biggie...but it made the news for some reason.
Apparently, either some stupid kids thought it'd be funny, or someone is out there trying to bring down passenger jets in Dearborn, MI. Apparently, 16 airline pilots have reported that someone was shining a laser at their plane. If it's just stupid kids, they should be locked up...if someone's intentionally trying to bring down a plane, they should be taken out and shot. There's just no excuse for that.
The gay agenda is on a roll today:
First, some wacko is releasing a documentary about gay Muslims. This is just what we need. The cartoon riots are tearing the Muslim world apart...and now they're releasing this documentary. I really don't get it - liberals across the globe accuse conservatives of being the crux of the problem because we want to go to the Middle East and get rid of the terrorist threat...yet they also want to release things like this, which inflame the situation. Sometimes the thought really doesn't count.
Second, Willie Nelson has released a gay cowboy song. The song was apparently written back in the '80s, and never recorded until recently, and it's only available through iTunes (thank goodness - I don't have to worry about ever having to hear it). Now, this is either a collosal tragedy, or some kind of joke. If it's a joke, then Willie, let us know. If it's some kind of honest song that Willie released because he feels some kind of solidarity with the gay community, or is gay, then I don't want to know. I like Willie Nelson's music, and the last thing I need is for him to ruin that for me.
Some amusing news: Paris Hilton participated in a fashion show in London, apparently in some kind of surprise appearance, and PETA decided they were going to protest, because some of the outfits at the show were made of fur (oh no!). After the show, a protester hit Paris and the clothing designer she was with with a flower bomb. Unfortunately, Paris wasn't hit very much - most of the flower got the designer and the doorman from the club they were going to. As much as I disagree with PETA, this really is funny, if only because they tried to nail Paris Hilton.
None of this is really news - I guess it's just a frivolous Wednesday - but the only thing going on in US politics is that people are still getting their panties in a wad over the Cheney hunting accident...which isn't really news, either, but now we have Senators getting into the mix - first Harry Reid, yesterday, and today, Hillary Clinton. Basically, they're trying to turn it into something bigger than it is. It's not insignificant, especially to Mr. Whittington and VP Cheney, but to insinuate that there's some kind of scandal here just because they didn't tell the press right away is taking it too far. After all, Teddy Kennedy never reported the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, and the MSM never seemed to care about that. To the press: just shut up and move on. There are more important things going on.
1. They're now saying that the riots in Pakistan are the largest cartoon riots to date. To date, three people have died in the riots, including an 8-year old boy.
2. The Evangelical church is finding out it got more than it bargained for when it appointed an openly gay bishop...their bishop is not only gay, but an alcoholic. I can't really knock him for having alcohol problems - after all, that happens to many people, and it's a tough struggle. This bishop needs more prayer now than ever. But something in me just wants to say to the Evangelical church, "You appointed the guy...now you realize, you get what you pay for." After all, if they're going to allow a gay bishop, then they can't very well fire the guy for being an alcoholic - the Bible is against both homosexuality and drunkenness, so if you're gonna push the line back on one, you have to for both. That's how relativism works.
3. Iran has confirmed that it has resumed its uranium enrichment program. The question is, will the UN finally have the guts to do something difinitive about it?
Apparently, either some stupid kids thought it'd be funny, or someone is out there trying to bring down passenger jets in Dearborn, MI. Apparently, 16 airline pilots have reported that someone was shining a laser at their plane. If it's just stupid kids, they should be locked up...if someone's intentionally trying to bring down a plane, they should be taken out and shot. There's just no excuse for that.
The gay agenda is on a roll today:
First, some wacko is releasing a documentary about gay Muslims. This is just what we need. The cartoon riots are tearing the Muslim world apart...and now they're releasing this documentary. I really don't get it - liberals across the globe accuse conservatives of being the crux of the problem because we want to go to the Middle East and get rid of the terrorist threat...yet they also want to release things like this, which inflame the situation. Sometimes the thought really doesn't count.
Second, Willie Nelson has released a gay cowboy song. The song was apparently written back in the '80s, and never recorded until recently, and it's only available through iTunes (thank goodness - I don't have to worry about ever having to hear it). Now, this is either a collosal tragedy, or some kind of joke. If it's a joke, then Willie, let us know. If it's some kind of honest song that Willie released because he feels some kind of solidarity with the gay community, or is gay, then I don't want to know. I like Willie Nelson's music, and the last thing I need is for him to ruin that for me.
Some amusing news: Paris Hilton participated in a fashion show in London, apparently in some kind of surprise appearance, and PETA decided they were going to protest, because some of the outfits at the show were made of fur (oh no!). After the show, a protester hit Paris and the clothing designer she was with with a flower bomb. Unfortunately, Paris wasn't hit very much - most of the flower got the designer and the doorman from the club they were going to. As much as I disagree with PETA, this really is funny, if only because they tried to nail Paris Hilton.
None of this is really news - I guess it's just a frivolous Wednesday - but the only thing going on in US politics is that people are still getting their panties in a wad over the Cheney hunting accident...which isn't really news, either, but now we have Senators getting into the mix - first Harry Reid, yesterday, and today, Hillary Clinton. Basically, they're trying to turn it into something bigger than it is. It's not insignificant, especially to Mr. Whittington and VP Cheney, but to insinuate that there's some kind of scandal here just because they didn't tell the press right away is taking it too far. After all, Teddy Kennedy never reported the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, and the MSM never seemed to care about that. To the press: just shut up and move on. There are more important things going on.
1. They're now saying that the riots in Pakistan are the largest cartoon riots to date. To date, three people have died in the riots, including an 8-year old boy.
2. The Evangelical church is finding out it got more than it bargained for when it appointed an openly gay bishop...their bishop is not only gay, but an alcoholic. I can't really knock him for having alcohol problems - after all, that happens to many people, and it's a tough struggle. This bishop needs more prayer now than ever. But something in me just wants to say to the Evangelical church, "You appointed the guy...now you realize, you get what you pay for." After all, if they're going to allow a gay bishop, then they can't very well fire the guy for being an alcoholic - the Bible is against both homosexuality and drunkenness, so if you're gonna push the line back on one, you have to for both. That's how relativism works.
3. Iran has confirmed that it has resumed its uranium enrichment program. The question is, will the UN finally have the guts to do something difinitive about it?
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
They're now saying that the H5N1 bird flu may have made it into Germany. This is definitely bad news. The H5N1 strain has decimated bird popluations across the globe thus far, and is still spreading. It's only a matter of time before it hits the US, and there are still no indications that if/when the virus mutates into a strain that is transmitted human-to-human, we'll be able to respond adequately.
The US is the leader in Olympic gold medals. YAY! I caught some of the Olympics last night - we watched the US womens' snowboard team take the top 3 positions on run 1, and I think position 3 on run 2, meaning the entire US womens' snowboard team made it to the finals. Then, in speed skating, we saw a US skater make the top time. I don't know whether any of them medaled...but it's definitely great that we're leading.
Batman is set to take out Osama bin Laden in a new graphic novel...this isn't really news, but it is funny...and probably worth reading.
Apparrently, reporter David Gregory told White House spokesman Scott McClellan not to be a jerk...I guess what happened was that Gregory got all out of sorts because he didn't think McClellan was answering his questions adequately about the Cheney hunting accident. The press are still treating this as some kind of huge scandal...
Apparently, the man who was shot is in worse trouble than initially reported - some of the birdshot made it into his heart. He's suffered a minor heart attack, and doctors are keeping a close eye on him. Keep praying for him.
There is bigger news: the cartoon riots continue, now in Pakistan. The protestors apparently burned down four buildings at a hotel, two banks, two movie theaters, a KFC, and an office building for a cell phone company. The report says that over 200 cars were damaged, "dozens of shops" were vandalized, a Citibank branch, a Holiday Inn, a Pizza Hut, and a McDonald's. All because they disagree with a cartoon saying that Muslims are too violent.
Ann Coulter wrote an excellent column about the riots, pointing out a phenomenon that I'd not noticed before: there have been no riots in Iraq. That should tell you something: DEMOCRACY WORKS!!
The US is the leader in Olympic gold medals. YAY! I caught some of the Olympics last night - we watched the US womens' snowboard team take the top 3 positions on run 1, and I think position 3 on run 2, meaning the entire US womens' snowboard team made it to the finals. Then, in speed skating, we saw a US skater make the top time. I don't know whether any of them medaled...but it's definitely great that we're leading.
Batman is set to take out Osama bin Laden in a new graphic novel...this isn't really news, but it is funny...and probably worth reading.
Apparrently, reporter David Gregory told White House spokesman Scott McClellan not to be a jerk...I guess what happened was that Gregory got all out of sorts because he didn't think McClellan was answering his questions adequately about the Cheney hunting accident. The press are still treating this as some kind of huge scandal...
Apparently, the man who was shot is in worse trouble than initially reported - some of the birdshot made it into his heart. He's suffered a minor heart attack, and doctors are keeping a close eye on him. Keep praying for him.
There is bigger news: the cartoon riots continue, now in Pakistan. The protestors apparently burned down four buildings at a hotel, two banks, two movie theaters, a KFC, and an office building for a cell phone company. The report says that over 200 cars were damaged, "dozens of shops" were vandalized, a Citibank branch, a Holiday Inn, a Pizza Hut, and a McDonald's. All because they disagree with a cartoon saying that Muslims are too violent.
Ann Coulter wrote an excellent column about the riots, pointing out a phenomenon that I'd not noticed before: there have been no riots in Iraq. That should tell you something: DEMOCRACY WORKS!!
Monday, February 13, 2006
Another non-story
Apparently, the press is getting all over the Bush administration for not releasing news that VP Dick Cheney accidentally shot a friend on a hunting trip over the weekend. Basically, all that this amounts to is another load of crap at the wall. Really, I don't know what all of the stink is about here: Vice President Cheney was out hunting, and accidentally shot a friend who wandered into his line of fire.
What, do they think the administration was trying to cover it up? There was nothing to cover up - no crime was committed, and the man who was shot is going to be okay.
In other news...wait a minute, there is no other news. Unless you count Al Gore making another anti-Bush speech, this time in Saudi Arabia...but I'm not counting that. Nothing Al Gore has done since the 2000 election has really qualified as news.
What, do they think the administration was trying to cover it up? There was nothing to cover up - no crime was committed, and the man who was shot is going to be okay.
In other news...wait a minute, there is no other news. Unless you count Al Gore making another anti-Bush speech, this time in Saudi Arabia...but I'm not counting that. Nothing Al Gore has done since the 2000 election has really qualified as news.
Friday, February 10, 2006
A Little Bit of Everything
There's a lot of stuff going on out there...so instead of giving a long bloviation about one topic, today I feel like hitting on a bunch of things. So, here goes:
First off, the federal budget seems to be taking a turn for the better. Apparently, President Bush is going to be cutting a bunch of programs, which is definitely a good thing...any cut that reduces the presence of big government gets my vote.
The lobbyist Jack Abramoff is now saying that President Bush met with him more than a dozen times. I say, who cares? The Abroamoff scandal would mean something if more were being done about it than partisan political attacks, but the MSM, along with Democratic Senators, are turning it into a "Republican culture of corruption" issue. What about the Washington DC culture of corruption? Abramoff gave money to all kinds of politicians, Republican and Democrat, but all this seems to be is another chance for political attacks. There are more important things out there than stupid politics.
The Scooter Libby 'scandal' has taken a turn...apparently, Libby's lawyers are going to say that Libby was authorized by his superiors to disclose information from a classified intelligence report to the press. Again, who cares? All this is is the last embers of the dying Plame-gate scandal that the Dems again tried to pin on the Bush administration. The basic Democratic strategy for years now has been, "if you throw enough crap at the wall, sooner or later, some of it will stick." Plame-gate didn't stick, mainly because it was a bunch of bunk. Why Scooter Libby lied under oath is beyond me - the administration didn't do anything illegal. More stupid politics.
Even more stupid politics: now they're out there saying that the Bush admin. knew that New Orleans was flooding the day before they told the press they heard about the levies breaking.
WHO CARES!!!!!
Any citizen of New Orleans with any knowledge whatsoever knew that New Orleans would be underwater if a big hurricane hit the city. I remember hearing that more than a year ago, and I've never even been to New Orleans. More crap at the wall...
An internet web site is selling t-shirts displaying one of the Mohammed cartoons that have inflamed Muslims throughout the Middle East and Europe. I wasn't able to access their website due to heavy traffic, but I might just get me one...or maybe not. Either way, I'm definitely in favor of free speech. So go out there and buy Danish!
I saved the best for last: Kanye West, in another briliant move, wants a revised version of the Bible so he can be a character in it. Now, I've never heard West's 'music,' and I don't really want to...but all I have to say about this is, "what the heck?" What is this guy thinking? The only explanation I can come up with is, he must be some kind of psycho, because no normal person would ever be this weird...or, at least, I hope they wouldn't.
First off, the federal budget seems to be taking a turn for the better. Apparently, President Bush is going to be cutting a bunch of programs, which is definitely a good thing...any cut that reduces the presence of big government gets my vote.
The lobbyist Jack Abramoff is now saying that President Bush met with him more than a dozen times. I say, who cares? The Abroamoff scandal would mean something if more were being done about it than partisan political attacks, but the MSM, along with Democratic Senators, are turning it into a "Republican culture of corruption" issue. What about the Washington DC culture of corruption? Abramoff gave money to all kinds of politicians, Republican and Democrat, but all this seems to be is another chance for political attacks. There are more important things out there than stupid politics.
The Scooter Libby 'scandal' has taken a turn...apparently, Libby's lawyers are going to say that Libby was authorized by his superiors to disclose information from a classified intelligence report to the press. Again, who cares? All this is is the last embers of the dying Plame-gate scandal that the Dems again tried to pin on the Bush administration. The basic Democratic strategy for years now has been, "if you throw enough crap at the wall, sooner or later, some of it will stick." Plame-gate didn't stick, mainly because it was a bunch of bunk. Why Scooter Libby lied under oath is beyond me - the administration didn't do anything illegal. More stupid politics.
Even more stupid politics: now they're out there saying that the Bush admin. knew that New Orleans was flooding the day before they told the press they heard about the levies breaking.
WHO CARES!!!!!
Any citizen of New Orleans with any knowledge whatsoever knew that New Orleans would be underwater if a big hurricane hit the city. I remember hearing that more than a year ago, and I've never even been to New Orleans. More crap at the wall...
An internet web site is selling t-shirts displaying one of the Mohammed cartoons that have inflamed Muslims throughout the Middle East and Europe. I wasn't able to access their website due to heavy traffic, but I might just get me one...or maybe not. Either way, I'm definitely in favor of free speech. So go out there and buy Danish!
I saved the best for last: Kanye West, in another briliant move, wants a revised version of the Bible so he can be a character in it. Now, I've never heard West's 'music,' and I don't really want to...but all I have to say about this is, "what the heck?" What is this guy thinking? The only explanation I can come up with is, he must be some kind of psycho, because no normal person would ever be this weird...or, at least, I hope they wouldn't.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Laura Ingraham in Iraq
It looks like this stink over the so-called 'domestic spying' thing isn't going away any time soon. The Senate Judiciary Committee has been questioning Alberto Gonzales, and I even heard that Senator Leahy was asking Gonzales who's phones have been tapped! Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think it's a very good idea to be broadcasting just who we're surveiling. On top of that, the revelation of the program to the press, and, therefore, to the public, has already broadcast to any terrorists who are listening of practical ways to avoid detection by the NSA. This is just what we need in the War on Terror - major media outlets and US Senators helping our enemies avoid detection.
According to WorldNetDaily, the Bush Administration didn't get full Congressional approval for the wiretapping program because they feared that the program would be leaked - they kept Congress informed, but on a very limited basis. With the information that is now out there, it seems that they were right.
Now, the conservative/libertarian in me says that we should be careful with this wiretapping program, but common sense stells me that the average American has absolutely nothing to worry about - at least, not from this program. If it were as illegal as the Democrats are alleging, the President would already be walking out of his impeachment hearings and into his criminal trial. The average American only needs to fear this program if they're on the phone with Al-Qaida...which in and of itself takes them out of the "average American" category.
On the issue of the anti-cartoon riots, one of the never-published cartoons has been proven to be a fake. It was taken from an AP photo of a man participating in a pig-squealing competition in France. It wouldn't surprise me if the others were proven fake, as well - one of the two remaining inflamatory 'cartoons' looks like a bad copy of a photo (like the one proven fake), which has been doctored...the other looks like a child's drawing, but the fact that it was never published in any European newspaper prior to the riots is telling indeed.
Of the 12 cartoons that were published, none of them is particularly inflamatory. They basically just criticize militant Islamists, who, I believe, should be criticized - if the global community finally bands together to condemn militant Islam, maybe they'd finally see that terrorism isn't the solution to their problems.
According to WorldNetDaily, the Bush Administration didn't get full Congressional approval for the wiretapping program because they feared that the program would be leaked - they kept Congress informed, but on a very limited basis. With the information that is now out there, it seems that they were right.
Now, the conservative/libertarian in me says that we should be careful with this wiretapping program, but common sense stells me that the average American has absolutely nothing to worry about - at least, not from this program. If it were as illegal as the Democrats are alleging, the President would already be walking out of his impeachment hearings and into his criminal trial. The average American only needs to fear this program if they're on the phone with Al-Qaida...which in and of itself takes them out of the "average American" category.
On the issue of the anti-cartoon riots, one of the never-published cartoons has been proven to be a fake. It was taken from an AP photo of a man participating in a pig-squealing competition in France. It wouldn't surprise me if the others were proven fake, as well - one of the two remaining inflamatory 'cartoons' looks like a bad copy of a photo (like the one proven fake), which has been doctored...the other looks like a child's drawing, but the fact that it was never published in any European newspaper prior to the riots is telling indeed.
Of the 12 cartoons that were published, none of them is particularly inflamatory. They basically just criticize militant Islamists, who, I believe, should be criticized - if the global community finally bands together to condemn militant Islam, maybe they'd finally see that terrorism isn't the solution to their problems.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Well, the libs have gone and done it again...made fools of themselves, that is. Today is the funeral of Coretta Scott King, and all kinds of people have gotten up to eulogize...but a few decided that eulogizing Mrs. King wasn't enough - they had to bloviate and drop a few anti-Bush comments.
The Bush's didn't look too happy about it:
Now, I understand that many, many Democrats (and those more liberal than the Dems) disagree with President Bush...but is a funeral (or memorial service) really the appropriate place to voice those disagreements? I think not. The lack of both dignity and restraint shown here shows us the true nature of the kind of extreme liberalism that is becoming more and more prevalent in America: attacking a political enemy and/or a policy they disagree with is more important than remembering with dignity a woman who fought for the civil rights of black Americans.
The other thing I've kept tabs on is this debate over the anti-militant Islam cartoons and the ensuing riots & protests. I found an interesting site that describes & illustrates that not only have depictions of Muhammed been somewhat common throughout history, but that the cartoons that were the most offensive weren't even published in the Danish newspaper that sparked the controversy in the first place - representatives of the paper went to speak with Muslim leaders in the Middle East in an effort to resolve the situation, and subsequent to their chat, the Imams released a booklet of the cartoons - with three 'extra', much more offensive cartoons added in (I still believe that the initial cartoons weren't offensive at all)...so this really is much ado about nothing...but I don't think the Muslims who are rioting and protesting really care about that little tidbit.
The Bush's didn't look too happy about it:
Now, I understand that many, many Democrats (and those more liberal than the Dems) disagree with President Bush...but is a funeral (or memorial service) really the appropriate place to voice those disagreements? I think not. The lack of both dignity and restraint shown here shows us the true nature of the kind of extreme liberalism that is becoming more and more prevalent in America: attacking a political enemy and/or a policy they disagree with is more important than remembering with dignity a woman who fought for the civil rights of black Americans.
The other thing I've kept tabs on is this debate over the anti-militant Islam cartoons and the ensuing riots & protests. I found an interesting site that describes & illustrates that not only have depictions of Muhammed been somewhat common throughout history, but that the cartoons that were the most offensive weren't even published in the Danish newspaper that sparked the controversy in the first place - representatives of the paper went to speak with Muslim leaders in the Middle East in an effort to resolve the situation, and subsequent to their chat, the Imams released a booklet of the cartoons - with three 'extra', much more offensive cartoons added in (I still believe that the initial cartoons weren't offensive at all)...so this really is much ado about nothing...but I don't think the Muslims who are rioting and protesting really care about that little tidbit.
Friday, February 03, 2006
There was a big stink in the news yesterday regarding Justice Sam Alito's first vote as a Supreme Court Justice. To read the AP's take on it (and the way the pundits reacted to the AP piece), you'd think that Sam Alito was putting on a very convincing conservative act...but now that he's in the high court, we find out that he's a FLAMING LIBERAL COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST!!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!! IT'S TIME TO PARTAAAAYYY!!!!!!!!!!!
The truth of the matter is that this isn't a big deal. For one thing, you can't judge someone's ideology by one vote. For another thing, this wasn't Samuel Alito opposing the death penalty - he voted to uphold a lower court's decision. There is a very high standard for overturning lower court's decisions, especially in death penalty cases. Finally, Alito said in his confirmation hearings that in matters pertaining to the death penalty, when the court was evenly split, he would vote against enforcing the death penalty as a matter of judicial courtesey (which is traditional).
The other big stink was about this stupid cartoon of a quadriplegic soldier representing the US Army, with 'Dr. Rumsfeld' telling him, "I'm listing your condition as 'battle hardened.'" Now, I think that this cartoon was in poor taste, but beyond that, the thing that struck me more than anything was how poorly drawn it was - how did this kind of schtik make it into the Washington Post? Many members of the military were offended by the cartoon, and several of the joint chiefs sent a letter to the Post telling them that they did not appreciate the cartoon.
Now, I don't routinely watch Hannity & Colmes, but I heard that they had the 'artist' of the cartoon on last night's show, and both he & Alan Colmes called the letter 'censorship.' This shows how liberals want to re-define censorship. At no time did the government prohibit the Post from printing the cartoon; no one has been jailed for the printing of the cartoon. Disapproval and disagreement are not censorship. This is the same misconception that gets Hollywood libs so out-of-whack: they just don't understand that the people cannot censor you: censorship is an action taken by the government.
And even though it isn't censorship, I think this cartoon provides quite a lesson for all of the America-haters out there: for the past week or so, there have been stories out of the Middle East and Europe about a cartoon depicting Mohammed, where his turban is a bomb, with the fuse burning. What happened to the Washington Post for the anti-military cartoon? They got a letter from the Joint Chiefs. What happened in the wake of the anti-Muslim cartoon? Riots. Protests. I even read a report about a Middle-Eastern shopkeeper who was dragged out into the street and beaten for not removing Danish goods from his shelves (the cartoon was originally printed in a Danish paper).
This should also provide a lesson to the Anti-Christian crowd, who laud Islam as a 'religion of peace,' but see Christianity as a bunch of violent fundamentalists who want to take over the world: Muslims riot and protest over a stupid cartoon, but when Kanye West posed as Jesus on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, what happened? It made the news for a few hours...then faded away. Maybe conservative Christian America isn't as bad as they all say.
The truth of the matter is that this isn't a big deal. For one thing, you can't judge someone's ideology by one vote. For another thing, this wasn't Samuel Alito opposing the death penalty - he voted to uphold a lower court's decision. There is a very high standard for overturning lower court's decisions, especially in death penalty cases. Finally, Alito said in his confirmation hearings that in matters pertaining to the death penalty, when the court was evenly split, he would vote against enforcing the death penalty as a matter of judicial courtesey (which is traditional).
The other big stink was about this stupid cartoon of a quadriplegic soldier representing the US Army, with 'Dr. Rumsfeld' telling him, "I'm listing your condition as 'battle hardened.'" Now, I think that this cartoon was in poor taste, but beyond that, the thing that struck me more than anything was how poorly drawn it was - how did this kind of schtik make it into the Washington Post? Many members of the military were offended by the cartoon, and several of the joint chiefs sent a letter to the Post telling them that they did not appreciate the cartoon.
Now, I don't routinely watch Hannity & Colmes, but I heard that they had the 'artist' of the cartoon on last night's show, and both he & Alan Colmes called the letter 'censorship.' This shows how liberals want to re-define censorship. At no time did the government prohibit the Post from printing the cartoon; no one has been jailed for the printing of the cartoon. Disapproval and disagreement are not censorship. This is the same misconception that gets Hollywood libs so out-of-whack: they just don't understand that the people cannot censor you: censorship is an action taken by the government.
And even though it isn't censorship, I think this cartoon provides quite a lesson for all of the America-haters out there: for the past week or so, there have been stories out of the Middle East and Europe about a cartoon depicting Mohammed, where his turban is a bomb, with the fuse burning. What happened to the Washington Post for the anti-military cartoon? They got a letter from the Joint Chiefs. What happened in the wake of the anti-Muslim cartoon? Riots. Protests. I even read a report about a Middle-Eastern shopkeeper who was dragged out into the street and beaten for not removing Danish goods from his shelves (the cartoon was originally printed in a Danish paper).
This should also provide a lesson to the Anti-Christian crowd, who laud Islam as a 'religion of peace,' but see Christianity as a bunch of violent fundamentalists who want to take over the world: Muslims riot and protest over a stupid cartoon, but when Kanye West posed as Jesus on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, what happened? It made the news for a few hours...then faded away. Maybe conservative Christian America isn't as bad as they all say.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
I'll try to keep this short and sweet, mainly because I'm still getting over a cold, and am not feeling totally up to par.
2 major things of note happened yesterday.
First, Sam Alito was confirmed to the Supreme Court. This is great news, as the balance of the court has now shifted from liberal judicial activism to conservative judicial responsibility.
Second, the President's State of the Union speech was given last night, and not only was it a very good speech, but it allowed the people of America to see the Democrats' true colors. Here are some highlights (all quotes taken from the official transcript):
The President outlined the continuing success in Iraq, telling of how the US military was handing over more and more of the military and police responsibilities over to the Iraqi military and police forces as they become more equiped. He also took the opportunity to address the stringent opposition he has received from many Americans, including members of Congress:
President Bush also addressed the debate over the warrant-less wiretapping, providing what was, in my mind, the most beautiful moment of the entire speech.
The President said:
The greatest political slam-dunk of the speech came when President Bush addressed Social Security reform.
The President began by outlining the problems with the current system:
After the Democrats finally sat back down, the President finished his sentence: "yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse." This is all too true, and a truth that the Democrats are all too willing to ignore as long as a conservative sits in the White House.
This circus act on Social Security is made all the more laughable when you consider the fact that during the Clinton administration, the Democrats couldn't get over how dire the circumstances were for Social Security...yet even then, they shot down every proposal put forward by the Republican Congress, with no proposal of their own. Now that George Bush is president, not only do they not have a proposal to fix the problem (other than drastic tax hikes), but they deny that a problem even exists. The hypocricy continues.
On a side note: Cindy Sheehan had been invited to the State of the Union by some liberal Representative from North Cal...but she was removed from the House Chamber by capitol police for protesting, after she removed her jacket, revealing a t-shirt that read, "2245 Dead. How many more?" She claims police brutality, but I highly doubt any such thing happened. She also claims her freedom of speech has been restricted, but she was apparently unaware of the prohibition against protesting inside the Capitol Building. This would be called a partisan attack, except for the fact that a Representative's wife was also removed for wearing a t-shirt that read "Support the Troops / Defending Our Freedom." A man was also removed from the Clinton impeachment hearings because he was wearing a t-shirt with an anti-Clinton slogan.
Now, all political bickering aside over this stupid stunt by Cindy, and only one question remains: what the heck are these people doing wearing t-shirts to the State of the Union address? She's not out in the streets of Washington, Texas, or San Fran with a buch of smelly, sandal-wearing hippies, she's in the Capitol Building about to witness one of the most important speeches of the year (which, I'm sure, she didn't appreciate...I would've loved to have had a ticket). It's rude, disrespectful, and just plain stupid...just like the Congressional Democrats acted, when you think about it. I guess she just wanted to fit in with the rest of the wacko libs...
2 major things of note happened yesterday.
First, Sam Alito was confirmed to the Supreme Court. This is great news, as the balance of the court has now shifted from liberal judicial activism to conservative judicial responsibility.
Second, the President's State of the Union speech was given last night, and not only was it a very good speech, but it allowed the people of America to see the Democrats' true colors. Here are some highlights (all quotes taken from the official transcript):
The President outlined the continuing success in Iraq, telling of how the US military was handing over more and more of the military and police responsibilities over to the Iraqi military and police forces as they become more equiped. He also took the opportunity to address the stringent opposition he has received from many Americans, including members of Congress:
In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy.Needless to say, the Democrats were not impressed, but it did need to be said.
President Bush also addressed the debate over the warrant-less wiretapping, providing what was, in my mind, the most beautiful moment of the entire speech.
The President said:
It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack –- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.Immediately after he said, "we will not sit back and wait to be hit again," the camera went to a close-up of Hillary Clinton's face. She had this strange disbelieving smile on her face as she rolled her eyes and slowly shook her head back and forth. This is where we see Hillary's true character: President Bush is using a program extremely similar in form and function to a program that her husband used during his own presidency, yet she cannot seem to believe that he would defend using that program to prevent another attack on American soil...or maybe she doesn't believe that the program is being used against terrorists. It's hard to tell what Hillary believes. Either way, though, it's obvious that she's willing to politicize this program and further endanger the US for her own political gain.
The greatest political slam-dunk of the speech came when President Bush addressed Social Security reform.
The President began by outlining the problems with the current system:
The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And that will present future Congresses with impossible choices -- staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending.He then attempted to begin outlining his new proposal. He started by saying, "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security..." The Democrats didn't allow him to finish that sentence - they immediately jumped out of their seats, cheering and applauding. This in and of itself outs the Democrats as petty political animals - yes, they defeated the President's proposal, but there was no counter proposal. Just like everything else since George W. Bush was elected President, the agenda is "defeat Bush, no matter the cost," even if that cost comes at the American people's expense. This is typical of Democratic strategy: all attack, no vision for the future.
After the Democrats finally sat back down, the President finished his sentence: "yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse." This is all too true, and a truth that the Democrats are all too willing to ignore as long as a conservative sits in the White House.
This circus act on Social Security is made all the more laughable when you consider the fact that during the Clinton administration, the Democrats couldn't get over how dire the circumstances were for Social Security...yet even then, they shot down every proposal put forward by the Republican Congress, with no proposal of their own. Now that George Bush is president, not only do they not have a proposal to fix the problem (other than drastic tax hikes), but they deny that a problem even exists. The hypocricy continues.
On a side note: Cindy Sheehan had been invited to the State of the Union by some liberal Representative from North Cal...but she was removed from the House Chamber by capitol police for protesting, after she removed her jacket, revealing a t-shirt that read, "2245 Dead. How many more?" She claims police brutality, but I highly doubt any such thing happened. She also claims her freedom of speech has been restricted, but she was apparently unaware of the prohibition against protesting inside the Capitol Building. This would be called a partisan attack, except for the fact that a Representative's wife was also removed for wearing a t-shirt that read "Support the Troops / Defending Our Freedom." A man was also removed from the Clinton impeachment hearings because he was wearing a t-shirt with an anti-Clinton slogan.
Now, all political bickering aside over this stupid stunt by Cindy, and only one question remains: what the heck are these people doing wearing t-shirts to the State of the Union address? She's not out in the streets of Washington, Texas, or San Fran with a buch of smelly, sandal-wearing hippies, she's in the Capitol Building about to witness one of the most important speeches of the year (which, I'm sure, she didn't appreciate...I would've loved to have had a ticket). It's rude, disrespectful, and just plain stupid...just like the Congressional Democrats acted, when you think about it. I guess she just wanted to fit in with the rest of the wacko libs...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)