The Noble Pundit

They Earned It

222 sailors sworn in as Americans under presidential order .

They came here and volunteered to risk their lives for a nation that they didn't officially belong to. They understand the American Dream and appreciate the sacrifice that has to be made from time to time to ensure that perpetuation of that dream.

They came here with the hope of one day being able to call themselves "an American citizen." They have worked and sacrificed to be able to call themselves " an American citizen." And today, they can go home calling themselves "an American citizen."

Congratulations, gentlemen. You've earned your citizenship.

Quick Links

Looks like I probably should have stopped writing before my Pakistan post today. Doesn't seem to be my most popular posting (to put it mildly).

So before I end up with no readers, here's tonights Quick Links:

Why African-American boys often fail in school - I want to write something on this, I really do. But I'll keep my mouth shut about parental involvement, returning to teaching the basics, and stuff like that before I stick my foot in my mouth (again).

Why EU Pharmaceutical Companies are Being Forced to Relocate - The EU is slowly starting to learn about economics.

Woman Who Went to Iraq as 'human Shield' Faces Federal Fine - saw this over at On The Third Hand this morning also. Why is it news that the government is enforcing the laws?

Scientists devise formula for happy marriage - Too bad they came up with a mathematical formula. Guess I still need to keep looking for the other one.

Freedom and Firearms - Just read it.

There will be one more posting tonight. I normally don't post after the Quick Links, but I'm going to make an exception tonight for this story.

So This Is Why Kite Flying Was Illegal

So now we figure out why the Taliban banned kites. It wasn't because of religion, it was a safety issue.

What possesses people to coat their kite strings in ground glass or to use wire? Are they so unhappy with their lives that they have to destroy anything that might bring joy to someone else?

These folks don't need anti-kite legislation. They need common sense.

Is North Korea Next?

The liberals are already starting to sound the warning about a possible US war with North Korea.

Now North Korea itself is of course engaged in a vast propaganda effort to secure their safety. But now the media in the West has begun the usual process of warning of "quagmire" and talking about how we're "bogged down" other places.

A nuclear armed North Korea is a problem that cannot be allowed to develop. Kim Jong Il is not exactly a model of sane leadership. A nuclear weapon in his hand is nearly as bad as one in Bin Laden's. The only difference is that Kim has a nation to lose in addition to his life, Bin Laden only has his life.

The fact that the Pentagon is talking about a thirty to sixty day war as we go into talks with the NKs is a good thing. It puts them on notice that we've already advanced pretty deeply into the planning process for their elimination as a threat to world security. Having the NKs looking over their shoulder in paranoia (more than they already do) will be a good thing. The more they are distracted by trying to figure us out, the more likely they are to make a mistake.

I'd like to see NK implode economically and become a non-factor in the world. It may still happen, but in the mean time, we have got to prepare to take them on militarily should they become a nuclear threat.

The ball is really in NKs court. We are going to react to whatever path they choose. If you want to change the current collision course, talk to Kim. He's running the show.

These Frivolous Lawsuits Are Going Too Far

As if you didn't have enough to worry about, now we have this.

Makes me glad I do my writing on a computer.

America: A Threat To Humanity?

I read somewhere a while back that in Pakistan, the government uses retired military personnel to espouse some of the more controversial policies in case they prove to be too over the top and then the government has plausible deniability that the crackpot theory isn't the "official" government position.

Well, it looks like they're at it again. According to a retired colonel, America is the number one threat to the human race.

He accuses us of wanting to murder, kill and maim. He asserts that we invent reasons to attack other nations so that we can perfect our killing and can satisfy our need for human blood. From the best I can tell, he believes that there was no connection between Islam and 9/11; there was no connection between the Taliban and Bin Laden; it was a mere invention of Bush to justify his wanton killing sprees.

He concludes by expressing the fear that one day the American thirst for blood will lead to a nuclear conflict.

I think someone needs to introduce this guy to bottom of a certain seven story hole in Manhattan. Then maybe we can have a friendly discussion about the nationality and religion of the 19 ordinary folks who happened to end up flying those three airplanes after the pilots mysteriously surrendered control. Perhaps a conversation about their past travels, such as the trips to that Islamic paradise known as the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, would be in order. His visit to New York should be completed with 3000+ reasons why we went after the terrorists, read out name by name.

Take him out to the Minuteman sites and quiz him on how many have ever been fired against an enemy - real or perceived. Show him the USS Florida and ask him ask many of it's Trident IVs have been loosed. Put him in a rowboat in front of the USS Nimitz and ask him how many nuclear bombs have been dropped from planes flying from its deck. If we're as bloodthirsty as he theorizes, why isn't his greatest concern the radiation fallout drifting east from Baghdad?

Or are we maybe not as great a threat to humanity as he supposes?

Maybe he needs to view the people shredders of Baghdad. Maybe he needs to visit the chemical killing fields of the Iran/Iraq War. Maybe he needs to visit Pol Pot's killing fields. I would say that he needed to visit the WTC to see Bin Laden's killing fields, but we've already taken him there.

Perhaps he should spend some time distributing food to the Iraqis - alongside American soldiers. Perhaps he should spend some time in US military field hospitals with US military doctors - providing basic health care, denied by the Muslim Saddam, to Iraqis. Maybe he should put aside his misogyny and go see some of the girls going to school in Afghanistan.

The US isn't perfect. We have made and will make mistakes. But we're a damn sight better than being the biggest threat to humanity today.

Think I'm wrong? Ask the Liberians, who are begging us to come. Ask the French who are begging us to go to Liberia. Ask Hussein Khomeini, who thinks that the current regime in Tehran is the world's worst dictatorship (see last post).

If this is the position, stated or otherwise, of Musharref, then it's time for him to go. India is a better friend anyhow.

Separation of Mosque & State In Iran?

Could it be? Could there actually be a budding movement afoot in Iran to split the stranglehold of Islam on the government in Tehran? It sounds like the grandson of the Ayatollah Khomeini is trying to do just that.

Hussein Khomeini is apparently enough of a threat to the regime in Tehran that they have sent out their thugs, the Revolutionary Guard, to try and track him down and assassinate him.

But where is he "hiding?" In Iraq. Specifically, in Najaf. The same city where the top religious leadership is accepting the American military as liberators, not oppressors.

So Khomeini, the grandson of the Yankee-hating revolutionary, is now taking refuge in a city whose freedom and security is being assured by a US-led military coalition. It says something about the US that he, the blood descendant of one of the most anti-American people in history, knows that he can enter an area under US military control and feel safe.

But even that isn't the most intriguing part of this story. Instead it is the fact that he, of all people, is calling a spade a spade. He has called out the Iranian clerics as "...the tyrannical rule of religion that was reminiscent of the rule of the Church during Europe's Dark Ages." He also refers to the clerics as "the world's worst dictatorship."

If you're Ali Khameini sitting there exploiting the situation left by the Ayatollah Khomeini, then getting called out by his blood is probably the worst thing that could happen to you. You're people are already disaffected with you, to put it mildly. The students are nearly ready to turn you into the next Mussolini. And now, the one person who can probably have the most damaging effect on your last shred of credibility or legitimacy comes out with a comment like this: "All those who took control of the centers of power of Iran after my grandfather are exploiting his name, the name of Islam, and the religious regime so as to continue their tyrannical rule."

Looking back, the Iranian dissidents have really been missing one thing in their quest for freedom: a vocal, unafraid, charismatic person to rally around. Sure, the Son of the Shah has tried, but he just strikes me as not quite having what it takes. He's sitting thousands of miles away in Los Angeles, wearing Armani, broadcasting back messages. Hussein Khomeini is there, on the ground, his distance from Tehran measured in hundreds, not thousands, of miles. He is talking and rallying under the threat of death from the Revolutionary Guard.

Khomeini has the potential to be the leader of the next revolution, if he wants it. Pundits looking in on Iran from a distance have noted that the government is a house of cards, more likely to fall from within than due to external pressure. Khomeini appears, at first blush, to be one of the key cards in that house. Khomeini may be able to split the Iranian regime from within and to speed to collapse of the tyrannical terrorists running things in Tehran.

Khomeini may not be the best choice out there (I don't know, but he sure seems better than the LA playboy), but he seems to be thinking in terms of real freedom for Iran. The mainstream media has picked up the story and is starting to spread the word. It's time for Bush to make a quick decision.

Do we support the grandson of the Ayatollah Khomeini or do we hold out for someone else?

I think it's time for us to support the (new) Khomeini-led Revolution.

Quick Links

Must Elected Officials Answer The People's Petitions? Can We Withhold Our Money If They Refuse? - Interesting lawsuit and the questions it asks are excellent and pertinent. Too bad the media will give the Supreme Court cover to dismiss it as being fro a bunch of crackpots.

Poland is Doing the Right Things - Those calling for Iraqi perfection in three months should read this. Thirteen years Poland has been working on the same kind of stuff, and while they've made excellent progress, they still have a way to go. It is not and will not be an overnight process.

U.S. Seeks Ideas to Promote Cuba Change - It's good to see the Administration focusing on bringing down Castro. The man should have been gone a long time ago.

Democracy in Iraq? It's a Fairy Tale - I think the author needs to read the article on Poland and he also needs to realize that even our system took more than three months to develop. The term "unreasonable expectations" keeps coming to mind for some reason.

How Canada Threatens North American Security - You know, there's been a real dearth of "Blame Canada" articles lately. This should take care of that.

Most Shocking Gay Day Event Ever At Walt Disney World - Breathless over-reaction and selctive reporting to counter the absolute utter lack of consideration shown by the participants. As usual, the truth lies between the two extremes.

Using A Laser To Get Rid Of Nuclear Waste

Now I'm no nuclear physicist (I don't even play one on TV), but this new experiment showing it might be possible to make radioactive waste safe using a laser sounds real intriguing.

I found this article while trolling the boards at Free Republic. They seem to have a pretty good discussion going in the comments in which the feasibility of the idea is being discussed. So far, I think I've been able to follow it pretty well and the idea would require a somewhat specialized laser and there is still a question of large scale viability of the idea (in other words, can you process a large quantity of nuclear waste with this or is it only applicable in a small quantity lab environment?).

But the important thing is that the idea seems to have some merit. If we can find a way to get rid of the nuclear waste problem, we may have just found the perfect way to start rapidly reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

And that alone, is good enough reason to keep pursuing this.

It's Poetry Time!

While I was perusing a comment board related to that last post, I came across a rather interesting, if somewhat, depressing poem that I thought I'd share:

I'd Love to Change the World by Ten Years After

Everywhere is
Freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies
Tell me where is sanity

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you

Are Gays Better Parents?

3. Gild Every Lily. When the media are riding a giant story like this one, they can be relied on to throw caution to the wind and start buying into pure silliness. Thus, homosexuals are not just human beings deserving of all the rights and privileges of other human beings. They're now superhuman, capable of stunning feats no hetero could hope to achieve.

In a health column of July 1, Times columnist Jane Brody noted that there's extensive research showing that "children raised by gay parents are not significantly different from those raised by straight parents." Fair enough, but that's not all. A new study reveals "that if anything, gay parents might do better, having gone to considerable trouble to become parents and being determined to raise children who respect themselves and others while remaining tolerant of diversity."

Got that? Gay men and women are not like other parents -- who, last time I checked, were good, bad, and mediocre, depending on the individual. No, gays actually have an edge. To report on such a study is legitimate. To report on it uncritically, as Brody did, is absurd. In their enthusiasm for a noble cause, media people often wind up undermining it.

So this has been a big summer for the homosexual movement. The gay train does seem to have left the station and it's picking up steam as it moves towards general mainstream acceptance, right?

In some respects, yes. But, for me, the above quoted passage illustrates why the gay movement won't be achieving complete acceptance anytime soon.

Are gays better parents than heterosexuals? In some cases, sure. Is it because of their sexual preference? Not a chance.

A parent, gay or straight, will develop decent parenting skills if they love the child and they're interested in being a parent. I saw a story on the 11 o'clock news last night about a lady who locked her teenage kids in their rooms (windows boarded with plywood) because she didn't want to deal with them. She had no parenting skills simply because she wasn't interested in being a parent; they interfered with her lifestyle.

She was a terrible parent. Did her sexual preference play any role in her treatment of the kids? No. She wasn't interested in being a mom so she wasn't.

And there have been many gay parents who do a just fine job of raising normal, mentally healthy kids. Does their sexual preference have anything to do with it? No. If the kid comes out good, it's because they cared enough to work on being the best possible parent they could be. It is a function of love and effort.

Now both groups, heterosexual parents and homosexual parents are large enough to be described with a Bell Curve. In each group a certain number of parents will be excellent, most are decent, and a few suck. And I find it hard to believe that sexual orientation is going to do anything to shift those Curves in favor of the homosexuals.

Homosexuals are, like heterosexuals, regular human beings who are bound to make mistakes. Some gays will be better people than others, but that holds true for the heterosexuals also.

Reporting like this (blatantly fawning and unresearched efforts) will do more harm to the gay movement than anything else. It's usually considered to be poor form to have your minions fight for your acceptance by berating those whom you want to accept you.

Can't They Be Happy?

Can't the media ever be happy with anything?

They are now using an FBI analysis to cast doubt on the idea that the passengers of Flight 93 forced the airplane to the ground.

So the hijackers may have deliberately crashed the airplane to end a passenger uprising. Or they may not have. Either way, the actions of the passengers on that flight directly led to the series of events that brought the plane down in Pennsylvania instead of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The passengers are still heroes. Maybe they didn't get to the hijackers before the plane plowed the field, but the hijackers didn't get to their goal either. The passenger died in a valiant and successful effort to prevent the deaths of thousands more Americans; the terrorists died in a blaze of abject failure.

Short of the revelation that Flight 93 crashed due to a combination of a massive computer and mechanical failure, we don't need to be calling into question the value of the heroism of the passengers. They took action to earn our respect; they deserve to be honored with it.

Ashcroft Doesn't Like Porn?!?

Surprise, surprise. John Ashcroft has begun his great anti-porn crusade. Civil libertarians, the left and those who believe that the Attorney General isn't doing enough in the war on terrorism are all, of course, up in arms about this.

"....what an absolute waste of tax payers money, and limited law enforcement resources this is. Leave them alone."

"I am a pretty uptight conservative but shouldn't we be tracking down alqueda terrorists instead of these (sick) people?"

"Your tax dollars at work and your personal safety being disregarded."

(All quotes taken from the posting at Free Republic.com)

Now I think that we could probably be doing a more effective job in the war on terror. But the AG is responsible for upholding all the laws of the land, not just those that are the most popular or that the public thinks are the most pressing issues of the day. He doesn't get to decide which laws he wants to enforce today; they have to all be equal as far as he is concerned.

Now if someone wants to partake in pornography, that's their business. I personally don't really care what people watch in the privacy of their homes.

However, if the community has decided that a certain act being portrayed on paper or cellulose is obscene, then the porn companies have a responsibility to observe that community standard. Using the Postal Service for an out of state company to violate the local laws is a federal issue, which makes it the business of the AG, John Ashcroft.

And Ashcroft is doing exactly what we hired him to do: he's enforcing the laws as they are written.

Now you might be able to argue that sex, rape and murder aren't really obscene. And taken individually, they generally aren't considered to be so. On many mainstream TV shows all three are considered to be acceptable, if risque, topics.

But a graphic combination of two out of the three is the question here. And, in my opinion, a combination of two of those acts is obscene. These aren't NYPD in the buff, these are "knock her up and knock her off." It's a little much.

If someone wants to buy a tape of people engaging in various acts, hetero or homosexual, that's fine. It's just that some people are pushing the extremes a little too far right now.

And if Ashcroft wants to use existing federal law, as it was intended, to bring them down - that's just fine by me.

Quick Links

Robert Prather brought out his email listing a number of the potential candidates for the 75 Greatest Americans and I'm tired at the moment, so I'm going to go back to holding off on disclosing my list until Sunday.

Saudi Arabia's naked emperor - It's good to see the Saudi's getting called out for what they are.

JetBlue U Heading To Orange County - a job opportunity for me maybe? Hopefully?

Couric on Schwarzenegger: “He's the Son of a Nazi Party Member” - the sins of the father should not be visited on the son. Period.

Democrats file lawsuit to keep from being arrested - It's time to grow up and just go back to work - or return the portion of your salary that the taxpayers of Texas have given you for nothing.

Swollen Orders Show Spam's Allure - Gee, these must be the same people that respond to the Nigerian scammail also. I can understand why they need the pills. Obviously they're lacking as it is......

'A Slap in the Face' - This isn't a way to win votes, George. Jesse isn't exactly the best choice for a meeting. Is Sharpton next on the agenda?

Woman going to trial disputes state's validity - Breast feeding a baby while driving and her husband argues that the troopers haven't been properly trained? I think some common sense training might be in order for the couple....

When They Burn Books....

Religion seems to be a popular theme here with me lately. Found another interesting story, but one in which I will not support the Church.

The Jesus Non-Denominational Church in Greenville, Michigan had a book burning recently.

They burned Harry Potter, non-King James versions of the Bible, Shania Twain CDs, Dan Aykroyd movies and who knows what else.

This is too much. There is no justifiable reason for something like this. I don't care how bad you think "Coneheads" was, there is no reason for declaring it the work of Satan.

Burning other people's ideas, whether expressed through books or recordings is an extreme step, and one which it really concerns me to see someone take.

And besides, what makes the King James Bible so sacrosanct? It's just one particular translation of a translation. It is no more right or wrong than any other interpretation.

Does The Government Oppose Christianity?

I've been noticing lately a fairly sharp increase in the number of politicians that are taking cheap potshots at the Church. A few days ago it was John Kerry, now it comes out that one of Gray Davis' aides has chastised a bishop for reminding Davis of his religious teachings. This is getting to be too much.

Bishop Weigand is justified, even required by his position, to remind Davis of the teachings of the Catholic Church. As a citizen of the United States he has every right to participate in the political process regardless of his position. In the political process his voice carries as much weight as a homeless man in Oakland - which is exactly as much as Davis himself assigns it.

The Bishop has no explicit authority over Davis. It is entirely Gray's choice as to whether or not he remains a practicing member of the Catholic Church.

The Bishop cannot force Davis to change his stand on abortion. He can only end the Church's relationship with Davis. At that point (or any point for that matter) Davis is free to find another, more liberal Church or to renounce his faith.

By the same token, Davis cannot force the Church to change its view on abortion. He can, however, also end his relationship with the Church. Losing a high profile member such as Davis certainly cannot be good for the public image of the Church, especially if the split is contentious and public.

So, if both parties are essentially free to choose this relationship, why are the politicians throwing such a fit all of the sudden about the Church actually doing what they said they would?

Probably because many of the politicians don't really care about their faith any more. They subscribe to a particular faith simply because their parents were of that faith or they think that there might be some votes from joining.

They cloak themselves in religion, but they don't actually care about the moral teachings that the religion provides. As such, when a religious leader reminds them that faith actually involves paying regards to moral and ethical guidelines they throw a fit about "separation of church and state." Religion is a club they join, not a faith they practice.

The rules and moral teachings of faith are a hindrance to their unfettered hedonism. Morals mean giving up some of the pleasures of the flesh. Ethics mean giving up some of the evils of the mind. In either case, it's not anywhere as much fun.

It seems like lately the Church, in particular the Catholic Church, has been taking a more proactive stance on reminding their parishioners of the moral teachings of Christ. And they're doing it publicly: Daschle has already been excommunicated, Kerry was publicly chastised, and now Davis. If there is one thing politicians hate, it's being publicly called out on their hypocrisy.

I think perhaps we'll be seeing more of these types of articles as we go on. And that's a good thing. The Church shouldn't be an integral part of the State, but they should remind the "faithful" of their responsibilities as people of religion.

The Church has every right to participate in the political process. It's good to see them finally doing so again.

A Great Site For News On Iran

When I got home today I found an email from ActivistChat.com. It is a site that compiles news and opinion from multiple sources and makes them accessible in one central location.

It's a great site for those interested in following the move towards democracy in Iran.

Greatest Americans List

OK, so I was planning on keeping my list secret until Sunday so as to not influence anyone. But then Robert Prather emailed this morning and asked if he could send my list around as an example (probably of what not to do!)

So, since it's going to be going around anyway, tonight I'll post it, along with much more in depth explainations of why I chose a person (each entry has a little personal notation that helped me to keep track, but it doesn't always give the whole story).

So once I post it, if you don't like my choices, go and make your own list and send it over to Robert. Then you can tell me why I'm wrong.

Quick Links

Islam stops Iran having nuclear arms - Rafsanjani - <Dr. Evil voice>Right....</Dr. Evil voice>

Does Islam threaten democracy? - certain segments of Islam, absolutely.

Iran and Cuba Zap U.S. Satellites - This probably won't be one of Castro's better moves.

Lieberman Concerned About Dean's Candidacy Tugging Others to the Left - Keep tugging Howard, keep tugging. You'll simply eliminate yourself as a viable candidate.

Heatwave puts Swedish bus driver in touch with his feminine side - ok, but at 77 degrees? I don't think it gets down to 77 here at night!

Photo: Missile Gets Saddam's Sons - Is it THE missile? Who knows, but it is a cool picture anyways.

Misguided Libertarians Are Hindering the War on Terrorism - Should read "Civil Libertarians," but the bottom line is that the PATRIOT Act still goes too far. Changes were needed, but PATRIOT should have been tempered some. Too bad our politicians don't actually do the job we hired them to, you know stuff like reading bills and voting for the interests of their constituents.

Another Reason To Not Dump The Constitution

One of my great fears if we try to replace the US Constitution is that, given the current lack of brevity in the world today, we will end up with some wordy banana republic document that gets amended 100 times in 5 years before a military junta takes over. And when you look at the newly proposed EU Constitution and the US Constitution you can get an idea as to why I might be concerned.

Any more, it seems like we no longer want to define rights in terms of what the government can't do, but rather in terms of what we can expect from the government. The EU Constitution isn't a framework; it is a list of do's and don'ts for the people. In the EU people will only have the rights granted by the government; in the US, theoretically, the government is only allowed the rights granted to it by the people - through the Constitution.

The difference is small in that it is really only a change in the order of the words. But in practice, it is a huge and significant difference. And one that we need to protect.

That is why I think that we shouldn't even consider replacing the Constitution.

Odds, Ends, & Miscellaneous Stuff

Posting will be light tonight as I just finished up my list of 75 great Americans at the request of Robert Prather. After a while of trying to figure out who fit where, I realized that, to me at least, there is much difference between the importance of number 5 and of number 50. It is only really once I get into the last 25 names that I can confidently say they shouldn't be ranked higher than they are. I'll publish my list Sunday night if anyone is interested (and assuming Robert doesn't disqualify me for spite with my sarcastic #76).

I've also been performing penance tonight, as I've decided that at some point, the Messiah came back as a frog that I promptly ran over and I'm being tortured on a cosmic scale for having done so. It's the only reasonable explanation I can come up with for my luck lately.

On Friday, my friend Joe (he of the sidebar ad) comes to visit my work. We go to walk across the street to get a drink at the convienence store. On the way out he starts making fun of the guy filling out an application. Tells me by the time we get back, the owner will have hired this guy.

He was right. But it gets worse. The guy is a flamer. Like in the two homosexuals I already worked with, he is like the junior version of the promiscuous one. The now two flamers are so bad that the responsible one told me today that he wants to be considered bisexual so that he doesn't get lumped with these two. They scared a gay man straight (or at least straighter than he was).

I have got to - got to - find a new job. This is ridiculous.

Quick Links

Bush's oil move backfires - It's all about the oil and always has been. Oil, oil, oil. Courtesy of our friends at the Guardian.

Pumping oil into government reserve may have added to price increases, critics charge - More oil, oil, oil. But this time it's Bush's fault that oil is going up becuase he's diverting too much to the Strategic Reserve.

Trojan horse found responsible for child porn - This would suck. And friends ask why I have two firewalls along with the standard anti-virus regime....

Racist?! - Haven't been accused of racism yet, but I have been accused of channeling evil. Does that count?

More On The Constitution

So yesterday I mentioned how I was in agreement with Jeff at Caerdroia about the problems with the current expansive interpretation of the Constitution. Today, though, it hit me that I don't agree with the main premise of his post which was that we need a new Constitution.

Our current Constitution represents an ideal that we are constantly striving towards. We may never get there, but it is the ultimate goal for us politically.

America is a land of strivers. We try and try and try to achieve the impossible - and quite often we succeed. Our Constitution gives us something concrete to shoot for.

Now it's true that ever since FDR stacked the Supreme Court the literalist interpretation of the Constitution has been under attack. Government has expanded and morphed in ways that the Framers never could have imagined. And I don't disagree that we have moved away from the original intent of the Constitution, which was to limit the power of government.

But there is hope. While reading an article in the Washington Dispatch, I came across this (talking about Reagan):

For the previous fifty years, the premise had been that the government had a role and responsibility in just about everything. All problems, real or contrived, were appropriately within the scope of government action. The debate had been about what was the best way for government to address a problem. How large a role should the government have? How much should it cost? How should the program be structured? Was it better to have the problems addressed by the "efficient" Republicans or the "compassionate" Democrats? How would the government program be most effective so that we got "the biggest bang for the buck"?

Republican or Democrat, Ike or FDR, Nixon or Kennedy, Ford or Johnson, the details may have differed but the underlying debate was based upon the same premise....the government had a role and a responsibility.

Reagan changed that debate. The debate became about whether the federal government should be involved at all in addressing a problem. Perhaps the government did not have a role in every corner of life and economic activity. Perhaps by being involved, the government not only did not help, but made things worse. This was a dramatic change and if Reagan could not implement or enact all he wished, he had taken a very important first step, a step that had to be taken before action and accomplishment could follow.

We're trying to undo fifty years of damage, most of which was caused as a reaction to a great calamity (the Depression). The process won't be easy, as evidenced by the fact that it took fifty years just to change the nature of the debate. Those were just the first baby steps in swinging the pendulum back towards sanity. It will be a long and tiresome process to reign in the expanse of the federal government, but it is something we can do.

If we want to.

And our Constitution will sit there as the end goal of the effort. It will be the beacon that we strive for.

To replace it with a mediocre document would be to ignore the American mindset. It would almost be an admission of defeat - a statement that we couldn't live up to the expectations of the Framers.

And I don't believe that that's true. We can live up to those expectations. We can honor the wisdom they passed on to us in that document.

In order to have a successful call for a Constitutional Convention, people would have to be educated on what is so wrong with the current system that it requires a radical overhaul. If that kind of effort can be organized, it needs to be used to educate people on why they need to elect representatives that actually respect the document and don't just look at it as a hindrance to their unfettered access to political pork.

Then we could keep striving for the elusive ideal and we wouldn't have to change the Constitution.

Let the other countries wimp out on their goals. We need to keep working towards ours.

Another Anti-Anti-Bush Article

Lately I've been noticing a marked increase in the number of anti-Bush bashing articles, like this one, that have been appearing in various places around the web and in the media.

I'm starting to think that the angle has been played out. Sure the articles are generally well written, well thought out and will almost always have some unique, insightful, or witty commentary. But come on. Do we really need three or four a week?

It's getting to the point where you can almost see the outline of the generic anti-Bush bashing article forming. Find a particular event (the event du jour is the State of the Union line), talk about how it has been over hyped. Then continue on to talk about how the point is being over hyped because the Democrats are losing relevance due to extreme leftism, September 11, whatever. Throw in a couple of comments about the War on Terror and a snide shot at Clinton and voila! You've got your article done.

Now I'm not a fan of the Bush bashing either, but this is getting ridiculous. It's like a cookie cutter. Show some creativity already.

Politics is a war of ideas. These "why do they bash Bush?" articles do nothing to further the conservative cause. There are no new ideas in them, only reaction to accusations of the liberals. Whoever breaks out of this cycle of accusation and rebuttal to come up with a real thought will have the advantage.

If the conservatives want to keep control, it's time to change the game.

My, What An Evil Oppressor We Are!

At the end of World War I, the Great Powers imposed the Treaty of Versailles on Germany as a form of retribution for the damage caused by the war. At the end of World War II, the United States imposed the brutally oppressive Marshall Plan as retribution for the damage Germany and Japan caused. And now, we are brutally oppressing the Iraqis by making them fill out claim forms if they think that we caused them damage. Over 2500 claims have been filed against us since the end of major hostilities.

Victorious nations around the world will be cringing at the wicked precedent we are setting here. To the victor goes the spoils, right? What kind of deranged victor pays the vanquished for damages caused?

Maybe the kind that has actually gone to war for (to an extent) humanitarian reasons. Maybe the kind that actually has true concern for the welfare of the innocents.

Maybe it's the kind of victor that is guided by an internal moral compass that can make judgmental distinctions between right and wrong.

Maybe it's the American people.

We said from day one that this wasn't a war against the Iraqi people, it was a war against Saddam and his cadre of loonies. That was the promise we made to the Iraqi people before we went in. And our moral compass says that if we damage the property or well-being of an innocent, we have to make it as close to right as possible.

In the case of property damage, we pay to repair the property; to make it whole again. In the case of personal injury, we are obviously taking a bit more thorough approach, not out of a desire to minimize the suffering of the Iraqi claimant, but to make sure that proper restitution is paid out or proper care provided.

Our accurate moral compass has also garnered other benefits for us.

The four main clerics in Najaf have lined up behind the US, calling for the rule of law and order. In the cities under the influence of the clerics, US troops have been welcomed as "liberators rather than occupiers."

But even more significantly, under the instigation of one young radical cleric there has been some discontent and calls for an immediate American withdrawal.

But instead of the Iraqis rallying to the anti-American rhetoric, they have instead made a public notice of their intention to defend the four moderate clerics.

If we were truly oppressive or unconcerned for the plight of the Iraqi people, the Iraqis themselves would have rallied around the young cleric Sadr. Our moral compass, our sense of right and wrong, has been helping the Shi'ites to feel more comfortable in working with us, rather than against us. They realize we're not perfect, but as the claims program shows, we try to make right our mistakes.

We must maintain the course our compass charts for us.

So Who's The Navigator For The Road Map?

This morning, while I was pulling MapQuest directions for a delivery at work, I surfed on over to the Jerusalem Post and found this article and thought to myself "Here's a story only a conspiracy theorist could love." So I emailed myself the link, so that I would be able to write something about how far fetched the satire was.

Now that's not to say that there isn't duplicity in the dealings in the Middle East, God only knows there is. It's just that at first blush, it all just seemed too fanciful to be true.

But tonight, as I was rereading it again, I started trying to really poke hole in the espoused theories. But I found it really difficult to do so, as while they were all extreme theories, there was a logic behind them. I don't think that Bush or Sharon are playing the Arabian Nights game, but I do believe that Abu Mazen might be and Hamas most certainly is.

Hamas is definitely playing everyone for the fool. Which I find really to be amazing since they aren't even a party to the Road Map. But they have positioned and parlayed themselves into a power broker spot and they are exploiting it to the max.

Hamas, not Bush, not Sharon, is propping up Abu Mazen. If Hamas says Abu Mazen goes; he goes. Bush and Sharon don't hold that kind of sway over the Palestinian Authority. Hamas is the real power in the territories now.

And it's not is if they're using their power for peaceful ends. The ceasefire was agreed to in order to give Hamas an opportunity to retrench and rearm in anticipation of the next wave of attacks on Israel. And now it looks as if they will succeed in upping the ante for the next time round.

The J-Post article was almost the conspiracy theorists perfect dream. It still may be. Hamas is playing a duplicitous game. Do Bush and Sharon or even Abu Mazen have what it takes to untangle the web of lies?

Quick Links

There are a few more links in here than usual tonight:

The Need for a New Constitution - Jeff Medcalf at Caerdroia has a good essay on some of the problems with the current interpretations of the Constitution. I think we need to move back to a more strict interpretation, also.

The Bush strategy that beat bin Laden and destroyed Saddam - excellent article, but it maybe gives too much credit to Bush and not enough to the US people.

Eco-Terrorism Torch - I think that we need to put some real pressure onto the eco-terrorists.

Officer `B. Gettin' a new job after buying motorcycle - Proof that wearing a badge doesn't necessarily make you bright.

Lieberman: Dems Must Shun Gov't Programs - Lieberman moves towards the center. At times, he almost sounds reasonable.

Even Italy Realizes Economic Dangers of Kyoto - And we start to look a little bit more prescient for rejecting Kyoto.

New Word Wars in the Trenches - The cheapening of the English language is becoming a real problem. We are losing our ability to communicate distinction as more and more words have their meanings twisted for political means.

Death marches at double in Iraq but US public unaware - How the use of "statistics" and "military observers" can lend credibility to complete and utter bunk.

FBI: U.S. awash in spies - And next we'll hear the EU complain that the US is bugging their headquarters building. Seriously though, who didn't know that there are industrial spies working here? We needed the FBI to warn us about this?

Marriage & Parenting

The whole gay marriage discussion over at One Hand Clapping has been morphing somewhat into a discussion (a good one, I might add) of why the institution of marriage came about and what strengths it brings to a society. The whole discussion, which I've been following pretty closely, has really clarified in my mind a few points.

First, "marriage" is probably the wrong word to use when referring to homosexual unions which enjoy the same legal protections as heterosexual marriages. The phrase "civil union" has already been bandied about as a possible replacement term. I don't know what else to call it, but the term "marriage" to describe two partners of the same sex seems to be a real point of contention (and I can understand why).

Second, regardless of the legal status of homosexual unions, under no circumstances do they have the right to have them blessed by a church which stands opposed to same sex unions. If the Catholic Church wants to remain opposed to the unions, as it probably should since they would go against all the teachings of the Church for the last couple of millennia, it is the right of the Church to decide what its stance is and to discriminate against those in violation of that stance. That means if the Church wants to refuse to bless the union, that's fine. If the Church wants to excommunicate homosexual partners, that's fine too. The gays have no right whatsoever to dictate to the Church what its teachings should be. And the government has no right to tell the Church that they can't discriminate against those who violate its teachings. The whole "separation of church and state" thing is a two way street.

And my final, and most strongly held, point is that just because a man gets a woman pregnant, does not necessarily mean that he is the best possible father for that child. Just because he was the sperm donor doesn't mean that he's going to care a lick about those kids.

And I know that this is true.

For those who haven't caught on yet, I "live in sin" with my girlfriend and her three kids. Three kids, two fathers. And neither one gives a damn about their kids.

One of them has literally stolen food from his two kids. He also stole and sold toys and electronics that he knew his kids used. In the last five plus years, he has paid a grand total of $25.00 in child support. We buy them birthday and Christmas presents, and put his name on them so that he doesn't look to them as a total deadbeat. The last time he came to a birthday party he was drunk. Is he really the best possible parent out there for those kids?

The other one is over $2000 behind in his child support payments. He promises, promises, and promises everything and anything to his daughter, yet he never follows through. He borrowed $100 from his mother, supposedly to help buy his kid a car; he spent the money on beer instead. He is constantly drunk; he has also come to birthday parties for the little ones drunk as a skunk. His only concern in life is where that next beer is coming from. Is he the best possible parent out there for his kid?

I'm not claiming to be perfect, far from it. God only knows that I've made more than my fair share of mistakes as I came into this whole parenting thing and had to take on an 11 year old, a 3 year old and a two year old - without any preparation at all.

But part of why I'm here is because right after I met my girlfriend, her ex was a drunk and the little ones' father stole her last food money. For some reason, I decided to be charitable and kind and I loaned her the money to get them food. Five years later, here we are. We aren't wealthy by any means - right now we're just barely making ends meet - but the kids have never wanted for food. They haven't had to worry about Daddy stealing the car and disappearing for weeks on end. They don't worry about the landlord coming around with the sheriff to evict them. They actually have somewhat normal, if monetarily poor, lives.

I have to believe that I'm doing a better job than their biological fathers ever would have cared to do. They're not "my" kids, but they are my kids.

It isn't right to define parent, mother or father by using biological donations. Procreating does not make someone a parent. Caring for and protecting a child, that makes someone a parent.

The best possible parent for a child is the one who truly loves it. Marriage or biological relation is not the only determining factor.

Quick Links

Here are some of the more interesting articles I found, but didn't talk about today:

Sharon's history lesson - a very interesting look at the history leading to the Road Map from Sharon's point of view.

Tilt to totalitarianism - Is Putin starting to head down the same road as so many before?

Counterfeit drugs hit pharmacies - Hopefully the problem is as small as the FDA says it is. Otherwise, we could be in for a real crisis as our population starts to age.

Which brings me to my last link of the night:

Ageing Europe is unprepared - Some folks are starting to catch on over there. They are really faced with two options now: get their fiscal house in order, or take whatever immigrants they can get - the first option won't happen and the second will greatly increase the number of Muslims and Hollywood stars living in Europe. Kind of makes me really glad I'm not living there.

NEA Invades South Korea

When your nation's very existence is dependant on the US, is it really a wise idea to keep tweaking us? In South Korea, the Korea Teachers and Educational Workers Union thinks so.

The more I see this kind of stuff coming out of Korea, the more I think that our men there would be better stationed someplace friendly like Australia or even back home.

I think that South Korean President would change his mind about the quiz if we left him to deal with Kim Jong Il on his own.

After all, we should strive to be more like that fourth choice, right?

Isn't A Search Warrant Supposed To Violate Privacy?

But this does actually bring up an interesting dilemma.

A search warrant is supposed to allow law enforcement to find something you want to keep private. Violation of privacy is the whole idea of the warrant.

But, the defendant is supposed to have the ability to challenge the basis on which the warrant was obtained, as a protection against abuse by the government.

The defendant has the right to defend himself against the evidence presented against him - including the manner in which it was acquired. In this case, it doesn't seem as though the defendant is being afforded that right.

I understand the national security concerns involved here, but we also have to balance that against the need to protect the rights of the accused until such time as they are convicted. The government has got to find a better of way of handling these situations.

A defendant shouldn't have his only defense reduced to the fact that a search warrant violates his privacy. The government got to present their case to a judge; the defense is entitled to rebut that government's cases point by point.

To take away that right is to take away too much. The potential consequences of abuse are just too great.

How Can Gray Davis Survive?

Quit listening to the Democratic Party. Some Democrats want him to stay low-profile; some like Pelosi want him to take charge.

Campaign consultants say he's doomed if he stays aggressive and in the spotlight. Pelosi believes he's doomed if he goes low-profile. So what do we learn from this?

If you sell out to special interests and ignore the voters, you're doomed either way.

I really hope other politicians are taking note of the real consequences of disrespecting their constituencies.

Oh, Great. Another Potential Entitlement

Isn't it bad enough that we already have people that vote like they're drunk? Now the Norwegians will allow you to actually be drunk while voting.

How long before some special interest group like "The United Alcoholics of America" or Gray Davis decides that this is an excellent idea for America, so as to not disenfranchise those with some "minor" alcohol issues?

US Supreme Court Basing Decisions On Foreign Precedent?

I think that this is pushing the bounds of "good behavior" as defined in the Constitution (Article III, Section I).

The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret laws written by Congress and to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

The only tools needed for the job are the Constitution itself and common sense.

The Supreme Court is not supposed to formulate law. It is not supposed to make popular decisions (only ones that are consistent with the Constitution). It is most certainly not supposed to be looking to foreign courts for "guidance" on important issues.

To do so is to abdicate the Court's responsibility in favor of some "global view of judicial decision-making."

We don't pay Justice Ginsburg to care what the French think, we pay her to make judgments about US laws as they relate to the Constitution. That is it.

If Justice Ginsburg wants to introduce foreign legal concepts into the American legal system, that's fine. There is an avenue available to her in which she can fulfill those desires.

She can run for Congress.

As long as she stays on the Supreme Court, though, she needs to stick to the job we hired her for.

To do otherwise would be insubordination, which isn't exactly good behavior, now is it?

Since We're Talking About Illegal Immigrants

Not all illegal immigrants are coming here with the intention of doing something wrong. For some it just happens.

It doesn't make it any more right, but it does go to show how much it is condoned in some instances.

Free College Education For Illegal Immigrants?

In the State of Nevada it may very well be happening. The State Treasurer is against it; the State Attorney General hasn't ruled yet.

I can understand providing illegals with a basic (read: K-12) education. It's really a difficult choice as they are here because their parents are engaging in an illegal behavior, but I don't think it right to punish the kids for the parent's behavior. That being said, if the parent gets deported, the kids need to go with them.

But they have no right to a free college education at taxpayer expense. College is an earned privilege. No one is "entitled" to go to college, citizen or not. It has to be earned.

If an illegal graduates from a Nevada high school and decides that they want to go to UNLV, they should have to go back to their home country and apply as a foreign national. Get accepted, get the proper visa documentation and then come back.

If you qualify for a scholarship, great. You've earned it. But you are not entitled to a scholarship fund that requires that you be a resident of the State of Nevada. I can't get it if I go to school there as I'm a resident of Florida.

Just because you lived there and graduated from a Nevada high school does not make you a resident. It is wrong for someone to be able to profit from an illegal act. I can tolerate (barely) putting you through the public school system at taxpayer expense when you're here illegally, but I won't stand for you taking tax money to obtain a college education.

A basic education is necessary to give the kid a chance at success in their home country or here if they decide to legalize themselves. A college education is a luxury that many of our real citizens cannot afford.

Nobody tell Gray Davis about this. He'll be giving away free UC Berkeley educations with every driver's license issued to an illegal alien.

Today's Postings

I've found a lot of interesting articles today, but nothing that's really inspiring me to write a whole lot about it. So unless something really grabs me, you'll probably get a lot of links today.

For some really interesting reading, go take a look in the comments for Donald Sensing's post on gay marriage. He's got a pretty good and civil debate going on among his readers about the issue. Definitely worth a look.

Some Sunday Entertainment

One of the marks of a good satire is that it is difficult to tell if it's the truth or not. It's truly sad when a nation is so bad off that this falls into the realm of insane possibility for the country.