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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)