A Memorial Day for Those Who Still Don't Get it
by Steve
5/31/2005 09:19:00 PM
Joel
seems to see the irony in Memorial Day, preferring to criticize those who celebrate it, rather than paying respects to the men and women who lost their lives. For some, Memorial Day is a day of shame, and for others, a day of pride.
Yes, America is a strange country. I have never been able to fathom it, but then they call me crazy. To an American, another American's life is cheap. Understand that attitude and you will understand our Memorial Day, our politics, and our willingness to send our sons and daughters into the way of danger while we chug beer.
I suppose everyone has the right to criticize those who honor our war dead, and turn this day into a political statement. But what criticism is there in someone paying respects to fallen soldiers?
On the one side, a liberal sees Memorial Day as something beyong the material, a political irony, of paying tribute "to those went sent off to their deaths". But then again, once you look beyond the material, it's easy to twist something towards your favor. But on other side, we have those who see Memorial Day for what it is, a day to give remembrance to those who died in the line of duty.
It's interesting how Joel separates himself from the rest of us that are sending sons and daughters into war while chugging beer. Let it be known that Joel doesn't drink alcohol. It wouldn't sound as good if he had said "surfing the Internet". Let's call a spade a spade.
I guess Joel is just as guilty for sending sons and daughters into war as I am, being that we're both Americans, we both voted for Presidents that sent sons and daughters into war, and were both consumers of fossil fuels that put money into the hands of Islamic terrorists. Maybe we should both shoot ourselves in the noggin.
And that brings me to my point. Memorial Day isn't about shame, or about being hypocrites for honoring those we sent off to their dooms. Whether you agree with the military action or not, is not the point in Memorial Day. That's an argument for another day. But this day is about giving something to our fallen soldiers, the very same thing that everyone of us wants, remembrance. The fact remains that these soldiers were people, the same people as you and I. They're simply asking us to remember them.
And some people are able to find criticism in that.
2 comments | | Perma Link
Jessica Lunsford Accomplices
by Dave
5/31/2005 05:17:00 PM
I shouldn't watch O'Reilly on Fox but I do. The show can sometimes bring me to incredible anger. From what Bill says, there is a mountain of at least circumstantial evidence against the family members of the perpetrator who lived in the same mobile home as he did. They must have been in on, if not the abduction, the imprisonment and sexual abuse of Jessica. Apparently the local DA is not prosecuting these folks. The little girl was held there for three days and then taken, alive, to be buried. How exactly these people could be there in a tiny mobile home and not know what was going on defies anything I have ever heard.
There is a possibility that federal charges could be brought. But if the federal, state and local authorities can not do anything about this, I can only suggest that perhaps some
more local authorities ought to do something, if you get my drift. I'm no advocate for martial law but there are times when crimes are so horrible and the government does nothing that the
governed must step up where the government simply will not.
Something must be done here.
4 comments | | Perma Link
Global Warming And Hurricanes .... Again
by Dave
5/31/2005 12:56:00 PM
Reuters News Service (Free Registration Required) reports that the coming hurricane season is likely to
renew the global warming debate. In a separate report, Reuters notes that hurricanes are likely to be
more numerous and more intense this year than average years. The Reuters article points out that there is some debate between experts about the impact of global warming on hurricanes but they fail to point out the depth of expert opinion which is against the notion that global warming increases the number or severity of tropical cyclones. In fact this year's dire predictions rest upon the theory that ocean salinity has a greater impact. This is the theory of most American hurricane experts including Chris Landsea, the climatologist who
quit the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because they used his name to further the fallacy that global warming causes storm numbers and intensity to increase. Landsea believes global warming actually has the reverse impact - it lowers the number and severity.
Regardless of truth, we are likely to hear many newscasts which claim that global warming is finally going to cost Americans money. Nonsense!
2 comments | | Perma Link
Why Does Michael Jackson Live In La-La Land?
by Dave
5/31/2005 11:34:00 AM
The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Michael Jackson's dad, Joe, is out giving
interviews about "what went wrong" in this trial. He notes that Michael is not eating or sleeping because of the accusations against him. He blames the Bashir interview/documentary many of us have seen for the charges against him. He claims Michael wanted to take the stand to testify at the trial but was advised against doing so by his attorneys. He blames his legal advisors for just about everything.
But I wonder why Michael wouldn't have already had trouble eating or sleeping long before this trial since these accusations have been around for a long time. This accuser is hardly the first. And those accusations were the reason Bashir did his interview to begin with. Had these accusations not been there, the interview would have been about music or maybe "Neverland" but the idea he might be a pedophile wouldn't even have surfaced. The Bashir interview was granted in order to do damage control and improve the singer's image. It backfired because of what Michael Jackson told us about himself. Finally, blaming Jackson's attorneys is a real laugh. Maybe they didn't do a great job with his defense and maybe they did. I don't know. But they did not have the best raw materials with which to work. And Jackson has had no difficulty firing attorneys in the past. Why would he not override any advice he received from his current attorneys? If he wanted to testify, he certainly could have.
My sense is that those close to Michael Jackson think he is going to be found guilty. His father is out there preparing the public for this eventuality. He is doing damage control on Michael's image so he can still sell records after he is in jail.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Montel Williams Advocates New York Medical Marijuana
by Dave
5/31/2005 11:21:00 AM
Today's New York Daily News contains an editorial by Montel Williams
advocating passage of a New York bill which would permit medical marijuana use. I cannot say that I think this is a bad thing. I have no opinion on marijuana in general. I know California has had some problems with medical marijuana but I have a hard time saying I think it should be defeated when so many people claim to derive a benefit from it.
I'm not a Montel supporter but I can feel sympathy for what the guy has been going through with multiple sclerosis. It would be one thing to advocate this if only one or a couple of people claimed benefit but there are so many. I can understand not wanting to make marijuana broadly available especially because it can cause children harm but I just don't see how something like this could make the situation worse.
Kids drink alcohol all the time even though laws do not permit it at their ages. They also smoke pot all the time even though it is entirely illegal. How can permitting the seriously ill folks who derive benefit from "medical marijuana" cause damage to our society?
1 comments | | Perma Link
If The AARP Can, So Can The PTA
by Dave
5/31/2005 10:43:00 AM
The
National Parent Teacher Association is about to take the bold step of turning parents into political lobbyists. The American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) has already been doing this for a long time as have many other not-for-profit groups. The AARP has engaged in a campaign of misinformation in regards to such important issues as Social Security and continues to push a political agenda on any number of issues. They bully political candidates and generally attempt to influence the outcome of elections. They tend to favor liberal politicians and policies. Now the PTA is getting into the fray.
We will likely hear a myriad of arguments against this in the coming months. Why? That's easy. The entire membership of the AARP is a mere 30+ million. The number of potential voters who have minor children is about double that. Those who have kids tend to be far more conservative than those who don't. Getting conservative organized in any manner whatsoever is not good for liberals. So the left-leaning media is likely to bash the new efforts of the PTA to basically advocate for the policies which are a part of its charter!
Forewarned is forearmed.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Why Did I Think The No Child Left Behind Act Was Bush's Fault?
by Dave
5/31/2005 10:22:00 AM
I admit them I should be more up on the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). I don't know much about it. I know it involves measuring school performance via testing of students. I also know that it is often called an "unfunded mandate" or put another way, it supposedly puts burdens on schools so they have to take resources away from other things in order to comply with it. No money was handed out to accomplish the task. I have heard this as a dig at President Bush. This is only an impression I have - I can't point to one or more specific sources for my impression. When that happens to me, I usually find that the cause is a bunch of comments in the media leading me to the wrong general conclusion so I have to say that's a good candidate this time as well. But today I find that there is no reason for me to think of NCLB as a "Bush unfunded mandate." That's because I am in a hotel and received my free copy of USA Today - I'd never spend money for this rag otherwise. But anyways, on page 13A of the paper, it says the vote for NCLB was 381-41 in the House and 87-10 in the Senate.My memory is not very clear on how many from each major party is in each body of congress but I do think these votes would have to be bi-partisan in order to be lopsided. Also, the aper points out that these veto-proof majorities occurred before Bush signed the thing into law. So I gotta wonder why, if nearly every elected representative in the land voted for the thing, why it is that it cannot be made workable.
Now to the Act. It seems to me that I should endeavor to understand it better. The gist of the USA Today article was that most people, be they parents or not, just do not know anything about the act. The newspaper does a pretty good job of explaining it so I'll try to hit some of the high points.
The law requires all students to be proficient in math and reading within 12 years of enactment. Students get tested every year while in the critical 3rd grade to 8th grade period and then again once in high school. Schools which do not pass, have to offer tutoring and allow students to transfer to other schools. The students are broken down into various minority groups judged by race, economic levels, and other criteria. All groups must make progress. That way, you cannot improve a school's grade by just bringing in more middle class or affluent kids while still failing to educate the same groups as before. Teachers must fulfill state certification requirements. New teachers must have bachelor's degrees. Teachers have to pass tests in their subject areas. States must issue report cards on schools to parents.
So now I know that the NCLB Act requires schools to do what I thought they were doing all along and it isn't Bush's fault. Democrats and Republicans alike get the "blame" for passing a law requiring schools to do what I thought they were already doing.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Corby To Appeal Drug Conviction
by Dave
5/31/2005 08:48:00 AM
Most likely you've heard about the case of Schapelle Corby, the Australian woman convicted of smuggling more than 4 kilos of marijuana into Indonesia. She is getting ready
to appeal the conviction but risks a stiffer sentence than the 20 years she received. Australians are hopping mad about this and many are canceling vacation plans to visit the nation's beaches. I cannot honestly say that I believe 20 years is excessively harsh for smuggling that amount of illegal drugs. Indonesia is very stiff about drugs and just about anyone traveling to the country should know that. But when you compare this sentence with that of convicted terrorists, a slightly different picture of the country emerges.
Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah militant group blamed for the 2002 Bali bombings and other deadly attacks, was sentenced to 30 months for his part in the Bali attack which killed 202 people including 88 Australians. Bashir was sentenced for taking part in a criminal conspiracy but cleared of more serious charges of terrorism. Other conspirators were found guilty and received death sentences but these have been overturned because the laws under which they were prosecuted were enacted after the attack.
How can someone be convicted of taking part in a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act yet be acquitted of terrorism? This decision defies logic. It is like saying that bin Laden is innocent because he wasn't on a plane. This is virtual amnesty for terror masterminds. Indonesia is just plain simply a bad place with bad people. Make no mistake about it. If you spend your money there to take a vacation, you are handing your money over to an evil country. Me? I want the money I donated for tsunami relief back.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Monks Just Wanna Have Fun
by Dave
5/31/2005 07:17:00 AM
If you, like me, fear sending your kids off to college only to have them "discover" some new religion or cult like Buddhism and return home one day to curse your life-style, consider putting them into martial arts classes for a couple years before you send them off. I say that because monks are people too and just like any other people, they do sometimes get into fist fights. In the weird news corner of the web, there is a Reuters report detailing
a street fight between monks from two rival Indian temples. The monks were defrocked but you gotta wonder. When you listen to such philosophical giants as Richard Gere speak about their religion, you get the feeling that Buddhists have achieved a level of inner peace that western religion can only aspire to. I guess that's not exactly true! I just hope that one day when monks from rival temples again get into a gang fight somebody has the presence of mind to film the darn thing. I'd pay good money to see that on pay-for-view.
0 comments | | Perma Link
"Live 8" - Only Serious Politicos Need Apply!
by Dave
5/31/2005 06:46:00 AM
Are you ready for "Live 8," the followup to "Live Aid" which raised money for starving peoples? The Spice Girls will not be performing because the show is intended to carry a serious political message to world leaders.
Live 8 organizers said "their style of music did not fit in with the serious political message about world poverty the transatlantic event hopes to portray."
Who will be performing? Yes, the Who is expected to perform. Who else? How about Robbie Williams doing Queen's "We Will Rock You" or "We Are The Champions." Also Sting is expected to do The Police's "Every Breath You Take." And what serious political rally could be without the Black-Eyed Peas? US rapper Eminem is to play at a concert which will be screened after the London event. I can see the consistency here. Only bands with serious political messages in their material should apply!
Serious political message? Hahahahahahahahahaha! Why don't these people give up and do like the rest of us? When a group of accountants or lawyers or steelworkers or grocery clerks want to raise money for a good cause, they simply put the grip on their professional cohorts and shame them into donating a couple bucks. If these mega-millionaires did similarly, they would raise more money than these ridiculous "look-at-me" events do. Are they really interested in raising money and the world's political conscience? Or do they just want to put together an event which might bring some of them back into the public's eye?
0 comments | | Perma Link
Is The EU Dead?
by Dave
5/31/2005 06:27:00 AM
The biggest European economies are sputtering at a time of global economic prosperity. The newest democracies' low wage economies are kicking the butts of the most important proponents of European economic unity. And now
France dealt a crushing defeat to the EU's Constitution. Americans feared a US-like EU economic entity but now it looks as if that is going to crash and burn. The problem? Socialism. France and Germany have overburdened economies influenced by Socialist ideology. Workers' rights overwhelm capitalism to such an extent that they any combination with lower wage, less encumbered economies may be disastrous to these two powerhouses. The EU is dead!
0 comments | | Perma Link
Rathergate Or Memogate, What Can You Do?
by Dave
5/31/2005 06:17:00 AM
Accuracy in Media is still fighting the battle against the fake memo used by 60 Minutes and USA Today in their fabricated story meant to change the outcome of this country's presidential election. Should you care? Yes, if you care whether the information the media gives you is true. Yes, if you want them to know you are outraged by their institutional lying to further a hidden political agenda. Yes, if you don't want them to just brush aside your concerns.
USA Today thinks it got away with running the same story as CBS because the American people really do not care about it anymore. Accuracy in Media has a good piece
detailing USA'a position on Memogate. Take a quick read through it and at the bottom there is information about what you can do to change USA Today's mind.
0 comments | | Perma Link
War On Terror - Rudderless?
by Dave
5/31/2005 05:55:00 AM
I agree that President Bush has done a good job of waging the war on terror so far but I also have to agree that he and we have not done the job in terms of defining exactly what the war is.
National Review Online has an article today entitled
"Drifting - A bit of a silence settles in the war on terror" which explores Bush's shortcomings in terms of his failure to clearly define the mission.
Defining the mission is a difficult task because our enemy in this war is like none faced to date. This war is more like the war on drugs which we continue to wage without clear instances of success. But the war on drugs has a much more clearly defined enemy as it involves substances which are made from agriculturally produced raw materials requiring vast spaces. Those raw materials must be manufactured into end products, again requiring large and/or numerous facilities. Finally the finished products must be carried in mass quantities across our borders. Terrorism involves ideas rather than products. And results can be achieved by our enemies with very little physical efforts. Bombs involve substance. They just don't involve huge amounts of substances.
Just as it is easy to say marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy are illegal, the enemy, anyone making, selling or smuggling these are the enemy, it is complex to say Islamic Fundamentalism is the enemy. What exactly is this ideology? Is it embodied in the extreme form of Islam known as Wahhabism? That is the official state religion of one of this country's "friends" and a key partner in the war on terrorism. It is difficult to simply state that is the culprit. But is it not?
Regardless of how we define terrorism and the underlying ideology which controls it, it is important to do so. Until we have a clear delineation of who and what our enemy is, we will never, can never win this war. Precisely because defining our terms and defining the conditions of the war are so difficult and complex, we must do so. And George Bush is the man charged with accomplishing the task. Hopefully he will see this and provide the leadership we need. This beyond anything else will be his legacy.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Some people never give up
by Dave
5/27/2005 10:56:00 AM
Some people never give up no matter what happens. AP is reporting that as many as 40
WWII vintage Japanese soldiers are still hiding out in the mountains of the Philippines. Now that is sticktoitofness.
0 comments | | Perma Link
The Real "Vast Conspiracy"
by Dave
5/27/2005 06:20:00 AM
Remember Hillary Clinton claiming that there is a "vast conservative conspiracy" against her husband during the Monica Lewinsky thing? Both sides of the aisle often claim there is a right-wing or left-wing conspiracy. But who's zoomin who? There is little doubt that "journalists" en masse tend to be liberal. This has become increasingly clear as we have witnessed Rathergate, Newsweekfabricate, and other instances of biased reporting. But there is more to the notion of a left-leaning conspiracy when newsies are lumped together with entertainers.
Yesterday Rush Limbaugh discussed an episode of "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" in which two judges were murdered and one of the officers investigating the murders exclaimed something along the lines of "we should put out an APB for a man wearing a Tom DeLay T-shirt." DeLay was angered by the episode and wrote a letter critical of it. NBC replied by stating the show was a drama and
viewers know the difference between drama and reality.
NBC's reaction sounds reasonable and is fairly typical for these sorts of incidents. But is it enough? Probably not. Do they care? Not unless you make them care.
Just as it is plain that "journalists" typically have liberal points of view, so too do entertainers. The difference between the two is that entertainers tend to be right up front about their views. There is no pretended objectivity on their part the way there is with "journalists." Most television shows and movies tend to espouse liberal points of view and most viewers realize that. The NBC show "The West Wing" is a good case in point. There are other shows on the network which clearly demonstrate bias but, hey its entertainment. Watch it if you wish, tune it out if you wish. What viewers tend to miss, however, is that even if a show does not regularly espouse a political point of view, it can still be biased. The bias is demonstrated via insidious, subliminal messages.
"The West Wing" obviously depicts a liberal president and administration as wise and all knowing while showing conservatives, even those with slightly conservative leanings, to be foolish dullards. But I know that after a few episodes of this I simply tuned out the show - actually I swore never to watch another new show on NBC because I felt they were loading the lineup with left-leaning dramas. I won't even watch any of the law and order spinoffs because I find them stupid anyways. I watched the original way back when and I even tried the "special victims" version once. I just couldn't get past all the cop show buzzwords that were overused. The "vic" this. The "vic" that. Very boring stuff.
I even get the idea that all the law and order shows try to take real events and bring them into the drama. That's their schtick. But it bugs me when any drama brings in a little tiny bit of reality and sways it to make a brief, subtle statement. Such is the case when incidents are brought in which always favor one side over the other. There are not the same number of jokes made about Democrats as Republicans. Events included in reality-based dramas are not equally made to take jabs at both parties. Republicans are more often the butt of jokes and jabs made by the entertainment industry. But it is particularly disturbing when facts are distorted in order to sing a particular kind of liberal song. That's when "they" have gone too far.
Liberals would like us to think that conservative politicians are way out of control - that they are forming a kind of dictatorship - that they are reminiscent of the Nazis. This is being attempted on a number of levels. The "journalists" are focusing their coverage on things that make conservatives look like dictators. There are discussions about "the nuclear option" or the allegedly desecrated Qu'ran. Now entertainers are twisting events to make it seem as if conservatives are putting hits on left-leaning judges. There is no conspiracy in the sense that these guys (journalists and entertainers) got together and drew up a plan to win back the government. But they didn't need to do this. They are all on the same page anyway. The entertainers watch the news. The newsies watch entertainment. They can see what each other does and then plan independently to play off each other. But it is still a conspiracy because they are working in harmony in an attempt to change your mind.
NBC should be above this but they're not. Want to make them change? Stop watching NBC. Many are already doing this as evidenced by the network coming in last among major networks this past ratings season. Let's keep it going and push them under water.
1 comments | | Perma Link
Memorial Day, 2005
by Steve
5/26/2005 10:55:00 PM
With Memorial Day around the corner, I wanted to take a moment to share some things about this holiday. It's roots come from the end of the Civil War. Originally, it was named "Decoration Day", referring to the flowers and flags placed on the graves of fallen Civil War soldiers.
It is said that the women in the Southern states began the practice, going as far back as April 25, 1866 in Columbus, Mississippi. The practice spread to parts all over the country from there. Officially, credit is given to Waterloo, New York as the birthplace of Memorial Day, when the first event was held on May 5, 1866.
If you'd like a more complete accounting on the history of Memorial Day, please visit an article I wrote a year ago "
The History of Memorial Day".
On this Memorial Day you will find me riding my motorcycle with my fellow buddies from the
Iron Horses Riding Club, in the 6th Annual
West Coast Thunder. It's a parade of motorcycles running from the Harley dealership in Riverside, CA to the
Riverside National Cemetery. At the cemetery there will be ceremonies, and then a party back at the Harley dealership. Some 4,000 motorcycles is expected to be in the parade.
Also wanted to make mention of a Memorial Day poem entitled, "
On Rosecrans Hill" written by Jeffrey T. Naas and submitted to me for publishing on one of my websites. It focuses on veterans interred at
Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery in San Diego. If you've never been to the cemetery there, you ought make a trip there. It's probably the most beautiful of all national cemeteries, with spectacular views of the Pacific, of San Diego Bay, and the San Diego city skyline. You can see the memorial to the soldiers killed at San Pasqual, including a memorial to the Mormon Battlion, and the memorial to those killed abord the U.S.S. Bennington. There are many other memorials there too.
What will you plan to do this Memorial Day? Post a comment.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Friendly, Moderate Middle East Regimes
by Dave
5/26/2005 06:24:00 AM
Let's make sure we never, ever again try regime change. We shouldn't even object to the actions of "sovereign" sitting governments. As an example of a sitting, valid, sovereign nation, let's take a look at Egypt.
Yesterday in Egypt,
anti-government protesters were beaten by pro-government people including policemen who helped corner the anti-government protesters so they could be beaten properly.
The L.A. Times reported: "Lines of riot police and plainclothes security officers cornered demonstrators so they could not escape. Women were surrounded, groped and had their clothes torn. Some demonstrators were thrown down flights of concrete stairs, dragged by their hair and kicked by swarms of young men."
What was it that the anti-government protesters wanted?
They wanted to say that a just government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. They were saying that whenever any government becomes destructive of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
The pro-governmental folks were saying prudence dictates that governments long-established should not be changed. Their experiences have shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer than to right themselves by abolishing forms to which they are accustomed. They are accustomed to the Egyptian government as it has been.
But the anti-government folks were saying when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
I just don't understand why the anti-governmental folks do not understand that it is just plain wrong to overthrow a sitting government for any reason. I know this because I read it in many newspapers and even have seen discussions on CNN, CBS and other news outlets.
It just couldn't be worth it for people to be savagely beaten and molested just to get the right to vote. If they are not careful and call off this ridiculous protest, somebody might even get killed. This is almost as bad as Iraq or Afghanistan. The U.S. Congress should immediately pass a bill calling to these protesters to stop this ridiculous action. We just don't want anyone to get hurt. It is wrong for people to get hurt. We, in America, stand for the notion that nobody should ever get hurt for any cause. It's just too painful for us to watch on the evening news.
1 comments | | Perma Link
Heat Up The Stem Cell Debate
by Dave
5/26/2005 05:58:00 AM
All over the morning newspapers around this country there are editorials on the stem cell debate. Here's one which says it is OK to have firm convictions about the issue but
wrong to impose one's Christian convictions on this "pluralistic nation." Congress is in the middle of passing legislation which will loosen rules on federal funding of stem cell research. Yesterday Steve posted a blog piece about
Congress' new push for embryonic stem cell research. With everything I have read recently about embryonic vs. adult stem cell research leading me to conclude that embryonic stem cells hold little promise for curing chronic conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, or Alzheimer's, I really wonder what this debate is about.
Yesterday, the House passed the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 which now moves to the Senate. Bush is saying he will veto it. Every congressman and woman wants to express his or her opinion on the subject. But where is the evidence that embryonic stem cells hold ANY promise for finding a cure for ANY of the chronic diseases these legislators are talking about in their rhetoric?
Even if there was a glimmer of hope of finding a cure for one of the conditions, it would still be morally questionable. We have often cringed when we have read about parents of a leukemia sufferer having a child for the sole purpose of creating a donor in order to save their sick child. How is harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses in order to conduct experiments which hold little if ANY promise more morally acceptable than this? What does it say about a society which kills inconvenient children and then justifies it by saying we'll not just kill them but rather harvest anything useful from them first? I thought American society valued the individual? I guess I better think again.
1 comments | | Perma Link
One Step Beyond
by Dave
5/26/2005 05:42:00 AM
It's madness, absolute madness. Who amongst us would allow their child to sleep in the bedroom of anyone besides themselves. I don't care if it is a relative or some freakish weirdo who has undergone countless plastic surgeries on his face in order to look like .....
The defense rested yesterday in the Michael Jackson case. The prosecution began its rebuttal which included an employee of Jackson's at the time the alleged offenses took place. As I heard things, this witness testified that Jackson was frequently drunk while children were sleeping in his bedroom. Sometimes he may have been "following down" drunk. So I, again, I wonder who would allow their child to sleep with a middle aged, drunk freakish weirdo?
The only person who would do such a collossally stupid thing would have to be a person whose very sanity would have to come into question.
And that is essentially the Jackson defense. The accusser's mother is pretty much insane. I suppose it is hard to argue against that notion.
But what has that to do with a 40+ weirdo who has had perhaps hundreds of plastic surgeries because he doesn't like the way he looks, who drinks too much, whose home is filled with pornography, who once claimed that he was an angel, who calls wine "jesus juice," who tried to purchase the remains of the "elephant man," who has created a private world intended to seduce little boys, who brings little children into his bedroom while employing a security detail to keep their parents out, and then gets drunk with these children around?
None of these things Jackson does makes him guilty of the crimes for which he stands accused but they do collectively shoot down plausible deniability. And we have a witness who told us that he did do the things for which he is accused. Let's not forget that this
criminal trial does not result in damages being paid by one party to the other. If the mother wanted to shake down Jackson, she could have avoided this horrible trial and simply gone straight into
civil court where she most likely would have been very rich by now.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Not Credible
by Dave
5/25/2005 05:29:00 PM
Reuters reports that the ACLU released FBI documents detailing
accusations of a Qu'ran flushing made by a detainee. The ACLU would like us to believe that this somehow substantiates Newsweek's story. Reuters would like us to believe the ACLU and Newsweek are right. But the fact remains that all there is is an accusation made by a detainee.
Have you eveer tried to rip up a book and flush it down the toilet? I'd be willing to bet that you might get 10 or 20 pages down but then it would back up because at some point in the pipes there is a place where paper cannot get through. The paper would collect there until the line was clogged and then it would have to be snaked. Every toilet except those that don't flush (chemical toilets) have this problem. You just cannot flush ordinary paper. The toilet backs up.
So basically, this story is bogus. It has always been bogus. Nobody flushed a Qu'ran down any toilet. Can we please move past this?
2 comments | | Perma Link
New Revised Double Standard Bible
by Dave
5/25/2005 09:16:00 AM
The AP has a story from yesterday entitled
"Lawsuit says school violated free-speech rights" which tells us about a parent who was prevented from reading a passage from her bible to her child's class. Read the article so I don't have to explain it.
The article includes one completely irrelevant paragraph as follows:
"Some U.S. religious groups are fighting for inclusion of "intelligent design," a theory they say competes with evolution, into biology classes, and another Pennsylvania school district is being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union for including intelligent design in its curriculum."
What does this have to do with a school preventing a parent from reading the bible to a class of kids? This is intended to make the parent seem ridiculous to some readers. It takes focus off the real issue here.
The real issue in this case is the liberal double standard. You can read works from Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or whatever in school because that is said to be "culture." I know because I was required to read from the "Bhagavad-Gita" and the Qu'ran in high school. There were other works sold as "literature" or philosophy which actually advocated religion but nobody was concerned because it would have been really weird if a kid converted to this religion or that after a homework assignment! But do not read from the bible for that advocates a specific religion. Oh no. We can't allow that.
I cannot imagine some kid converting to Christianity or Judaism because of a reading assignment in school. Can you? But more to the point, I just don't see how reading a passage is in any way an advocacy of one religion or another. The bible is there. There is no denying it. But to say that one passage or another is advocacy? We can say Muhammad did this or that but do not even think about saying Jesus Christ did this or that.
The facts are that a large part of this globe's thinking and culture comes directly from people who are staunchly Christian. There is a lot of great perspective, literature, and what-have-you contained in the bible. The bible and other writings by Christians, be they specifically religious or not, are tremendous resources for young minds. To completely deprive children of these writings is to rob them of these resources.
The problem really is that the lib.s, atheists and agnostics have painted themselves into a corner from which they cannot extract themselves. You simply cannot advocate teaching the "Bhagavad-Gita" and not teaching the bible. That is biased. That is advocacy of one religion over another.
The lib.s will lose this one. But it's OK. They'll be better off for it. There is a lot of great stuff produced by Christianity.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound
1 comments | | Perma Link
Newsweek's "Dream on America"
by Steve
5/25/2005 08:59:00 AM
Thumbs up goes to Gaijin Biker, the blogger at one of my favorite blogs, Riding Sun, for
uncovering this gem.
To sum it up, Newsweek published an article entitled, "Dream on America", which explains that the U.S. Constitution, and the United States in general, has lost its usefulness, is out of touch with the times, and is simply dead.
But Newsweek didn't publish this article in the American edition of their magazine, they only published in the foreign versions, along with their International edition. Hence, they chose to tell their foreign readers just how dead and useless we are, but kept that hidden from us, the American public.
You'd think that if Newsweek, being in the business of reporting news, felt this country is going downhill, and is pretty much dead, that we Americans would be the first to know about it. But I guess not. They think that this kind of news is more important to readers overseas.
Another thanks to Gaijin Biker for finding a copy of this aforementioned article
online here.
1 comments | | Perma Link
Checkpoint Checkmate
by Dave
5/25/2005 08:18:00 AM
What you gonna do when they come for you? Bad Boy, Bad Boy!
If you've ever had nothing to do on I think it's Saturday night and there was nothing on TV, you probably have come across the TV show "Cops." The show can be somewhat entertaining but one of the things that sticks in my craw is many of each little episodes ends with a cop hauling away some parent of young kids while saying, "it was too bad but he had warrants." They seldom tell you what the warrants were. Imagination runs wild. I often think maybe the guy had a parking ticket he forgot to pay or perhaps he was drunk and disorderly and "forgot" to show up in court. I generally don't expect the guy to be a child molester, assaulter or even murderer. I suppose sometimes they are. But I expect most of these are very minor infractions or the show would tell us a little more in order to spice things up.
An article in the local paper talked about a "checkpoint" set up by local police to catch people not using their seatbelts. This checkpoint had nabbed a passenger (the driver had his belt on) who was wanted for $1,400 in traffic violations and ... an outstanding warrant. As it turned out, this warrant was for an offense to which he had copped a plea for "endangerment." The newspaper article pointed out that the guy had been charged with sexual assault and endangerment but his bargain allowed him to take the lesser charge.
Proponents of checkpoints and many others will likely say, great, this guy should be put away. I have to agree that the perpetrator of a sexual assault should be put away. Also, anybody who is a fugitive should be caught. But these are really beside the point. What kind of society have we become if we allow police checkpoints for seatbelts?
Seatbelts are for our own safety. There is no denying that they save lives but to mandate that we
must wear them for our own good, is bad enough. To verify that we are doing what is best for us goes to far. And to set up police checkpoints to verify it is beyond anything we should tolerate. What comes after this? Maybe we ought to allow police to stop cars with children in them to do a mandatory "safety check." The officers could park vans outfitted with a number of safety check devices. For example, one day maybe we could mandate the correct range of weight for all children. Then the police could quickly check the height and weight of kids to see that they are not obese. While one officer has the children away from his or her parents for this safety check, he could discuss physical and mental abuse by parents with the child. The officer could be highly trained in performing abuse triage and write up a quicky profile for the state division charged with protecting kids. Maybe the officer could ask other questions like "have your parents ever allowed you to ride your bike without a helmet? Do your parents ever smoke funny cigarettes or sniff powder? And this brings me to another scenario. Maybe the polices ought to have a generic (non-racial) profile for people who might use drugs. Then they could have checkpoints to take a small blood or urine sample and test - on the spot - for drug usage.
The irony here is not that little old seatbelt checkpoints are just harmless ways for the government to make sure we are being "safe." The irony is that the sexual assaulter was able to plea for a nothing charge. He'll be out in no time and looking for another victim. We do a far better job of making sure we are not putting ourselves in dire consequences by forgetting to click than we do at making sure people who want to hurt other people are prevented from doing so.
We do not need police checkpoints if we are going to take sexual assaulters and put'em away for 3 months. What we need is better resource deployment and less big brother.
2 comments | | Perma Link
Congress is Pushing Stem Cell Research
by Steve
5/25/2005 12:07:00 AM
The latest developments in the field of embryonic stem cell research has Congress pushing forward
a bill that would require the Secretary of Health of Human Services to initiate a plan to support this type of research.
I bet many of you have your opinions on whether embryonic stem cell research is a good or bad thing, but that's not the point of this post. My question is whether or not government should be involved in supporting scientific research period.
Scientific research is a pretty broad category, covering everything from studying the weather, to biological weapons, to alternative fuels, to eradicating diseases. But should government really take a role in supporting and financing scientific research at all?
My answer is no.
Let's suppose that embryonic stem cell research could lead to a medical breakthrough that effectively eliminates kidney failure, diabetes, alzheimer, etc. Then it stands to reason that such cures would create a multi-billion dollar industry. If the rewards are SO lucrative, then why haven't biotech firms spent any money on this research? The answer is that it doesn't hold any promise. These firms are instead spending their efforts on other forms of stem cell research, that uses cells other than embryonic cells.
I smell politics here. In order to get embryonic stem cells, one must start with embryos. And the only way to get embryos, is through aborted fetuses. So, if embryonic stem cell research can prove to cure chronic diseases, then we will have to protect abortion. And there's the politics. This is an attempt to "legitimize" abortions.
Go to any of the biotech firms, and ask them why they haven't poured more money into embryonic stem cells, and they'll tell you it's because it doesn't hold any promise. Why should they spend their money on something they know is not going to work? Take a look at several articles below that debunk of the myth of embryonic stem cell research as folly:
Promise of Miracles, a False one - Michael Cook,
the AustralianStem-Cell Basics - Nancy Frazier O'Brien -
Tidings OnlineDiabetes Foundation Loses its Way - Michael Fumento -
WorldNet DailyMyths of Stem Cell Research require closer look at facts - Peter Cataldo -
Detroit Free PressIn the last article above, Cataldo is quoted as saying:
The truth is that there are two types of stem cell research -- embryonic and adult -- and that the treatment needs of people afflicted with debilitating diseases may be met with adult stem cell research. The fact that there are two types of stem cell research and that there are significant differences between them is often lost in the rhetoric.
Extracting stem cells from embryos to establish embryonic stem cell lines kills embryos. Embryonic stem cells have proven difficult to work with and have a propensity to form tumors in experiments. Despite continuing embryonic stem cell research, to date there are no clinical treatments with these cells.
This is why biotech firms haven't spent any money researching embryonic stem cells. It's doesn't hold any promise. The promise lies in adult stem cells. Yet, taxpayers are being forced to pony up their hard-earned money to pay for embryonic stem cell research, so that politicians and political groups can advance their agendas, in this case, the abortion agenda.
This is why government should keep itself out of scientific research programs. There is too much corruption in government money. If the government limited itself only to protecting its people, protecting its borders, and protecting its interests abroad, then there would be a LOT LESS money at the federal level. Hence, there would be a lot less corruption at the federal level.
This is why we have to oppose this kind of legislation. Let the private sector deal with scientific research, and let private donors finance these programs.
2 comments | | Perma Link
Liberal Paranoia
by Steve
5/24/2005 11:49:00 PM
It looks like Joel finally
figured out that I adopted him as my liberal blogger. I guess that's a good thing, because he'll be reading this blog regularly, and perhaps our readers will be clicking over to read his blog too. So all in all, it washes out.
But in his blog, he suggested that I did this over paranoia:
These are paranoids who must sling mud and keep enemies lists at every opportunity, particularly when confronted by people who won't just go along with their manufactured facts and whines.
Has nothing to do with paranoia on my part. Trust me when I say that Joel will now be checking this blog regularly to find out what I have to say about his writings. So who is really the one with paranoia?
But in all honesty, I don't think it's really about paranoia, as it is the spirit of debate, and having fun offering up some counterpoint.
3 comments | | Perma Link
Polar Ice Cap is Growing
by Steve
5/24/2005 10:51:00 AM
And now for a different kind of meltdown being averted.
Data published in a report on Nature.com shows that ice on the Eastern portion of Antarctica
is growing, instead of melting, suggesting that the rise of ocean levels is going to take a lot longer than most activists previously thought:
The team used data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, which measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica's interior - more than 8.5 million square kilometres, roughly the same size as the United States.
East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimetres per year over the time period studied, the researchers discovered. The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica's total land area - but as its ice is thicker, it carries about 85% of the total ice volume. "It is the only large terrestrial ice body that is gaining mass rather than losing it," says Davis.
I learned about this report after reading a thread about global warming on
another forum.
One thing that caught my eye, is that a poster going by the name of "
Vapor Trails" responded by saying that he earned a degree in Environmental Science, and pretty much discounted the threat of global warming as pop-science. I quote him as follows:
I've worked with two types of scientists. One type is simply interested in finding truth; hypothesize, then test the hypothesis. That's it. The other is an activist and will do nearly anything to draw conclusions that fit that scientists pre-conceived notions. It's a shame, really.
And while I did not specifically study the issue of global warming, the other studies I did were complimentary and I have concluded that:
1. Global warming - and cooling- is simply built in to the geography of our planet.
2. Only human arrogance could possibly think we are significant enough to have any effect on global warming/cooling.
Of course many would dispute my claim, but I can cite just as much research data to support my position as they can theirs; perhaps more.
As you well know, researchers must justify their budgets and they will not get any grant money if they conclude, "Nothing's wrong. And we couldn't affect it if it were." It's money and politics that drive these so-called conclusions, not science.
The money part is interesting. In order for scientists to get big budget grants, they have to make conclusions that satisfy the agendas of political groups. So how do we really know if global warming exists, if greed and power is the root of such scientific studies?
3 comments | | Perma Link
Senate Meltdown Averted
by Dave
5/24/2005 06:53:00 AM
Senators unexpectedly (at least to me) averted the so-called
nuclear option by reaching a compromise on the filibuster thing. The "minority's right to filibuster" remains intact. But it will only be used in extraordinary circumstances.
I am no fan of the filibuster. I think it is a parliamentary tool in a government without a parliament per se. I would like to see it disappear, to receive an up or down vote.
But you really gotta wonder. It looks to me as if the minority and the President stood face to face in a battle of wills and the President won. I suspect he and the conservative Senators who back him are not as anxious to see the filibuster die as many lay conservatives are. I suppose the whole thing was a poker game. And the Democrats just folded their hand.
4 comments | | Perma Link
Nicotine Water
by Steve
5/24/2005 12:53:00 AM
This is perhaps old news to many of you, but it is new news to me. I wanted to touch on this subject, just to illustrate the politics that submarined this novel product.
Last weekend, a friend of mine started smoking again. He had vowed to quit smoking, after a mutual friend of ours nearly lost his life in a motorcycle accident. He relied on nicotine patches to help him quit. But, the patches ended up giving him rashes all over his body, and he stopped using them. I mentioned trying the nicotine gum. But, he can't chew gum because he lost the ability to produce saliva, a condition resulting after his treatment for throat cancer.
That's when I mentioned trying nicotine water. I remembered reading about this product, named "Nico Water", a few years ago. It's bottled water with nicotine added, about the same amount of nicotine as two cigarettes. It seemed like a perfect solution for him. But he never heard of this product before. So today, I did some looking-up on the Internet for nicotine water. That's when I learned that politics forced this product off of store shelves, at least for here in the USA.
When Nico Water was first introduced, anti-smoking groups had a fit about it fearing that if children started drinking it, their bodies would become hooked on nicotine, and hence, would end up smoking cigarettes. So, they petitioned a variety of government officials, including governors, senators, and drug enforcing agencies, to put the makers of Nico Water out of business.
As a result, Nico Water received a major setback. In 2002, the Food and Drug Administration
declared it a drug, and that it had not received approval to be sold as such. Therefore, it could not be sold here in the United States. The makers of Nico Water contended that it is actually a dietary supplement; the FDA has less regulating authority over dietary supplements. However, the FDA maintained that nicotine is officially classified as a drug, and therefore cannot be a dietary supplement.
Of course, never mind the fact that cigarettes also contain nicotine, and that it's ok for the public to buy them. But then again, politics allows cigarettes to bypass FDA regulations.
My initial question is why hasn't the makers of Nico Water attempted to get approval from the FDA as a smoking cessation product, as with other products like nicotine gum? It turns out they simply chose not to seek such approval. Their intention was to sell the bottles of water over the Internet. If they got approval as a smoking cessation product, it would sharply reduce their customer-base.
But what really riled me on this, were statements made by anti-smoking groups about the potential dangers of Nico Water, and that it could cause children to become nicotine addicts. Matthew Myers, who is with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, was
quoted as saying:
"We're deeply concerned that there's a whole new generation of nicotine laced products that have been brought onto the market within the last year. One of our concerns is that these nicotine based products are easily available to children online."
Is this guy smoking dope?
Just look at how many kids are smoking cigarettes right now, and just look at how effortlessly they are able to obtain them, and he's concerned about nicotine water???
At least with nicotine water, they won't get lung cancer. If kids really wanted to get their hands on some nicotine, I'd rather have them get it from a bottle of water, than from a cancer stick.
Furthermore, kids don't get hooked on cigarettes because they got a nicotine fix from drinking water. Nicotine laced products never led to a smoking habit. What caused kids to start smoking were conditions such as peer pressure, rebellion, and the desire to do what other kids do. That's where anti-smoking groups ought target their efforts.
And lastly, no kid is going to think, "Oooh, this water has nicotine in it; I'm going to buy this so that it will make me look cool." The only kids who will buy such a product, are those that are already addicted to smoking. If you're the parent of a smoking teenager, wouldn't you rather have him or her replace cigarettes with nicotine water?
It's basically that liberal philosophy that all people are victims, and that the culprits are the material things. It's like when they blame guns for causing murders, or they blame motorcycles for motorcycle accidents. They never gave any thought to the idea that maybe people themselves are responsible for the outcomes. In this case, they never thought that smokers might have actually brought their addiction on to themselves.
It looks like my friend won't be able to rely on nicotine water to help him get off of his smoking habit. The real tragedy in this, is that a lot of effort was put forth by a lot of people to kill a product that never proved to be a problem, when in fact that effort could have been put to better use.
4 comments | | Perma Link
Open Letter to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly (from Libertarian National Committee, Inc.)
by Dave
5/23/2005 11:11:00 AM
Dear Mr. O'Reilly,
On a recent airing of your show, The O'Reilly Factor, you made the statement, "I'm not a 'Star Wars' fan. I can't tell a Wookie from a Libertarian." While I appreciate the light-hearted, comedic manner in which you were offering this observation, hopefully this letter will give you some much needed insight into the array of people across the nation who are proud members of the Libertarian Party.
While Democrats and Republicans constantly speak of "freedom" and "liberty" their actions contradict their words. Libertarians believe in -- and work toward -- returning true freedom and liberty to the people of this nation. This is not done through extreme measures as it starts with fewer taxes and smaller government; the same ideals once touted by Republicans who failed to deliver.
Libertarians are guided by common sense principles and not by far right or far left ideologies. It can be argued that the Libertarian Party is the rational conscience of the nation.
The Libertarian Party is comprised of everyday Americans who share an extraordinary hope for America. We work hard, pay our taxes, love our families and serve our nation. We are your bus drivers, doctors, secretaries, firemen, laborers and executives. We all work together, despite overwhelming odds, to make the nation that we love and honor a better place for future generations.
The Libertarian Party is not for everyone. You must be willing to think for yourself and not be guided by rhetoric or a daily set of talking points. Libertarians place their loyalty to their nation, their families and themselves above their loyalty to a political party. We believe that in order to enact change an individual must lead, not be led. This is in stark contrast with the two governing parties of this nation who would rather carry an obedient membership instead of an empowered membership. The Libertarian Party is open to anyone who has the desire and rational thought to make this nation better.
While we are admittedly the underdog in nearly every race or action that we choose to enter, we do not quit, our principles do not waiver and in defeat we will get back up and show again with determination in our hearts.
Keep an eye on us, Mr. O'Reilly, because every once in a while an underdog becomes a champion.
Best Regards,
Joe Seehusen
National Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
2 comments | | Perma Link
Liberal Males versus Conservative Males
by Steve
5/22/2005 10:28:00 PM
A
recent post from Joel perhaps reveals one of the differences between a liberal male and a conservative male. Towards the end of the post, he expresses a disappointment:
What upsets me is the double-standard: women can claim that saying that a woman is overweight is persecution, but men can't complain when women don't find them attractive.
What brought Joel to this statement is a comparison between porno movies and Harlequin romance novels. He says that in porno, women have to have perfect bodies, while the men don't have to be perfect. But in romance novels, the women are portrayed as imperfect, while the men are portrayed as perfect.
The thing with liberals, is that they believe men and women are equals, including psychologically, spritually, and emotionally. Apparently, Joel is disappointed with his "midriff", for being too rotund. Notice that he uses the word "midriff". Myself, I just call it my belly, and sometimes I call it my "beer belly".
But the conservative, as well as the "NASCAR Dads", and the "NRA Guys", consider men and women to be totally different creatures. They're different in every way, including emotionally, and psychologically. First, none of them refer to their bellies as "midriffs", and they could care less if a woman found them to be less than perfect.
The fact that Joel is disappointed that he is not allowed to complain when a woman points out his beer belly, shows that he may be too much in touch with his feminine side, or perhaps senses that he's a "victim" of conservative female aggression.
In any case, the liberal man approaches both sexes as if they were one-and-the-same, while the conservative man sees each sex as being uniquely different.
2 comments | | Perma Link
Nuclear Power Developments
by Dave
5/21/2005 05:26:00 AM
NuStart Energy Development, a joint venture of several nuclear power companies, is looking to build the first new nuclear power plant in this country in 30 years. This is not your father's nuclear power plant. New technology and licensing requirements are expected to help reduce construction costs. The plant is expected to be built faster than past plants and could come online in less than 10 years from now.
I hope this is just the beginning. The United States must eliminate its reliance upon Middle East oil. We are in a new technological day where construction and computer technology is so much better than it was 30 years ago. We need to make a fresh start with this powerful technology. Hopefully this is just the beginning.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Man Charged With Trying To Get License With Fake ID Released
by Dave
5/21/2005 05:21:00 AM
My local paper tells a brief story about a man named Yemy Dare who attempted to procure a New Jersey drivers license by tendering fake identification. The story noted that Dare had several fake papers with him with several additional names. The man is apparently a resident of Newark but the name definitely seems to be African, possibly Nigerian. This sort of crime is just exactly what Nigerians and other members of organized crime have been trying for years. This sort of thing could easily be a part of the next September 11 scenario.
So what is the fate of the arrested man? The story says the man was charged and later released. Does anybody out there think he'll show up for his court date?
We need to create a separate grade of crimes which can be related to terrorism. This is one of them. The guy should have been held until his trial. We must adjust our laws to reflect this new reality.
3 comments | | Perma Link
Michael Jackson Trial Update
by Dave
5/21/2005 05:13:00 AM
The Michael Jackson trial is getting really bizarre. Jackson's former attorney, Mark Geragos, has been testifying under a waiver of attorney-client privilege but only for anything which happened prior to events before Jackson was arrested. Pretty strange stuff, a conditional waiver of privilege? The judge in the case is considering
sanctions against Mesereau. The whole defense is based upon a notion that the mother of the boy was out to shake down Jackson for money. Very little has been offered to refute the prosecution's case. What little has been offered by the defense is focused on people who claim they never saw Jackson commit similar crimes or that they saw the boy acting wild. This is roughly akin to someone claiming so and so could not have killed such and such victim because the witness never saw the accused kill anyone before and because the witness once saw the victim behave badly. How is this relevant?
0 comments | | Perma Link
"Showdown Looms as Republicans Seek to End Judicial Debate"
by Dave
5/20/2005 01:20:00 PM
The New York Times has an article today entitled,
"Showdown Looms as Republicans Seek to End Judicial Debate." This is where I get really mad at the "traditional media" because the headline is slanted and mostly incorrect. The headline should have been something like Republicans, angered by minority foot-dragging move to end it. That's what is going on here. Bush nominates judges and the Senate's job is to "advise and consent." Here we may a minority of Senators who hope to permanently avoid a vote on a number of judges by using the filibuster. They know they cannot hope to win a straight up majority vote on judges which the Constitution supports. So they delay and nothing else gets done. So, who gets the balme for nothing else getting done?
You can argue all you want that judicial filibusters are nothing new but you are wrong. We've been over this before. You can argue that the minority must have some safeguards against tyranny of any majority no matter how slight. That is valid in certain circumstances but not in all. When everything is gummed up and nothing gets done because the minority party is trying to drag things until another election can be held, there are only two courses of action. You can change the rules slightly to get past the logjam created by the minority or you can boot the whole minority out of office at the next elections.
Take your pick which poison you'd like to swallow.
No matter what the outcome, we need these boys to get back to work and get back to work NOW!
2 comments | | Perma Link
Graduates Of September 11
by Dave
5/20/2005 01:13:00 PM
I hadn't thought much about this but the college students who are graduating from college right now mostly spent their first weeks in college, their first weeks totally away from their parents, right smack dab in the middle of the events of September 11, 2001. That must have been a strange fire by which to have been forged. I imagine these kids grew up to a different state of reality than most of us but one never knows how events will make their witnesses. I suppose these newly minted grads are stronger than those of us who have never known tragedy on this level before. Like the kids who grew up in the wake of Pearl Harbor, these kids will have a different world view than those who went before them. I hope they can now help us find our way out of the woods.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Bogus Drivers License Concerns
by Dave
5/20/2005 01:05:00 PM
The Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey is upset over the new law concerning drivers licenses which is ready for Bush's signature. They claim the state of New Jersey (and likely others) will need to create
special driving privilege cards for illegals. They note "the economy of the state relies on the (illegal) immigrants who, on a daily basis, cut our grass, prepare our food and clean our homes and places of business."
This comment is particularly ridiculous in a state like New Jersey which has pretty good mass transit. A number of things I see everyday make a mockery of this. First off, illegals in my area rarely drive anywhere. There is a large illegal mexican population which rides bicycles to their place of employ at golf courses and a few other types of businesses. Most who "cut our grass" are picked up by lawn guys at a particular place in town where illegals congregate. Anyone else can take one of the many, cheap buses and in a few cases trains. There is no need of drivers licenses.
This is just another lie told by those who oppose anything, and I do mean anything, Republicans come up with.
0 comments | | Perma Link
More On Military Base Closures
by Dave
5/20/2005 12:56:00 PM
The story on congressmen fighting the military's potential closure of a number of large bases is getting interesting. Analysts are focusing on the budgetary assumptions under which the final decisions are to be made. Basically the military (or anyone else) needs first to figure an amount a given base costs, then calculate how much it will cost to operate all the base's functions elsewhere, then factor in the cost of moving. The amounts for even current operational costs are, at best, estimates, but as you move into projected costs elsewhere and then to the cost of moving functions, it really becomes guess work. It turns out that in the past, sometimes the military's estimates are way off, particularly when it comes to moving costs. And mixed into this are the costs of obtaining replacements for civilians in specific jobs. The base near me employs some 10,000 people. The base is a communication center which at times has been THE communication center. My area also happens to be the telecommunications center of the universe. So replacing the highly qualified civilians who likely will not move, is nearly impossible and even if possible, extremely expensive.
So you gotta wonder how this is all going to play out. I dislike governmental sector "budget estimates." They are the kind which never even come close to materializing. If closing a particular base ends up being more expensive than leaving it alone, I'm going to be really mad. I hope you will pay enough attention to be really mad too.
2 comments | | Perma Link
Columbia University Declares War On ROTC
by Dave
5/20/2005 12:51:00 PM
The Daily News (New York) has an op/ed today discussing
Columbia University's double standard with respect to the university saying they will not allow ROTC on campus. The editorial points out that the university has no problem with accepting money from countries in which homosexual behavior is a criminal offense. Yet it will not permit ROTC on campus because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy authored by then President Bill Clinton.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Six Flags' Kingda Ka Is Now Open
by Dave
5/20/2005 12:21:00 PM
Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson, New Jersey has opened
Kingda Ka, the world's tallest roller coaster. I admit that I am too much of a coward to face this unless and until I am shamed by my spouse and several friends to ride the thing. At that point I will remove my glasses, be thankful that I have been too much of a coward to get lasik, and even then, I will shut my eyes for the 50 seconds I am on the ride. But that's not what I wanted to write about.
What I want to write about is, according to Sean Hannity, Six Flags is now banning convicted sex offenders from their parks. I have seen no other source for this - I heard it on the radio. But how does a place like an amusement park possibly hope to implement such a policy. It is not as if they can put possible pedophiles through an x-ray machine or metal detector. So what is the purpose of the policy? If a convicted sex offender is found to have violated the policy, it isn't as if he or she may face a criminal charge for it.
I suppose this is nothing more than a gimmick to make people (stupid enough to think it is possible to implement this policy) feel safer. Don't get me wrong, I don't like sex offender, especially those who prey on children. But this is nothing more than a fraud.
1 comments | | Perma Link
Liberals Use Biblical Interpretation to Invalidate Conservatism
by Steve
5/19/2005 11:10:00 PM
The latest discussion point among liberal think-tankers recently centers around an op/ed piece written by Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times, in which he reviews a book entitled, "The Sins of Scripture". A liberal blogger, "
Feministe", seems to believe Kristof is right on in his analysis of conservatives that shroud themselves in the Bible, and then take actions that contradict the Bible.
If you've spent anytime reading and listening to liberals, the first thing they always say when you mention the word "conservative" is that they are hypocrites for calling themselves Christians, and then taking action that is un-Christian-like. For example, the War on Terror, any liberal will tell you is actually an attempt at "ethnic cleansing" and "stealing oil".
Liberals believe that the best way to "invalidate" conservatism is to point out inconsistencies in what conservatives say, versus what they do, particularly in their religious beliefs.
But in order to accomplish this invalidation, liberals assume their interpretation of the Bible is the "correct" interpretation. That is, liberals consider themselves better scholars of Christianity, than conservatives, hence they have the qualifications of judging christians as being "real christians" or not. So why do liberals believe they are far more superior than conservatives, in the subject of religion?
The truth of the matter is that no one really knows how to interpret the Bible. We have biblical scholars that argue over the true meanings of certain passages in the Bible. We have several different "flavors" of Christianity based on a differing opinions of what the Bible means. So how is that liberal bloggers believe they can put themselves into the position of judging others?
Well, I suppose that's the nature of liberals.
Ask a conservative what they think about when they hear the word, "liberal". More than likely it will be "righteous bastards". All liberals believe they are "righteous". In their opinion, there is no margin for discussion, either you are a hypocrite, you are a racist, you are insenstive, or you are a liberal. That's why liberals believe they can judge another person's religion.
On the other hand, if you change the discussion to about fixing Social Security, Islamic Fundamentalism, declining education achievments, losing jobs to China, liberals don't have answers. But throw religion at them, and they'll eat cake.
0 comments | | Perma Link
War on Poverty
by Dave
5/19/2005 08:07:00 AM
Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post Staff Writer, has an article today discussing
"Two Fronts in the War on Poverty." The story focuses on a general state of confusion which Fletcher shows exists due to President Bush's "social entrepreneurship" approach which favors private and faith-based charity over governmental direct intervention.
I suppose this article is somewhat balanced in the sense that it seems to try to tell the "whole story." But the problem is that it also tries to show A) a general state of confusion, B) some fundamental contradictions, and C) how some existing projects are receiving too little money. Liberals all across this country are espousing this same message. Religious organizations just cannot do this work. Everything is in a jumble. Those who have been doing the real work are not receiving the resources they need to continue.
Those who do the real work are underfunded! That's the real crux of the matter. What the liberals are missing in their equation is that these organization are hidden socialism and
they are 
