The Noble Pundit

Senate Democrats Take Stand On Judges

Senate Democrats Take Stand on Judges

When I saw the headline, I had such high hopes. Maybe they have taken a stand against activist judges usurping the proper role of Congress. Or maybe they had tired of the holes in the federal judiciary. But, alas, my hopes were misplaced.

No, forget about activist judges or even a lack of them, the Senate Democrats are instead upset about recess appointments and are threatening to block all nominees until they get the proper "I'm sorry" from Bush.

"The president's use of recess appointments to circumvent the advise and consent process puts a finger in the eye of the Constitution," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Perhaps if there had been an effort to advise and consent, we wouldn't be in this position. But instead, we are in a position where nominees are getting stonewalled and blocked for nothing more than partisan bickering. The Senate Democrats have, to a large extent, refused to uphold their end of the bargain. Our system of checks and balances says that if Congress refuses to advise and consent, the President has the power of recess appointments.

Such high hopes, dashed by reality. Damn.

And Vice Versa

"I don't tell church officials what to do," [John Kerry] says, "and church officials shouldn't tell American politicians what to do in the context of our public life."

Just listen to a Vatican official, who is an American: "People in Rome are becoming more and more aware that there's a problem with John Kerry, and a potential scandal with his apparent profession of his Catholic faith and some of his stances, particularly abortion."

John Kerry has already publicly stated his problems with the Catholic Church, and now the Church seems to be stating their problem with John Kerry.

I really have a problem with Kerry's statement that I quoted above. He is correct that we observe a separation of church and state (we have no State religion), but all that I keep seeing is the Church reminding politicians of the teachings of the Church and of the consequences of acting contrary to those teachings.

Religion is a personal matter. John Kerry's Catholicism is no different. It is a matter between himself, the Church and God. If he chooses to be pious, that is his decision. If he chooses otherwise, that is his decision also. The burden of the decision - and of its consequences - rest solely with John Kerry.

What the Church keeps reminding Kerry is that there are personal consequences to his public positions and votes. His two lives do not exist in separate vacuums. They are intertwined and a decision in one life can, will and does affect his other life. And therein, I believe, lies John Kerry's biggest problem with the Church.

He knows that having a religious grounding is going to be important this year, so he's doing everything he can to present himself as a pious Catholic. He just doesn't want to follow all those pesky rules and teachings of the Church.

He wants to be able to gain the benefit of being photographed taking Communion, but he doesn't want to live within the guidelines required for earning the right to take Communion.

And yes, Communion is a right. The principle of separation of Church and State says that there is no reason why Kerry should be granted the right of Communion without earning it like every other Catholic. Freedom of association says that we have a right to associate with those we want to associate with - and that we cannot be compelled to associate with those we find distasteful or disturbing.

"All you need is a picture of Kerry going up to the Communion rail and being denied, and you've got a story that'll last for weeks," says Father Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit magazine America.

It may pain John Kerry to realize this, but if his public actions as Senator or politician violate the teachings of the Church, then in his private life, he is opening himself up to being subjected to this punishment. Given recent statements by Church officials (Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley: politicians who do not vote in line with church teachings "shouldn't dare come to Communion." and St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke publicly warned him "not to present himself for Communion") I would venture to guess that Kerry is coming closer and closer to crossing that line. I think that the Church is being very generous with their prewarning of Kerry about the potential consequences of his public decision on his personal life.

I don't believe that it's going to matter, however. I fully expect that we'll see some priest, somewhere, deny Communion to John Kerry. Kerry's beliefs run counter to Catholic doctrine. Kerry wants to be viewed as devout, but he wants nothing to do with actually showing anything more than a token devotion. Kerry is a "flavor of the month" Catholic - so long as it is popular, he wants to it, too. I believe that will come back to haunt him at some point.

This election is going to come down to, more than anything I think, the perceived integrity of the two candidates. The hardcore supporters of both candidates are already made their positions clear. The folks still on the fence are going to look to the honesty of Bush and Kerry as a measure of their believability in the strength of their positions.

And this is where campy Catholicism is going to kill the Kerry campaign. When he struts around professing his staunch Catholicism and gets denied Communion or even excommunicated, it's going to raise questions about his integrity. He claims to be a good Catholic, but the Church disagrees? Hmmmm.......

I see this problem getting worse for Kerry. He's not going to change anything. Eventually he's going to have to reconcile his public and private lives and understand that, like the rest of us, he has but one life to live.

Links To Kerry Questionables

This morning before I left with the other half and the kids to go to Rock Springs (you can also go here for more excellent pictures) for the afternoon, I was perusing the Free Republic message boards and came across a series of links to media stories about our good friend, John Kerry. I'm not going to show the whole list, as I think that a few of the points are somewhat irrelevant to the election at hand, but I did want to pass along a pretty good list of sites to search when questions arise.

Poor Decisions: Kerry On the Losing Side of History (quotes included) - Kerry comments on communism amongst other things.

Kerry Leads Senate in Special Interest Donations - But he's not going to be beholden to them.........Rigggggghhhhhhttttttttt.

Kerry's wife made killing from 'corporate inversion' - So the Kerry's never told their trust fund advisors to not invest in "Benedict Arnold" companies? Curious oversight, methinks...

Kerry Donors Include 'Benedict Arnolds': Candidate Decries Tax-Haven Firms While Accepting Executives' Aid - Well, that would explain the oversight in my last snide comment. Apparently his hypocrisy knows no bounds.

John Kerry Blasts Wal-Mart for "Destroying Communities" - Shhh. He Owns $1 Million in Wal-Mart Stock - OK, it's not John. It's really Theresa, but it just goes to show that hypocrisy seems to run pretty rampant in the Heinz-Kerry household.

Meet John Kerry - His Voting Record - and while we're at it let's look at it overall: Kerry Voting Record Analyzed as Most Liberal in US Senate by Democratic Group, his attendance to important votes, explaining his position on the Iraq war, and his stance on matters military.

While we're looking at his voting record, let's attempt to look at some of his positions: Multiple Votes Supporting Partial Birth Abortions, Terrorism Happening in America is "Exaggerated", Kerry Prepared to "End the War on Terror", Kerry Assures Jewish Groups He Supports the Wall of Israel - Tells Arab Group He's Against It, and Senator Kerry Emphasizes Direct Talks with Iran.

Of course, Iran isn't his only fling with evil regimes: John Kerry Courts Communist China Approval in Launching First Government Approved Campaign Site, Kerry's Soviet Rhetoric, and Kerry Boasts French Support.

And then finally we have the Kerry Vs. Kerry archives:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Oh yes, and let's not forget his heritage: Excuse me Senator ... but, you do not have Irish ancestors ...

Kerry's Foreign Boosters

John Kerry is claiming to have support among a few foreign leaders, although he is avoiding any questions regarding his overseas admirers.

Now I can understand Germany and France deciding that they would prefer someone other than Bush in office, given the "old Europe" comments and the general disagreement about everything except the day of the week. But I found this quote from Kerry to be quite interesting:

"I'm talking about our allies, I'm talking about people who were our friends nine months ago," Kerry said while campaigning Sunday, adding he would not identify leaders he spoke with.

Kerry, who speaks French and some German, said they told him: "'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy'."

I have a real problem with Kerry not seeing an issue with that statement. As President his job would be to formulate and direct US policy, regardless of the opinions of other nations. France, Germany or whoever made that statement certainly would like to see a new policy in Washington.

But just because they would like to see a new policy does not mean that we should grant that wish or even entertain it. US policy is designed to promote the interests of the US first, foremost, and only.

The President shouldn't give a rat's behind whether or not anyone else agrees or disagrees with our policy. He is beholden only to the American electorate, which make quotes like this pretty useless in the end:

A survey Monday of German voters published by Focus magazine found that 65 percent want Kerry compared to 11 percent for Bush, five percent for neither and 19 percent undecided.

The problem with this statement is that the opinion of the German electorate doesn't matter in the US general election. The quote tells us nothing of any value. It is almost as the media is so desperate to get rid of Bush that they will seize on any favorable bit of information that might help their cause.

But again we end up coming back around to the same basic fact. The President works for the American people and only for the American people. Given Kerry's pride in the endorsements of the foreign leaders and his acceptance of their desire for a new policy in Washington, I don't think that he quite understands who his employer would be.

And it is absolutely critical that you understand who your real employer is before taking on any new job.

A Small Defense of John Kerry

I spend a lot of time, electrons, and disk space taking shots at John Kerry, but there are times when I think some things are crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed without deep introspection.

JB Corrigan is reporting on an article that indicates that the Kerry Kampaign in Florida may be considering hiring a man who, during Vietnam, explicitly advocated political assassinations. The post ends with:

So tell us Senator Kerry, is this how you plan to 'stop' George W. Bush from being re-elected?

That's a heavy duty charge. One that should require some decent substantiation. But that seems to be lacking in this case.

Simply because this man, Scott Camil, once advocated political assassination does not mean that he is a political assassin. The fact that he is unrepentant does not mean that he is going to go assassinate the President. The only thing we know about Scott Camil is that he is an unrepentant Machiavellian idiot. To imply anything otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Kerry is a menace to this country that has to be kept out of office, but come on. We got to do it right.

Now back to our regularly scheduled Kerry bashing.

Is The Bible Ambiguous On Homosexuality?

I may have to start a new category just for inane statements coming from the Democratic candidate for President.

WorldNetDaily is reporting that John Kerry recently suggested to a Mississippi crowd that the Bible is less than clear when it comes to homosexuality.

I don't know what Bible Kerry has been reading (he says "Well, I know the deep beliefs, I respect, I'm a Christian, I've read the Bible, and I know you can find the clauses that go both ways. I'm not here to argue that with you." (emphasis mine)), but the ones that I have read and studied most don't seem to carry any references that indicate that homosexuality may be anything less than an abomination in the eyes of the Church.

Does the Bible acknowledge the existence of homosexuality? Yep. Does the Bible give us clues into the historical role that homosexuality played during the period when the traditions were developed? It gives a small window into that world. The Bible doesn't refer to the general level of homosexual acceptance during the time, but while it paints a religiously biased picture, it also does not gloss over this part of life.

Remember, the final straw that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was when the men of the town tried to force their way into Lot's home calling for him to bring out his male guests so that the townsfolk might better "know" them. The term "know" at that time had a bit more hardcore meaning. The men didn't want the guests to come out to discuss the current state of political affairs or to make proper introductions all the way around. No, they wanted essentially to gang rape the guests. The men of the town turned down Lot's daughters in order to take the male guests. The implications against homosexuality are very evident, to all those excepting those who wish not to see.

Leviticus 18:22 is even more clear. The only problem I have with Leviticus is that some parts of it have been rendered obsolete (the sections dealing with slavery, for example) with the passing of time and advancements in our level of humanity. Quoting only Leviticus leaves open the valid charge that if some passages are no applicable, how is the determination made as to which rules to follow and which are ignored as ancient curiosities.

But no matter, nowhere do I see the Bible condoning homosexuality. Regardless of your opinion on the issue, you cannot deny the facts. The Bible condemns homosexuality. You may not agree with the conclusion, as Kerry obviously does not, but that does not mean the Book doesn't clearly say what it says.

When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible is about as clear as ancient texts get.

I shudder to think what Kerry might do if handed something written by a devious lawyer....

John! Bring These Jobs Home!

John Kerry has expressed his concerns about the outsourcing of jobs that Americans are quite capable of performing.

Here would be a good place to start on the fight to bring American jobs home for Americans, John:

HEINZ EUROPE
Established 2000
Hayes, Middlesex, England

H. J. HEINZ FROZEN & CHILLED FOODS LIMITED
Established 1993
Dublin, Ireland and (1999) Hayes Park, Hayes, Middlesex, England

H. J. HEINZ COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED
Established 1996
Dublin, Ireland

H. J. HEINZ FROZEN S.A.R.L.
Established 1979
Paris, France

HEINZ IBERICA S.A.
Established 1987
Madrid, Spain

HEINZ POLSKA Sp. Z.O.O.
Established 1994
Warsaw, Poland

HEINZ C.I.S.
Established 1994
Moscow, Russia

HEINZ GEORGIEVSK
Established 1994
Georgievsk, Russia

CAIRO FOOD INDUSTRIES SAE
Established 1992
Cairo, Egypt

HEINZ REMEDIA LIMITED
Established 1999
Tel Aviv, Israel

H. J. HEINZ BELGIUM S.A.
Established 1984
Brussels, Belgium

H. J. HEINZ Southern Africa (Proprietary) Limited
Established 1995
Johannesburg, South Africa

H. J. HEINZ (Botswana) (Proprietary) LTD.
Formed 1988
Gaborone, Botswana

REFINED OIL PRODUCTS (Pty) LTD.
Formed 1987
Gaborone, Botswana

CHEGUTU CANNERS (Pvt) LTD.
Established 1992
Chegutu, Zimbabwe

HEINZ SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD.
Established 1995
Johannesburg, South Africa

HEINZ SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.
Established 2001
Republic of Singapore

HEINZ-UFE LTD.
Established 1984
Guangzhou, People's Republic of China

HEINZ COSCO
Established 1999
Qingdao, People's Republic of China

HEINZ KOREA LTD.
Established 1986
Inchon, South Korea

HEINZ WIN CHANCE LTD.
Established 1987
Bangkok, Thailand

PT HEINZ ABC INDONESIA
Established 1999
Jakarta, Indonesia

HEINZ UFC PHILIPPINES
Established 2000
Manila, the Philippines

HEINZ HONG KONG LIMITED
Established 2000
Wanchai, Hong Kong

This is a listing of overseas corporations formed by the H.J. Heinz company over the course of the last 25 years. It does not include companies that were purchased or otherwise acquired during that time (that wouldn't have been fair). And it doesn't take into account that it often make sense to establish a presence in country in which you do business.

Personally I have no problem with the idea of outsourcing if it results in more wealth generation here. More wealth gives us an opportunity to create different jobs that would be better at improving our overall standard of living.

But how many of these new operations cannabalized from the core US operations and reduced the amount of product exported? How many jobs were lost (or not created) because of the reduced export demand? How many of the jobs that are currently being performed by folks overseas could be done back here at home, thereby providing needed jobs for Americans?

Wouldn't it be ironic if John Kerry was directly benefitting from the very trends he is so opposed to? For John, stopping outsourcing should start at home.

John Kerry: Keen Observationist

"Let me tell you, we've just begun to fight," Kerry said. "We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."

One great thing about John Kerry being the presumed Democratic nominee: he says something incredibly stupid almost every single day. The AP is reporting on Kerry's above quote referring to the Bush Administration and the Kerry campaign's attempt to spin the meaning.

I was going to make a snide remark about how it is painfully obvious that Kerry must not have paid attention during his time in Congress, but then I rememberred: he only makes token appearances anyways.

Now he also confused me with his "new math" surrounding the costs of the Bush tax cuts.

He claims that Bush's tax cuts have driven up costs for working families. OK, I don't agree, but I can sort of see some brand of twisted logic at play in that statement. He then says that he is going to give the middle class a tax cut -good, good - by raising taxes on those making more than $200K a year? Whoops. Now I'm lost.

According to Kerry a tax cut made my cost of living go up (even though my take home is higher) and he plans to rectify this situation by cutting my taxes by leaving them the same and simultaneously raising taxes on extraordinarily well compensated individuals.

So my taxes stay the same and my neighbor's rise and this is a tax cut? Even twisted logic can't reconcile that one!

Oh, and his $50 billion fund to help provide relief from state and local taxes? Worthless to me living in Florida. We don't have state and local income taxes. As far as I'm concerned that empty campaign promise is nothing more than a very thinly veiled attempt at redistributionism.

"Kerry has voted for higher taxes 350 times and his numbers for new spending don't add up," said Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "His campaign-trail promises mean he is going to raise taxes by at least $900 billion."

Alrighty then. A number is out there. Right or wrong an attempt has at least been made at quanitfying the cost of Kerryism. I would be interested in seeing the numbers that the Kommie Kerry Kampaign can come up with as a rebuttal.

I have trouble believing Kerry when he says that he wants a tax cut for anybody. What makes this time different than any of the last 350?

Probably not a thing. It's just another empty campaign promise.

Of course, that might make Kerry a crooked liar.

Guess "it takes one to know one."

They're Mad; They're Motivated & Apparently They're At Happy Hour

Today was the big day in Florida, the Democratic Primary, the first opportunity for the Democrats in Florida to prove that they're mobilized, motivated and mad.

Unfortunately, the turnout seems to indicate that they were motivated to go elsewhere. In Orlando, which had its mayoral race today, they are anticipating a turnout of just 18%. Yep, that sounds most motivated to me.

Of course, that is better than the 11.4% national turnout.

For supposedly being so motivated to get GWB out of office, you would think that the Party could put up at least slightly better numbers than these. Heck, Bush is generally getting around a 6.6% turnout - and he's the only real candidate on the ballot! This is the first week in which Kerry has basically run unopposed. Despite all that, despite the grassroots movement for Dean, the motivated Party apparatchiks, Kerry's Kousins, Edwards Efforts and whatever other clichés you want to think of, 11.4% is pitiful.

Happy hour has a better turnout than the supposedly competitive Democratic primaries. That is pretty sad.

Now I know that I'm sitting here taking shots at the Democrats for talking one story and walking another, but this is more than just a single party issue. Too many people practice self-disenfranchisement. Too many people abdicate their responsibilities as citizens.

Voting in the primaries is not an issue of life or death. The truly critical election is coming in Novemeber.

But the primaries do often have other important elections. For instance today Orlando elected its mayor and city commissioners. Folks who didn't bother to show for the election today will now have no say in the governance of their city. Many will complain about the results, but they didn't bother with making their voice, no matter how small it might be individually, heard.

In November we of course elect the President, members of the House, 1/3 of the Senate, state officials of varying descriptions and countless pieces of referendum legislation. Today's elections were important, but November will set more of the tone for the nation.

11.4% turnout is not motivated. It is pitiful. I know that many people blow off the primaries, but come November we have a responsibility, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Commie, Libertarian, or whatever party affiliation, to show up and make our voices heard. In 2000, the residents of Palm Beach County, Florida in particular, proved the importance of each and every vote. My entire life before then, I had never seen an election where each vote was so important. I may never see it again (boy do I hope not!), but I will hereafter vote as though my vote will be the one to decide simply because it has been proven that it may very well be.

For what it's worth, however, I did not participate in today's election. I would have had an opportunity to vote in exactly one uncontested race today. Having just started a new job, that fact kept me from asking for the time off from work (as I am entitled to) to cast a single, solitary vote in an undisputed election. Not exactly in line with my above rant, but....

Kerry Makes A Fool Of Himself, Again

John Kerry was down stumping in Hollywood, FL today and came up with a real gem of a quote. The AP is reporting on his quote about Bush being a divider, not a uniter, but on the local news tonight, I saw an even better one.

Bush was out in Texas, at a rodeo. Kerry decided to take his shots, saying (I wish I could find an article with this statement, but so far I've only seen it on a video on WFTV's 5 pm newscast in Orlando):

(paraphrased due to lack of quote transcription) If George Bush has enough time to go to a rodeo for a day, he certainly has enough time to give a Homeland Security commission on 9/11 more than one hour.

The exact wording may be off, but you get the gist of the quote. Kerry is claiming that by campaigning for reelection that Bush is somehow being derelict in his duty. That seems like it could be a fair criticism (although I would argue that since he was only at the rodeo for an hour, and he was on Air Force One while in transit, he probably did manage to get a few Presidentially-like things done), so how does John Kerry's record show that he would stack up in the responsibility department?

Let's see, according to his hometown Boston Herald, Kerry came to work approximately 36% of the time last year, and hasn't bothered to make a working appearence yet this year (he did show up for a token soundbite vote on gun control however).

Well, gee. That is certainly a much better record than Bush with his 4 hour foray (if that) to Daytona for the 500 and an hour at a rodeo!

I know that my employer would just be thrilled if I managed to drag myself to do something a little more than once every three days. I'm sure that they would be fine if come March I hadn't bothered to show up to actually do anything worthwhile yet this year. And they would certainly be most understanding if I told them that the reason I wasn't doing anything was because I was out pounding the pavement and pressing the flesh looking for another job. Yeah, they'd understand.

Meehan said Kerry has missed no roll calls in the past 14 months in which his vote would have altered the outcome.

You know, up until 2000, I had never voted in anything in which my vote would have altered the outcome. Is Senator Kerry so prescient that he can foresee the value of his vote on any given issue? Or his simply gambling that he won't miss the most critical vote of the year?

Senators are employed and paid to debate and deliberate about pressing legislative matters before them and then to pass judgment on those issues by voting. Kerry's spokesman was correct when he said the voting is just one...part of being a senator. Unfortunately, he included the word "small" in the sentence, and voting is not a small part of being a senator - it is the very reason for being a Senator. We elect senators to vote in our stead. When John Kerry goes off campaigning instead of voting in the Senate he is disenfranchising his constituents.

Kerry needs to get a clue. He is not so important as to live by different rules than the rest of us (his desires notwithstanding). Anybody else with his job performance would have been fired and deservedly so. By US Code, he should have been docked pay, but that hasn't happened either. And I can't recall having seen any mention of the Senator returning any of his ill-gotten gains, despite the fact that he is one of the servants (yes he is nothing more than a public servant. Oh how that word must chap his hide....) who needs it the least.

Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones....

One More Reason Not To Like John Kerry

Kim Jong Il does.

Gees, will Saddam and Osama publically back Kerry next?

Or even more politically damaging, Al Gore?

Keep racking up the endorsements, John! You're off to an excellent start!

Why The World Doesn't Vote For President

The Independent in the UK has a wonderful little column on their website which I found to be just a regular riot.

If the human race as a whole, rather than 50 states plus the District of Colombia, could cast a ballot this coming November, John Kerry would surely win the presidency by a landslide.

Unfortunately for President Bush-haters around the world, only the 200 million United States citizens of voting age will have that right...

Well, how 'bout that? Only Americans can vote for the American President. How quaint!

The problem that I have with columns and articles like this is that, in this matter, the opinion of the rest of the world doesn't matter. The President of the United States is elected to promote and defend the United States of America, period. He is not chosen to be the head global citizen. He is not chosen on his ability to get along with others. He is chosen to work for America first - and only.

Now quite often our goals line up with the rest of the world's and the President can find ways to work with others and to generally be a nice, multilaterelist guy. But in the end, he still needs to watch out for America's interests and only America's interests.

Listening to John "I'm-not-a-Frenchman,-I-want-to-be-the-second-black-President" Kerry, I don't think that he's capable of putting America first. I think that the idea of coalition and conference is so ingrained in his being that he would be wholy incapable of dealing with another 9/11. He is a wuss when the office demands a warrior (Before running off with the Vietnam stuff, read my opinion on it here. Pay particular attention to the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. Thank you.)

The rest of the world - they like John Kerry because they know that, unlike President Bush, he won't put America's interests first. In an attempt to prove himself to be a great internationalist, he will sell this country's interests up the river when it comes to global issues.

It is up to us 200 million voting Americans to make sure that that doesn't happen.

Super Tuesday

Super Tuesday is finally here and it looks like John Kerry is going to sweep the day, virtually ensuring that he will be the Democratic candidate in the fall.

For the Bush campaign that has got to be thrilled about the this. Defeating Kerry will be much, much easier than Edwards (more stupid stuff to harp on).

Plus, Kerry helps the Republicans with brilliant quotes like this:

President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second," he told the American Urban Radio Network.

At least he didn't refer to himself as African-American given the uproar when his wife was correctly referred to by that term. But maybe, just maybe, his handlers should point out to John Kerry that he's, well, white.

Or maybe it would be better to let Kerry just continue to make an idiot out of himself...

This Is Useless Campaign Schtick

President Bush has begun courting the Cubans of South Florida by annnouncing a tightening of the rules regarding travel to Cuba. His plan basically makes it illegal to leave from any port, not just Miami, to head off to Havana.

The media is, as to be expected, blathering on about how this is going to further strain relations between the US and Cuba. They also go on and on about different issues that, on the surface, appear to be contributing to the deterioration.

What they don't realize is that the travel restrictions only stop those who don't really want to go. Anyone with half a brain who wants to visit Havana is already going through Nassau, Caracas, or El Salvador. The boaters are simply going to change their plan and instead of sailing straight from Ft. Lauderdale or Key West to Havana, they'll instead make a detour through the Bahamas on the way. The travel restrictions serve absolutely no practical purpose.

As for the deterioration in relations, well how can they really deteriorate much further than they are already are? Is Cuba going to invade South Florida? Are they going go to the UN to complain? Will they slap a trade embargo on us?

This has got to be about the most transparent political gambit ever undertaken. There is no practical effect to it (other than to get the media in some sort of Castro loving frenzy). It won't end travel to the island. It won't put any more pressure on Castro's regime. Nothing changes.

I'm not even sure how this is going to play among the Cuban-Americans of South Florida. They are not a slow people. I can see this being taken as patronization, but I can also see it being taken as a great statement, so what do I know?

I wish that the President would do something meaningful again. It just seems like he's been marking time for a while now. Maybe that's part of lying in wait for his foe. But it just feels like it is time for him to go back on the offensive, to do something worthwhile.

A transparent sop to one group is less than inspiring.

I Thought He Was The Environmental Candidate?

Gee, John Kerry is trying to position himself as the environmental candidate:

Throughout his career, John Kerry has been a top leader on the environment, fighting to clean up toxic waste sites, to keep our air and water clean, and to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other pristine wilderness areas....

We owe it to our families, our communities, and to our planet to elect a president who will unapologetically pursue our environmental values.

So given his supposed environmental commitment, why is he flying around on a 727?

The 727 is a relatively old airplane. It uses 3 JT8D engines - not exactly the most fuel efficient or cleanest burning of engines out there. By contrast, the 737-200, which is just about as readily available as a 727 uses 2 JT8Ds, with nearly the same range. And the 737-300, which is fairly easy to come by uses the CFM56, which is very fuel efficient, quiet, and clean burning - all with greater range and payload.

The JT8D also suffers from not exactly being the most quiet engine in the aviation market. The roar of the JT8D is part of the reason why there are noise restrictions at some airports and why the aviation industry has to work under Stage III noise regulations.

So what is John Kerry, the great environmentalist, doing flying around on one the most noise polluting, gas guzzling, and clean-air unfriendly airplanes still flying? About the only way he could have made this worse is by renting a 707, with 4 JT8Ds.

As for the rest of the story, if Kerry doesn't want to see The Passion, that's fine. I can understand that. It's an honorable position to take.

But he needs to watch with throwing around the accusations of potential anti-Semitism. That is a pretty powerful charge. Because of the potential damaging power of such an accusation, Kerry should probably use a little more tact before throwing it out so cavalierly.

I also found it interesting that he is too conservative for his daughter's tastes. That has got to be just about one of the scariest propositions out there. If he's not liberal enough, she must be out there in full-blown Marxism.

Another Anti-Kerry Site

Ed Flinn of MonkeyWatch and HobbyBlog has pointed me to another anti-John Kerry site, WinterSoldier.com (please note that the address is http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/ not www.wintersoldier.com).

The site focuses on Kerry's actions after he left Vietnam and in particular during the period of his participation in Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Another good post, via Jay Solo, can be found here. I think that it is so funny simply because you can actually visualized it happening.

Kerry & The Fence

John Kerry is continuing his consistent inconsistency by attempting to have it both ways when it comes to the fence that Israel is building to keep the Palestinian terrorists out.

Back in October, Kerry said:

"We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis' security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder."

Then Monday he comes back with:

"Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense."

OK, now the two statements don't explicitly contradict each other, but their tone is most certainly contradictory. In the first statement I cannot believe that Kerry meant anything other than to attempt to place blame squarely on Israel for the fence. Now, he is most certainly attempting to spread the onus to the Palestinians (where it should have been in the first place).

But this does leave the question, what does John Kerry really believe regarding the fence? Does he truly believe that Israel is entitled to protect itself? Or does he believe that the fence is unacceptable?

I don't think that this is a minor issue. I think that it actually gets to the heart of Kerry's stance on terrorism. The fence is a microcosm of the war on terror. Israel is attempting every mean short of all out war to protect itself from an enemy that desires only its annihilation. Does Kerry believe that every mean should be used? Or does he believe that uncomfortable measures should be avoided if they might upset someone? I want to know the answer to these questions.

John Kerry challenged President Bush to bring it on relating to national security issues. Well, the question is out there.

What is John Kerry's real position on the fence? Is he ok with it, or does he find it to be an obstacle to peace?

A New Site To Check Out!

Perusing my referrer logs this evening I came across a site: NoJohnKerry.org.

I found out about the site because they linked my post on John Kerry and Gay Marriage from way back when.

To be honest, I'm kind of stunned to be listed on a page with the Boston Herald, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Scotsman and several other high profile sites.

Go over and take a look at the site. For those of you who detest John Kerry, like I do, it is a great site.

Bring It On!

Oh, what fun! Ralph Nader has announced his intention to contribute to the reelection of George W. Bush by running as an independent.

Apparently, Nader has chosen the indy route because even he believes that he will have a hard time garnering the Green Party nomination.

Now if you can't get the backing of such a tiny fringe group as the Green Party in the US, how on earth can there be any expectation of success? Doesn't the lack of support amongst the fringe goups demonstrate just how far out of the mainstream Nader is?

Nader had his day - years ago. At one point in his life he contributed something positive to society. But now he is a joke. His candidacy is about as useful as trying to take down the Great Wall of China with but a single firecracker. His ideas are about as dated as he is.

The only good thing that comes out of a Nader campaign is that it will siphon off votes from the Democratic candidate, particularly if that candidate is Johnny K.

Bring it on, Ralphy! I'm sure that Bush is just quaking in his boots awaiting your opening assault.

The Presidential Sales Campaign

I don't often watch too many of the talking head shows, but for some reason tonight, I decided to watch a little bit of Hannity and Colmes on Fox. Their guests tonight were JC Watts, former Congressman from Oklahoma and Tony Coelho, former Congressman from California.

Normally I like listening to JC Watts. He has always struck me as being a very bright man for a Congressman. And for most of the show, he didn't disappoint. But towards the end of the debate, Alan Colmes asked a question about the President's recent prediction of 2.6 million new jobs. Now maybe Mr. Watts isn't the best person to direct that question to, but it is a valid question. But instead of answering the question, even with an "I don't know," JC tried to dodge, to spin, and to ignore the question, instead talking about other related issues, but never directly addressing a perfectly legitimate question. For what it's worth, I think that the question could be easily answered (if this is true) by saying that the President shot off with his mouth before making sure that the numbers he was throwing around were right. From the reactions of his economic advisors, I'm guessing that that is what happened. If so, it needs to be admitted, and then we can all move on.

Now I thought that Sean asked probably the most important question that could be asked: what would the Johns do differently than the President? What differences would we see in the war? What differences would we see in economic policy? We keep hearing about how they hate Bush, but they still haven't really said how they would be different?

So far as I've been able to tell, about the only two positions in which the Johns seem to really have taken a stance against Bush: taxes and the war, they are trying to back away from their positions, claiming that they are misstatements.

As best as I can remember, both Johns have said that they would try to rollback the tax cuts. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that is tatamount to a tax hike. Maybe the phrase "rollback" sounds better, but the end effect is still that taxes will go up. If they believe that a tax hike is the best course of action, fine. I can live with that. I'd like to hear the reasoning, but it is an acceptable position (although not one that I would even consider voting for. Instant disqualifier for me). I just don't want to waste my time, or the nation's, in debating the semantic difference between a tax cut rollback and a tax increase.

I also seem to be under the impression that both Johns would be trying to bring our men home from Iraq as soon as possible after taking office. Both men seem to be backing away from that position.

Now if they disapproved of the action in Iraq (which John Kerry has been ever since his last vote supporting it), they need to be man enough to stand up and be counted for their beliefs. If they really think that thinks are being handled improperly, tell me what would be done differently under the Administration of John. So far, all I hear is "We disapprove! We're not happy about it! Something needs to change!" But no alternate course of action ever seems to be proposed.

There are really two things I want to hear from someone who wants my vote. I want to hear true, unwavering beliefs and I want to hear alternatives to the status quo. If you think the guy in power is doing a poor job, don't just tell me that you think he's doing a bad job, tell me you will do differently.

So far, I don't hear anything. I hear a lot of sniping and whining, but I don't hear anything I can hang my hat on. Politics is sales. In sales you identify a problem, propose a solution, explain the features, advantages, and benefits, and you must always be closing.

The Johns are identifying a "problem" (Bush's job performance, in their estimation) and they are constantly trying to close by pursuing my vote, but they are leaving out the whole sales part of the sales process. I have heard no features, advantages, or benefits to a government run by them.

Until those questions are answered, why should I even consider voting for anyone other than Bush - a known quantity?

Edwards Campiagn Posters That Didn't Quite Make The Cut

Allah the Most Merciful (except when it comes to this) has granted us kufr a rare opportunity to view some of the potential campaign posters of John Edwards.

Before heading over there, do realize that beyond the first poster, most of them are not exactly family friendly. But then again, did we really expect any less from Allah?

And So The End Begins

It's Tuesday, February 17, the day that will very likely mark the end for Howard Dean as a candidate for President of the United States. Today the voters in the Wisconsin Democratic primaries go to the polls, and if the early polls are any indication, they plan on handing Howie another stinging defeat.

It's been a long strange trip for Mr. Dean, but one that is coming to an end. It really is time for Dean to bow out gracefully. Failure to do so will relegate him to Sharpton/Kucinich laughingstock fodder - just like the Iowa speech did.

How concerned is current front-runner John Kerry about the other Dems? Not very. He apparently took one of the lamest shots at the President I have ever seen:

Chiding Bush for taking time out Sunday to attend the Daytona 500, the Massachusetts senator said the country was bleeding jobs while the president posed for a "photo opportunity." Bush had donned a racing jacket to officially open NASCAR's most prestigious event in front of some 180,000 fans.

"We don't need a president who just says, 'Gentlemen start your engines,"' Kerry said. "We need a president who says, 'America, let's start our economy and put people back to work."'

"America, let's start our economy and put people back to work"? When it comes to lame slogans that has to rank right up there with the worst of them.

I can understand Kerry's aversion to the President going out on the campaign trail. I can understand Kerry's concern that Bush might actually have a good time at the race - which would help him to connect with the NASCAR Dad.

But what action, what critical decision, does Kerry think that Bush missed while spending two hours at Daytona International Speedway? The slogan is lame, but where is the alternative idea from Kerry? It's nice to say things are wrong, but where is the idea to fix them?

Communism should have proved once and for all that government by sloganeering doesn't work. When things aren't working, a pithy saying won't fix them.

And so today, the tone of the Democratic debate turns from rage and anger to whining and complaining. I've heard a lot from Kerry about everything he thinks Bush has done wrong. But I still have yet to hear, outside of taxing us into prosperity, what John Kerry would do different.

Move Along! Nothing To See Here

In another fit of "everything is going just peachy and we intend to keep fighting" Howard Dean has expressed his confidence in his campaign staff by canning his national chairman.

Doesn't strike me as a real confidence inspiring move. Actually seems to smack of a bit of desperation on Dean's part. If things really are still viable, why make the change?

Watching the death throes of the Dean campaign is becoming really painful. Ever since the meltdown after Iowa, Dean has been an also-ran. He is not really contributing to the debate. He is not really driving any positions. He's just simply there, standing around looking all wooden and Al Gore-like.

I think it's time for Dean to bow out gracefully. He has already helped the Republican cause as much as he possibly can by defining the issues of the Democratic primaries and debates in terms that heavily favor George W. Bush.

Dean is not going to win Wisconsin. He is not going to win California. He will not win Florida. At this point, he may not even win Vermont. It's time for Howard Dean to face the truth: this is not the year of anger.

It's time for Howard Dean to bow out gracefully instead of continuing this charade.

NASCAR Dads

Over the last few days, particularly since the run-up to the Daytona 500 today, I've been seeing more and more articles in the political realm that refer to the looming importance of the NASCAR Dad in the upcoming election. For the uninitiated, the NASCAR Dad is a white male who generally votes Republican, but can be convinced to vote Democrat depending on the issues and positions. NASCAR Dads are most prevelent in the South and the Midwest.

Alright we have a nice clinical definition of the NASCAR Dad, but why is he going to be so important and every bit as importantly, is he recognized by both sides?

To answer the second question first, he has been recognized by both parties. Bush has obviously recognized the NASCAR Dad with his show at the Daytona 500 today. Circling the track with Air Force One; having his motorcade drive along the track; spending 2 hours at the race. Bush's trip was meant as much to watch the race as it was to reinforce to the NASCAR Dad just how in tune the President's beliefs are with his own.

Howard Dean also made an obtuse sort of reference to the NASCAR Dad when he suggested that he wanted to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags and gun racks in their pickup trucks. He was attempting to reach out to NASCAR Dad, but at the same demostrated a complete lack of understanding about what makes him tick. And with his backtracking and waffling on his statement, Dean completely lost any hope of garnering the vote of the NASCAR Dad.

What the Democrats seem to be missing about the NASCAR Dad is that issues really are important. Schtick, like Dean's anger streak, is seen as being transparent. Defense is important. Integrity is important. Being plain spoken is important. Patriotism, fiscal responsibility, and decision making are all important.

But while the NASCAR Dad likes a leader who can make a quick, difficult decision and then stick to it, even in the face of consequences, he will not make a snap decision of his own about who his choice for President will be. I believe that one of the reasons that we are still seeing such a large undecided component in the polls is because of the importance of the NASCAR Dad this election. He is not willing to commit to any candidate until he's heard all the positions and all the issues.

Now just because Bush seems to fare well in all the important issues to the NASCAR Dad does not mean that the President will automatically get his vote. The NASCAR Dad has concerns about Bush, particularly when it comes to the budgets that have been proposed. The tax cuts were a good idea and helped to stimulate the economy. But then Bush went a massive spending spree, chock full of questionable spending items. And that fiscal irresponsibility has made put the NASCAR Dad vote for Bush in question.

But how would the Democratic contenders stack up?

Kerry wouldn't fare too well with the NASCAR Dad. His military record would be a neutral item. His commitment to defense can be legitimately questioned based on his voting record. His integrity is questionable, again based on his voting record, too many flip-flops. Straight talking? Uh-uh. But given the right issues that have yet to emerge in this election, he still has an outside chance of garnering a decent portion of the NASCAR Dad vote - which might be all he needs.

Edwards would probably connect best with the NASCAR Dad crowd. Edwards is from the same stock as most NDs. He doesn't have the voting record of Kerry to search for inconsistencies. Being a trial lawyer works against him, but he may be able to make enough of a personal level connection to nullify the President's advantages.

Dean really has no hope with the NASCAR Dad crowd. It was Howard Dean that really invoked the NASCAR Dad and it was he that showed the least in the way of character traits that might be desirable to the ND. His anger seems to be a charade, designed to tap into the resentment against political correctness felt by the average white male. His positions were about as far out of line with the NASCAR Dad's as was possible.

So while Bush hasn't sewn it up, the odds don't look all too hot for the other guys either. Like the soccer moms who helped to elect Bill Clinton, it will be the NASCAR Dads who elect or re-elect the winner of this next election.

Bush made the first real attempt of reaching out to the NASCAR Dads today and I'm guessing that it will pay dividends for him down the road. Whereas Kerry comes off as an aloof elitest, and Edwards as a slick trial lawyer, Bush can actually end up coming off as a man not all that dissimilar to the NASCAR Dad.

But ultimately it will still come down to issues and leadership. Being a man of the people is not the same as being a leader of the people. Talking like the people want to hear is useless unless you act in a similar vein.

Today in Daytona they ran The Great American Race, but another great race also started today - the race for the votes of the NASCAR Dad. How will the father/son parallel play out in the election? Earnhardt, Jr. followed in his father's footsteps by winning the 500. Will Bush chalk up another victory? Or will he become a one-termer like his father?

It's looking more and more like the NASCAR Dad will decide.

Pro-Market Vs. Pro-Business

Via the Flemish Beerdrinker

Bruce Bartlett over at Townhall.com has written an excellent article that points out that the normal conservative reflex of pro-business is not always pro-market. As similar as the two terms sound, they are not the same. In fact, many times they end up opposed to each other.

Now Ivan over at the Flemish Beerdrinker does a pretty good job of looking at the relationship between pro-business and pro-market over the last decade (I don't appear to be able to link directly to the article so look for the one datestamped 14/02/2004 - 14:42:13 and titled: Is being pro-market conservative?).

I believe that the lessons of pro-market vs. pro-business can be best illustrated by one of my favorite industries - the airline industry.

From it's earlier beginnings the airline industry was largely unregulated. The barriers to entry were simply buying an airplane, getting a pilot's license, and finding some passenger that wanted to fly from point A to point B. Some folks managed to do well and were buying bigger, faster airplanes and were building mini-aeronautical empires, but by and large, the industry was very much pro-market.

Right on up until 1934 and the Spoils Conference of Postmaster Walter Folger Brown. Brown was a man who hated disorder and inefficiency, so he organized a meeting between the airline chiefteins in which they swapped mail routes, with the Big Four: American, United, TWA, and Eastern organizing with the first three being east/west airlines and Eastern flying north/south.

Brown was happy, as were the heads of the Big Four, but the public was outraged. Pro-business was the watchword of the day. Overnight the airlines had gone from one extreme to the other.

Now, as a reaction to the Spoils Conference, the airmail contracts were reawarded, with the Big Four maintaining most of the contracts, although a few other smaller airlines: Delta, Continental, Braniff and Northwest notably, picking up a few of the routes. But the die had already been cast. Brown had effectively set up significant governmental barriers to entry as mail was the most significant profit cargo for the early airlines.

Another pro-business, anti-market institution that was formed around the same time, at the behest as the airlines, was the Civil Aeronautics Board or CAB. The CAB became quite literally the biggest barrier to entry in the airline industry as it approved new routes and new pricing. The only way for an airline to form without the explicit approval of the CAB was to become an intrastate carrier. Since there were few states (California, Texas and Florida were the real exceptions) that could support an intrastate carrier, there was no real way to enter the market.

The CAB was the ultimate pro-business, anti-market entity. It maintained the competitive positions of the Big Four. It set pricing so that the weakest airline in a market made money. The CAB wasn't interested in allowing the market to work. It was interested in maintaining the status quo.

Now the CAB was sunsetted out of existence, one of the few governmental organizations to have actually disappeared. And once it went away, along with its barriers to entry, competition exploded in the industry. It became even safer to fly, more passengers fly and at lower prices than under government regulation. In short we have gone back to a more pro-market environment in the industry, and while everything is not perfect, it is certainly better than it was in the 1970s.

So what's the lesson to take away from the experience of the airline industry? A pro-market economic environment responds better to the needs of the marketplace than does a regulated pro-business one. Pro-market is best for the consumer and the nascent business; pro-business is the desire and wish of the existing businesses. The two are not the same.

Generally, the convential wisdom is backwards. The Democrats, preferring regulation to market pressure, tend to take more true pro-business positions. Republicans tend to be more pro-market. The Bush Administration, though, tends to take a more true pro-business stance than most Republican administrations (although it can also be argued that what they are doing is simply a continuation of the path started down by the previous administration), which is a bit disappointing, but still much better than the alternatives being proposed by the Democratic candidates.

We really need to start swinging the pendulum back towards the pro-market side of the spectrum. When the market is relatively unfettered is when our economy performs best. We have the most innovation and the best profitability (along with generally the highest employment) during periods of laissez-faire policy by the government.

All in all, I thought the article by Bartlett was pretty interesting. Definitely well worth the read.

The First Salvo At Kerry

Looks like the Republicans have finally decided to start the anti-Kerry offensive with this short video Unprincipled, Chapter 1, detailing some of the hypocrisy in the Kerry campaign.

The video isn't bad, especially as a first shot, but it's definitely going to need to get stepped up a couple of notches here pretty soon. It's good, but it's not victory material.

It is nice, however, to see the Republicans finally starting to make an effort at taking Kerry down a peg or three.

Kerry To Sharpen His Message?

The AP is reporting that John Kerry is looking to sharpen his message, whatever that means, and is also taking a page from the Al Gore manual for victorious campaign advertising.

You know, I'm sure that Kerry would have a much easier time sharpening his message - if there was one there to sharpen. I have, as of yet, to find a single concrete position of John Kerry, well, except maybe for his love of the Vietnamese Communists.

He voted for the war in Iraq, but seems to be rather shocked that it involved real fighting, by real soldiers, with real consequences.

He was against Saddam Hussein, but doesn't seem to believe that he really needed to go.

I'm sure that Kerry is the kind of guy who would tell us that 9/11 was a tragic event, but that that Osama guy really isn't too bad once you get to know him.

(All of the above are personal conjecture. Has he actually said these things? Probably not, but please provide a link if he did. I just happen to believe that they are all real possibilities to come from the mouth of John Kerry.)

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that Kerry gets it. He doesn't seem to realize that national security is not the issue for him to run on. There are few Presidents who have done a better job in the national security realm than George W. Bush. Trying to fight this battle is kind of like bringing a tank to battleship duel in the middle fo the ocean. It seemed like a good idea at the time....

Almost like his decision to take a page from the Al Gore How To Campaign In Florida book (Chapter 1: Get Pat Robertson on the butterfly ballot near your name. Have Palm Beach County voters take to the streets claiming functional illiteracy if the vote doesn't go your way.).

Just as Gore ran ads in Orlando, Tampa and West Palm Beach while Bush saturated all of Florida, Kerry's spending will have to be selective and smart, aides said.

Gee, if I remember correctly, even after the seven thousandth recount by every organization that could pronounce "chad," Bush still won Florida. "Selective and smart" advertising was not all that bright. Gore's message didn't get out to all the people in the state. How much do think Al Gore would have paid to swing 1000 votes from the Bush camp to his? You think he wishes that he had been a little more aggressive with his spending?

I do love this. Sharpening the message and being smart and selective with the advertising dollars. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Also indicates that maybe Kerry's message, while resonating amongst the Party faithful, is not striking a chord with the average American. It's one thing to win the Party. It's another to win the nation.

Oh yeah, for a little more fun go over to the Politboro Diktat and take a look at the Commissar's collection of potential Kerryisms. Some of them are pretty good.

The Kerry Cavalry Charge Continues

Well, it looks like the Kerry campaign is gaining momentum with wins in Virginia and Tennessee, along with another in Maine over the weekend.

To steal a phrase from Kerry: bring it on.

Kerry is not the best candidate to go up against Bush. He is the epitome of everything that so many people dislike: he is the quintessential Washington insider, he is about as far left-wing as anyone in Congress, he has a record of flip-flops and backtracks in his voting record. John Kerry will the easiest candidate for the Republicans to turn into the next Michael Dukakis.

The worst part of this is that in this election year, Bush is vulnerable. He is an excellent wartime President. He handled the post 9/11 events very well. But he has also blundered badly. His immigration amnesty plan is offensive enough to make me have seriously considered voting for someone other than Bush. I probably would have ended up voting for Bush in the end, but still, I believe that Bush is vulnerable.

And the Democrats, rather than nominating an electable candidate like Joe Liberman, are instead going to send up John Kerry to be the sacrifice to pave the way for Hillary in '08.

The Kerry campaign looks to be gaining an almost unstoppable momentum. Tonight almost ceratinly knocked out Clark knocked Clark out of the race. Edwards is on the ropes. Dean is going the way of Kucinich and Sharpton.

But the Kerry campaign has also not met any real resistance from the Bush camp or the RNC. Once the Republicans begin their offensive, I believe that the gap between Kerry and Bush will begin to widen again.

Kerry is making a big mistake by thinking that his primary victories are an indication of a general feeling in America. He is polling well among the Democratic faithful, but how will he fare in a general election is still yet to be seen.

Are African-Americans Black?

A few days back, there was a little bit of a flap over at OpinionJournal.com regarding the proper way of defining Teresa Heinz Kerry's heritage. Opinion Journal referred to her as "African-American," a completely accurate term given her birth in Mozambique and her later naturalization as an American citizen. Many, however, took offense to the statement of fact and attacked James Taranto, accusing him, among other things, of targeting Democractic bigots.

In my many rants about the loss of distinction in the English language I have kept saying that eventually words would not mean what they actually mean. This whole flap is proof positive. "African-American" is no longer a term to describe American citizens whose heritage is African. Instead, it has been reserved for a few select African-Americans who have a higher degree of skin pigmentation. "African-American" does not mean African-American anymore. It means black.

But, of course, not all African-Americans are black and not all blacks are African-American. One of my teachers in school was African-American. Very pigmentationally challenged, she was an Afrikaaner from South Africa. But she was certainly more African than the black history teacher I had who was of Jamacian descent. Yet, he was the one referred to as "African-American." How does it make sense that the one who is, cannot be referred to that way and the one who is not, must be?

And are we to extend this? Here in Florida, we have very large Cuban-American and Puerto Rican populations. To the uninitiated, they look similar, both having a somewhat darker complexion. They speak a similar language (two different dialects of Spanish). But, if you ever want to have a good rumble in the parking lot, just go up to a Puerto Rican and refer to him as a Cuban-American. Or vice versa. Just because they are similar does not mean that they are the same.

The worst part about all this is that even the most ardent supporter of the black people in the US understands the difference. Am I talking about the National Association for the Advancement of African-Americans (NAAAA)? Of course not! Look at the name of the NAACP. It is the National Assocation for the Advancement of Colored People. I generally think that the NAACP is way out in left field with most stuff, but when it comes to defining who they are, and to be inclusive to those they wish to include, they have hit the nail right on the head with their name.

We are on the verge of losing the actual meaning of a term, African-American, if we haven't already. I understand that OpinionJournal can sometimes inflame passions, but in this case, they merely spoke the truth. And the weight of the PC establishment is trying to come down on them with righteous indignation.

How much of our language must we lose to the PC cops before we revolt and try to salvage what little is left?

Did Lieberman Drop Out Due To Jewish Anti-Semitism?

Did Joe Liberman have to end his run for the Presidency due to the Jews turning their collective back on him? That is the theory being put forth by Jewsweek.

While I find the Jewish anti-Semitism argument interesting, I really don't think that it holds too much water. I don't deny that Lieberman's Orthodox beliefs may have turned off some people. I don't deny that there is a large segment of the US population that would have trouble with electing a President who was Jewish.

But I believe that the real reason behind Lieberman's failed candidacy lies in his relative moderateness. This campaign is becoming more and more defined by extremeism. Why was Dean successful? Is there anyone who really believes that it was because of his consensus building? What about Clark? Sharpton? Kucinich? Even John Kerry? Doesn't he have one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate?

This is developing into an election of extremeism. Liberman, being a relatively classy act, was completely ill-equipped to thrive in such an environment. More than any other factor, it was his personality, his congeniality, that kept him from succeeding in this election.

The media likes the outlandish. The media likes the anger. Lieberman's even-keeledness really served to keep him out of the national spotlight, He was too much Michael Jordan; not enough Dennis Rodman. In the circus environment of today's politics, that was the effective kiss of death.

Surely Lieberman's religion played a part in the events that led to his failure, but I don't think that it was the deciding factor. I also don't believe that the reaction of the Jewish community in the United States was a big factor. It was the lack of momentum, which was caused by his lack of lunacy on the campaign trail.

It's time to face facts, Liberman lost because he was, well, normal. He was soft-spoken, reasonable, moral, and religous. In short, he was much like a large swath of America.

Unfortunately the electorate just doesn't seem to be ready for a normal candidate, yet.

A Defense Of John Kerry

By now it should be pretty clear to most readers that I am not a fan of the Kerry Crusade. I think that he is just about the worst possible choice for President, possibly with Kucinich excepted.

However, I recently read this article "What You Don't Know About John Kerry" over at NewsMax.com and I found one particular point that I feel is simply wrong.

In his testimony, Kerry claimed there was no communist threat and said: "In 1970 at West Point Vice President Agnew said 'some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse,' and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam. But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion, and hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country...."

OK, here I go: a defense of Kerry's statement.

When I read that statement, I see not a slam at the men in Vietnam, but rather the exhibition of a trait which I think is severly lacking in John Kerry: humility. It was probably the last time in his life that Senator Kerry thought that he might not be the end-all of end-all men. It was probably the last time in his life that he was possessed by a smug, arrogant, all-knowing attitude. I, quite frankly, am surprised to discover that the Senator has ever felt a sense of humility.

I'm not trying to take away from the efforts that our men in Vietnam put forth. Under the political restrictions and contraints, it was amazing that we were able to do as much as we did. If Johnson and Nixon had let the troops loose to prosecute the war properly, things would have ended up much differently. Did some bad things happen in Vietnam? Sure did. Vietnam was a war. And war is hell.

Walk up to any veteran and ask him if he thinks he's one of the best men in the country. Chances are he's going to say "no." Why? Because he has humility. He has lost a lot of the hubris and bravado that comes with youth, and has gained the wisdom and humility of experience and age.

The rest of the article is pretty accurate and informative. Kerry is not the same man that he is trying to portray himself as out on the stump. But in this one case, I think that he is unfairly being criticized for humility.

Approaching 40,000

I got to say that I like John Kerry doing so well in the primary season. Every Wednesday, I get another massive influx of Google hits for folks searching "John Kerry + gay marriage." Because of this push of hits, I'm going to go over 40,000 hits before my first blogosversery (coming up later this month).

With today's ruling out of the Massachusettes Supreme Court that will make gay marriage legal, I've been getting an even higher number of hits looking for stuff on the topic.

I still support the basic idea of gay marriage, but I do have concerns about the way it is being dictated to us by the judiciary. I would much rather see there be a national debate on the topic than to have a bunch of holier-than-thou judges sitting on high trying to bring culture to the great unwashed masses (which is the impression of their attitude that I get from reading excerpts of the ruling. Maybe I'm wrong, but....).

This whole issue is very dangerous to our system of government. We have overreaching judges, law makers who are afraid to exercise their Constitutional authority for fear of maybe being overruled, and executives who want to change our Constitution from limiting the rights of government to limiting the rights of the people.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens from here. I wish that the debate had been allowed to occur at a natural and reasonable pace, but it seems the debate is being forced. Hopefully we can still pull it off without deepening the divides between us.

Super Tuesday

Well, Super Tuesday is coming to a close for the Democratic Party and with it, so appears to be several of the campaigns, at least on a practical level.

Kerry appears to have had another solid evening, winning Delaware, Missouri and Arizona pretty handily. Edwards took South Carolina, and is also showing strong in Oklahoma. North Dakota and New Mexico are both holding caucuses but no one really seems to be paying them too much mind.

Dean has once again failed to win anything. Lieberman bet it all on Delaware and appears to have come up snake eyes. Clark was respectable at least in Oklahome, and will likely officially take over the angry white man candidacy from Howie. Sharpton, well, Revrend Al showed miserably in South Carolina. Not good for the man who was betting it all on the southern minority vote.

Bottom line, Super Tuesday has functionally limited the field to Kerry, Edwards, and Clark as the dark horse outsider. Dean, Lieberman, Sharpton: all toast.

It will be interesting in watching the fight between Kerry and Edwards as it develops. Edwards is going to have to start tearing down the Kerry facade. Kerry is going to have to start defending and attacking against both Bush and Edwards. Watching them change their tactics which have worked well up until now should be fun.

I've said it many times before, and I'm going to say it again, Lieberman dropping out will be the greatest tragedy of the whole campaign. He was the most reasonable candidate the Democrats had. Watching Joe bow out with class and dignity was a definite contrast to the rest of the group. It is truly a disappointment.

Well, we've gone from 9 candidates to 3 real ones, one of whom is questionable. Next week we should get a couple more of official dropouts and possibly the functional elimination of Clark.

The field is narrowing and with the choices that are being made, so are the Democratic hopes of winning the Presidential election in November. This election may be one of the most clear deliniations between liberal and conservative that we've had in years.