Because the MSM is so biased against the war in Iraq, it is positively stupid about what is going on in the Middle East and fails completely to understand the game plan. Too many Democrats are really too stupid about international politics to be allowed ever to be in charge.
It is true that Iran is more a danger to us than Iraq. So Japan was a danger in WWII yet we never invaded Japan. How could that be? We invaded the Phillipines who were not our enemy. In this case, like what was going on during WWII we have an enemy that is Islamic Fascism. We are taking out the weaker links first. We must establish a beachhead, so to speak in Iraq, to be able to go after Iran. We may never physically invade Iran. Each war is different. Iranians mullahs clearly understand what is going on , that is why they are lending support to the "insurgents". A democratic, western leaning Iraq on one side with a democratic, western leaning Afghanistan on the other presents a terrible danger to the mullahs. It is all about geopolitics-- i. e. the territory which is controlled and how it enhances or subtracts from one's ability to make war. In other words, by fighting in Iraq, we ARE fighting the Iranian mullahs. There is no question about it.
Iran Focus-News - Iraq - Iranian agents captured in Falluja: "Iranian agents captured in Falluja %A0%A0 Sat. 13 Nov 2004
Iran Focus
Baghdad, Nov. 13 - Ten Iranian agents were arrested during a raid on a local mosque in Falluja following attacks by coalition forces. News of the arrests came at a press conference by the heads of the multinational and Iraqi forces in Falluja.
The mosque had been housing at least 300 militants with 110 of them confirmed to be foreign nationals.
The latest arrests follow a string of reports blaming Iran%92s religious regime of backing insurgencies in an attempt to halt the democratic process in Iraq.
The head of security in Soleimaniya (northern Iraq), Brigadier General Sarkout Hassan Jalal, said earlier this week, %93Paramilitary forces secretly bring fresh forces from Iran into Iraq, and then take them to Falluja and other places.%94
The Al-Sabah daily wrote on Nov. 8, %93Iraqi National Guard forces arrested eight Iranians as they were blowing up food storages and other centers in Kut. After preliminary interrogations of those arrested, it became clear that they were blowing up a storage room where election ballots were stored. Voters will receive one of these cards to participate in the upcoming elections by showing their birth certificate.%94
Last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi urged the European Union to use its influence over Iran to stop them from 'fuelling violence' in his country. Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawar also accused Iran of orchestrating attacks in Iraq. 'Iran is playing a negative role in Iraq. It is behind the assassination of more than 18 Iraqi intelligence officers. It is also playing a negative role in southern Iraq,' Yawar told Kuwait's Al-Qabas newspaper.
"
Monday, November 29, 2004
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Religious Scientists
1 SOSc
In honor of all of the religion bashing that has gone on since the election, I am linking to this humble website. It is the website of the Society of Ordained Scientists. How's that? you say. Each of the members of this organization is a) a published scientist and b) ordained as a priest or minister. No, I am not kidding. And it has a reasonably large membership.
If you want to find some thoughtful, educated discussion of the issues of science and religion, start here. Sometimes the reading is, to put it blntly, hard slogging. These are, after all, people who are doubly brilliant and professional.
Rather than engage in arguments with the people who flatter themselves by saying that no intelligent person could (unlike themselves) believe in a fantasy God, we should simply point to people who have more credentials as scientists than say, Bill Maher, who not only believe in God but who have taken the time and trouble to become ordained.
The best response to those who claim that apples do not exist is to show them an apple.
C. S. Lewis suggested that those who refuse to believe in God have emotional reasons. I think he was right. People who deny the existence of God tend, in my experience, to be either people who are very angry at what has happened to them in life or are people who want to be able to do whatever feels good and do not like the idea of a non self centered morality.
Such a philosophy when adopted as a life principle tends to be self destructive because it is, at its heart, nihilistic. Lewis has much to say about this in Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters.
Life without God becomes life without meaning if one meditates very much and very honestly on the issue. Human beings have a neurological need for God. See Why God Won't Go Away by Andrew Newberg, et. al.
In honor of all of the religion bashing that has gone on since the election, I am linking to this humble website. It is the website of the Society of Ordained Scientists. How's that? you say. Each of the members of this organization is a) a published scientist and b) ordained as a priest or minister. No, I am not kidding. And it has a reasonably large membership.
If you want to find some thoughtful, educated discussion of the issues of science and religion, start here. Sometimes the reading is, to put it blntly, hard slogging. These are, after all, people who are doubly brilliant and professional.
Rather than engage in arguments with the people who flatter themselves by saying that no intelligent person could (unlike themselves) believe in a fantasy God, we should simply point to people who have more credentials as scientists than say, Bill Maher, who not only believe in God but who have taken the time and trouble to become ordained.
The best response to those who claim that apples do not exist is to show them an apple.
C. S. Lewis suggested that those who refuse to believe in God have emotional reasons. I think he was right. People who deny the existence of God tend, in my experience, to be either people who are very angry at what has happened to them in life or are people who want to be able to do whatever feels good and do not like the idea of a non self centered morality.
Such a philosophy when adopted as a life principle tends to be self destructive because it is, at its heart, nihilistic. Lewis has much to say about this in Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters.
Life without God becomes life without meaning if one meditates very much and very honestly on the issue. Human beings have a neurological need for God. See Why God Won't Go Away by Andrew Newberg, et. al.
Hugh Hewitt Eats Crow
Hugh, in his 11th wrong USC football prediction for the year, will find himself again eating ummm not turkey but crow.
In celebration, go to this website where you can play the appropriate one of USC's many songs, Conquest ( the song the Trojan Marching Band plays after every touchdown)-- they played it often on Saturday at the Notre Dame game-- 41-10, Hugh
The Spirit of Troy - USC Trojan Marching Band
In celebration, go to this website where you can play the appropriate one of USC's many songs, Conquest ( the song the Trojan Marching Band plays after every touchdown)-- they played it often on Saturday at the Notre Dame game-- 41-10, Hugh
The Spirit of Troy - USC Trojan Marching Band
Thursday, November 25, 2004
JP Blecksmith-United States Marine
This essay, which appears on a marine's blog, captures much of what I wanted to say further about 2nd Lt. JP Blecksmith, who was killed in the battle for Fallujah. I attended his funeral because he is a son of my parish and because i wanted to honor his memory.
It was an impressive, awe inspiring ritual. More than 1500 people attended, completely filling our parish church AND the new parish hall. We all knew that we were in the presence of a true hero. On the back of the program was a quote from another son of our parish, General George S. Patton, Jr. "Let me not mourn for men who died fighting, but rather let me be glad that such heros lived"
In thinking about JP, as his friends called him, I reflected that he could have chosen so many other careers. For those who are not familiar with San Marino, it is a kind of older, quieter, more Republican Beverly Hills. JP was privileged to have parents who could provide him with a solid education. He attended Annapolis and could have chosen the Navy and, in this war, relative safety. He chose the Marines. The wonderful essay I have linked here talks about the unique history of the United States Marine Corps. You join the Marines to fight, if they will have you. You are trained to a high standard of honor and spirit. We are honored as a nation to have such men to protect us. Read the excerpt below and follow the link. It is well worth reading.
Domine, Non Sum Dignus » What Makes a Marine a Marine?: "All Marines die in the red flash of battle or the white cold of the nursing home. In the vigor of youth or the infirmity of age all will eventually die, but the Marine Corps lives on. Every Marine who ever lived is living still, in the Marines who claim the title today. It is that sense of belonging to something that will outlive your own mortality which gives people a light to live by and a flame to mark their passing."
It was an impressive, awe inspiring ritual. More than 1500 people attended, completely filling our parish church AND the new parish hall. We all knew that we were in the presence of a true hero. On the back of the program was a quote from another son of our parish, General George S. Patton, Jr. "Let me not mourn for men who died fighting, but rather let me be glad that such heros lived"
In thinking about JP, as his friends called him, I reflected that he could have chosen so many other careers. For those who are not familiar with San Marino, it is a kind of older, quieter, more Republican Beverly Hills. JP was privileged to have parents who could provide him with a solid education. He attended Annapolis and could have chosen the Navy and, in this war, relative safety. He chose the Marines. The wonderful essay I have linked here talks about the unique history of the United States Marine Corps. You join the Marines to fight, if they will have you. You are trained to a high standard of honor and spirit. We are honored as a nation to have such men to protect us. Read the excerpt below and follow the link. It is well worth reading.
Domine, Non Sum Dignus » What Makes a Marine a Marine?: "All Marines die in the red flash of battle or the white cold of the nursing home. In the vigor of youth or the infirmity of age all will eventually die, but the Marine Corps lives on. Every Marine who ever lived is living still, in the Marines who claim the title today. It is that sense of belonging to something that will outlive your own mortality which gives people a light to live by and a flame to mark their passing."
Emphasizing the Negative
The trouble with articles like this one, which is about poor urban black "families", is that it focusses so exclusively on phenomena that are undoubtedly a problem, that it conveys the idea that this is the experience of all American black people. When I read this article I remember my friend Tina, a college graduate and one of four children of a two parent family raised in Ohio.
There are a great many two parent black families. They represent not a breakaway "new" model, but the prevalent model of black families until maybe 30 years ago. The truth is that welfare and attitudes that encouraged irresponsibility have contributed to the creation of dysfunctional black families as they have to the creation of dysfunctional families of every ethnic origin. What this article, probably well meaning does, however, is reinforce the idea that the free sex and love--welfare--crime continuum is somehow uniquely black. It's not. You will find some of the same phenomena, expressed differently but still the same fatherlessness, going on among white and Hispanic families. It is the result of a culture that believes that sex should be untied from responsibility. Sex in the city leads to fatherless children living in poverty leads to crime. That is how reality works. What this article is missing is the need to return to a sexual morality that says that sex should be confined to marriage. It's not prudery. It's not right wing religious fanaticism. it's what is best for children.
City Journal Autumn 2004 | Dads in the ‘Hood by Kay S. Hymowitz: "Could the black family—in free fall since the 1965 Moynihan report first warned of the threat of its disintegration—finally be ready for a turnaround? There's sure a lot of soul-searching on the subject. A 2001 survey by CBS News and BET.com, a website affiliated with the Black Entertainment Television network, found that 92 percent of African-American respondents agreed that absentee fathers are a serious problem. In black public discourse, personal responsibility talk, always encompassing family responsibility, has been crowding out the old orthodoxy of reparations and racism. Bill Cosby's much debated remarks in June at the Rainbow/Push conference, calling on parents to take charge of their kids and for men to 'stop beating up your women because you can't find a job,' set off an amen corner. Democratic National Convention keynote speaker Barack Obama, the black Illinois senatorial candidate, celebrated family, hard work, and the inner-city citizens who 'know that parents have to parent.' In a New York Times op-ed, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates added his blessing when he asked, 'Are white racists forcing black teenagers to drop out of school or have babies?' Even the wily Reverend Al recently corrected one of the Times's most fervent PC watchdogs, Deborah Solomon, that, no, Cosby wasn't being racist, and that 'we didn't go through the civil rights movement only to end up as thugs and hoodlums.'"
There are a great many two parent black families. They represent not a breakaway "new" model, but the prevalent model of black families until maybe 30 years ago. The truth is that welfare and attitudes that encouraged irresponsibility have contributed to the creation of dysfunctional black families as they have to the creation of dysfunctional families of every ethnic origin. What this article, probably well meaning does, however, is reinforce the idea that the free sex and love--welfare--crime continuum is somehow uniquely black. It's not. You will find some of the same phenomena, expressed differently but still the same fatherlessness, going on among white and Hispanic families. It is the result of a culture that believes that sex should be untied from responsibility. Sex in the city leads to fatherless children living in poverty leads to crime. That is how reality works. What this article is missing is the need to return to a sexual morality that says that sex should be confined to marriage. It's not prudery. It's not right wing religious fanaticism. it's what is best for children.
City Journal Autumn 2004 | Dads in the ‘Hood by Kay S. Hymowitz: "Could the black family—in free fall since the 1965 Moynihan report first warned of the threat of its disintegration—finally be ready for a turnaround? There's sure a lot of soul-searching on the subject. A 2001 survey by CBS News and BET.com, a website affiliated with the Black Entertainment Television network, found that 92 percent of African-American respondents agreed that absentee fathers are a serious problem. In black public discourse, personal responsibility talk, always encompassing family responsibility, has been crowding out the old orthodoxy of reparations and racism. Bill Cosby's much debated remarks in June at the Rainbow/Push conference, calling on parents to take charge of their kids and for men to 'stop beating up your women because you can't find a job,' set off an amen corner. Democratic National Convention keynote speaker Barack Obama, the black Illinois senatorial candidate, celebrated family, hard work, and the inner-city citizens who 'know that parents have to parent.' In a New York Times op-ed, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates added his blessing when he asked, 'Are white racists forcing black teenagers to drop out of school or have babies?' Even the wily Reverend Al recently corrected one of the Times's most fervent PC watchdogs, Deborah Solomon, that, no, Cosby wasn't being racist, and that 'we didn't go through the civil rights movement only to end up as thugs and hoodlums.'"
America is Different Because It Chose God
As this lovely article by an immigrant should remind us, the roots of the American identity and experience are a specific form of Christianity-- a form that belived that belief in God was more important than country, than family, than history and tradition. That belief is also, contrary to leftwing stereotypes, believes in love and forgiveness. We as a country are different from other countries, not because God chose us, but because we chose God. And we know that God loves every human being as if there were only one of us to love (Hat tip to St. Augustine) Thus differences of history and tradition are less important than our common humanity.
HoustonChronicle.com - An adopted daughter gives thanks to America: "You also impart to us a willingness to love and to forgive. These are very vulnerable concepts for many of us foreigners who were bound by traditions of getting even. You know, my Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese friends told me that they don't really get along well with each other, but it was Tan who reached out to Chin and invited her to our gatherings. In our international fellowship, I've often seen Croats break bread with Serbs and people from all over the Middle East — people who would be each others' enemies if they were still in their countries — befriend one another."
HoustonChronicle.com - An adopted daughter gives thanks to America: "You also impart to us a willingness to love and to forgive. These are very vulnerable concepts for many of us foreigners who were bound by traditions of getting even. You know, my Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese friends told me that they don't really get along well with each other, but it was Tan who reached out to Chin and invited her to our gatherings. In our international fellowship, I've often seen Croats break bread with Serbs and people from all over the Middle East — people who would be each others' enemies if they were still in their countries — befriend one another."
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Global Media Becomes a Combatant
Retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a frequent contributor to the New York Post notes, not for the first time, that Global Media has become part of the enemy combatant force.
Jack Kelly: Victory in Fallujah: "The victory in Fallujah was also remarkable for its speed, Peters said. Speed was necessary, he said, 'because you are fighting not just the terrorists, but a hostile global media.'"
The truth is that we expect Al Jazeera to be on the side of the insurgents, and, unfortunately, we have come to expect the same thing from the New York Times, CBS, NBC and ABC. It is time for each and every one of us to acknowledge our own complicity. These media giants are giants because we watch them or read them. It is that simple. Every time you buy a newspaper or watch a TV show you are voting with your money.
Jack Kelly: Victory in Fallujah: "The victory in Fallujah was also remarkable for its speed, Peters said. Speed was necessary, he said, 'because you are fighting not just the terrorists, but a hostile global media.'"
The truth is that we expect Al Jazeera to be on the side of the insurgents, and, unfortunately, we have come to expect the same thing from the New York Times, CBS, NBC and ABC. It is time for each and every one of us to acknowledge our own complicity. These media giants are giants because we watch them or read them. It is that simple. Every time you buy a newspaper or watch a TV show you are voting with your money.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
France holds up its end of the Axis of Weasels
From MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute):
MEMRI: Latest News: "With the defeat of the Saddam Hussein regime on April 9, 2003, the Ba'th ruling party was outlawed and a committee for the de-Ba'thification of Iraq was established. [1] However, the Ba'th's propaganda machine appears to have found a new abode in Paris, France, whence threats to the U.S. are issued regularly in three languages - English, French, and Spanish. Not surprisingly, the Ba'thist propagandists use the word 'resistance' (in French, 'la resistance') to underscore the association with the struggle against the Nazi occupation of France during WWII.
The resurrection of the Ba'th Party on French soil was further strengthened by France's proposal that representatives of 'la resistance' should participate in any future conference that will be convened to discuss the future of Iraq. This position was clearly stated by Michel Barnier, the French Foreign Minister, in an interview with the French TV station ' France Inter.' In the interview, Mr. Barnier called for a political process in Iraq that would include 'a number of groups and people who have today opted for the path of resistance through the use of weapons.' [2]"
My comment: This is really almost an act of war by France. To establish a base of support for the former thugocracy of Iraq which is currently engaged in killing our troops, Iraqi troops and innocent Iraqi civilians, is unconscionable and uncomprehensible. There is no charm that is enought to compensate for this traitorous act by them. I hope our President will do something about this.
MEMRI: Latest News: "With the defeat of the Saddam Hussein regime on April 9, 2003, the Ba'th ruling party was outlawed and a committee for the de-Ba'thification of Iraq was established. [1] However, the Ba'th's propaganda machine appears to have found a new abode in Paris, France, whence threats to the U.S. are issued regularly in three languages - English, French, and Spanish. Not surprisingly, the Ba'thist propagandists use the word 'resistance' (in French, 'la resistance') to underscore the association with the struggle against the Nazi occupation of France during WWII.
The resurrection of the Ba'th Party on French soil was further strengthened by France's proposal that representatives of 'la resistance' should participate in any future conference that will be convened to discuss the future of Iraq. This position was clearly stated by Michel Barnier, the French Foreign Minister, in an interview with the French TV station ' France Inter.' In the interview, Mr. Barnier called for a political process in Iraq that would include 'a number of groups and people who have today opted for the path of resistance through the use of weapons.' [2]"
My comment: This is really almost an act of war by France. To establish a base of support for the former thugocracy of Iraq which is currently engaged in killing our troops, Iraqi troops and innocent Iraqi civilians, is unconscionable and uncomprehensible. There is no charm that is enought to compensate for this traitorous act by them. I hope our President will do something about this.
Flogging a Dead Horse, AGAIN
MSNBC - : "SECURE UNDISCLOSED LOCATION— There has been a John Kerry sighting.
“Regardless of the outcome of this election, once all the votes are counted— and they will be counted— we will continue to challenge this administration,” the 2004 Democratic candidate said in a prepared statement released today. “I will fight for a national standard for federal elections that has both transparency and accountability in our voting system. It is unacceptable in the United States that people still don’t have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process.”"
My Comment: These so called scholarly studies are a bunch of what if's, assumptions, , liberal world views that argue, essentially, that, if voters didn't behave the way liberals expected them to, then the voters don't exist.
They have not one shred of evidence, based on actually examining the machines, that the machines didn't work or that there was fraud. Their actual argument is, we didn't think you would vote that way, so you must not have. This from people who only recently learned the location of the Florida panhandle or Central Ohio. This from a bunch of people who look down their noses at people who live in these states.
So here is a newsflash for all of the academics who can barely stand to contemplate people who work for a living: Lots of people don't vote for president when they can't make up their minds because they want to vote on the down ballot issues. Lots of Democrats vote for Republicans and lots of Republicans vote for Democrats. Hey-- get over it. You lost.
“Regardless of the outcome of this election, once all the votes are counted— and they will be counted— we will continue to challenge this administration,” the 2004 Democratic candidate said in a prepared statement released today. “I will fight for a national standard for federal elections that has both transparency and accountability in our voting system. It is unacceptable in the United States that people still don’t have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process.”"
My Comment: These so called scholarly studies are a bunch of what if's, assumptions, , liberal world views that argue, essentially, that, if voters didn't behave the way liberals expected them to, then the voters don't exist.
They have not one shred of evidence, based on actually examining the machines, that the machines didn't work or that there was fraud. Their actual argument is, we didn't think you would vote that way, so you must not have. This from people who only recently learned the location of the Florida panhandle or Central Ohio. This from a bunch of people who look down their noses at people who live in these states.
So here is a newsflash for all of the academics who can barely stand to contemplate people who work for a living: Lots of people don't vote for president when they can't make up their minds because they want to vote on the down ballot issues. Lots of Democrats vote for Republicans and lots of Republicans vote for Democrats. Hey-- get over it. You lost.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
The Fog of War
I hear all these discussions about the Marine who killed a wounded terrorist differently now. I was never on the side of the people who condemned the Marine. But I think I used to think of it as a fierce game between the critics and the defenders. Now it makes me very sad. Even though I did not know JP Blecksmith personally, I am more deeply and thoroughly aware that what is going on in Iraq is not a video game. If you make a mistake, you cannot just cancel the game and start over. The Geneva Conventions were adopted in hopes of keeping war contained. They were a statement that all Is NOT fair in war. And because they were about containing war, apparently, they explicitly say that protocols relating to treatment of the wounded only apply when the enemy combatant himself or in the collective have ALSO been following the rules.
One thing everyone is agreed on is that these combatants didn't follow any of the rules, that they consider the Western tendency to follow the rules a weakness to be exploited.
What makes me so sad is that 1) at a time when our troops should be hailed and celebrated and thanked over and over and over again, this garbage, obscene arm-chair critique of a young man who has laid his life on the line for you and me, is going on.
I think to myself, What is wrong with these people? It is the left that treats this all as seriously as a videogame or a high school debate. They have no care for the consequences of what they say or do. It is the same feeling I get when I see abused or neglected children. I ask myself, how could an adult do this? These Marines are not children and they can take care of themselves, but nevertheless I ask the left how can you be so hateful toward the people who have protected you from a terrorist attack for the last three years?
One thing everyone is agreed on is that these combatants didn't follow any of the rules, that they consider the Western tendency to follow the rules a weakness to be exploited.
What makes me so sad is that 1) at a time when our troops should be hailed and celebrated and thanked over and over and over again, this garbage, obscene arm-chair critique of a young man who has laid his life on the line for you and me, is going on.
I think to myself, What is wrong with these people? It is the left that treats this all as seriously as a videogame or a high school debate. They have no care for the consequences of what they say or do. It is the same feeling I get when I see abused or neglected children. I ask myself, how could an adult do this? These Marines are not children and they can take care of themselves, but nevertheless I ask the left how can you be so hateful toward the people who have protected you from a terrorist attack for the last three years?
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
The Geneva Convention and Fallujah
Before we all go on about what the Geneva Convention requires, we ought to, maybe, read it. One of the requirements for a combatant to be protected by the Geneva Convention is that he carry his arms openly.
The enemy combatants in Fallujah had, based on other statements, frequently used wounded and dead as decoys to hide weapons-- i. e. booby trap.Thus they are not entitled to the convention that requires the U. S. to protect the wounded. They violated other conventions by failing to dress in distinctive garb that would allow the Marines to tell from a distance who is a civilian and who is a foe.
If we are going to talk about the geneva convenations, maybe we should read them.
Reference Guide to the Geneva Conventions
The enemy combatants in Fallujah had, based on other statements, frequently used wounded and dead as decoys to hide weapons-- i. e. booby trap.Thus they are not entitled to the convention that requires the U. S. to protect the wounded. They violated other conventions by failing to dress in distinctive garb that would allow the Marines to tell from a distance who is a civilian and who is a foe.
If we are going to talk about the geneva convenations, maybe we should read them.
Reference Guide to the Geneva Conventions
Update to JP Blecksmith
JP Blecksmith's funeral will be at 1:00 on Saturday November 20 at Church of Our Saviour (Episcopal) in San Gabriel
Monday, November 15, 2004
In memoriam Lt. James P. Blecksmith
I didn't know Lt. Blecksmith personally. He died last week, in Fallujah. the picture above is of a statue of General Patton, who died in World War II. It stands in the garden of Church of Our Saviour, San Gabriel. The church that George Patton, James Blecksmith and I all have attended.
When I go there I know I walk where heroes have walked.
Lt. Blecksmith was a Marine. He was only 24. He was loved by his mother and father and his brothers and sister and friends. He died doing something he believed in. He died trying to make the world safer for me and mine. And for that, I am eternally grateful.
For now the battle for Fallujah seems to be won. It may not be until my son's or my grandson's generation that we will know if the War on Terror is won, finally and for certain. But I already know that our soldiers are finer than we could hope or expect and that we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. Thank you Marines. Thank you soldiers.
Well done, good and faithful servants. Well done.
CBS Lies Again
I think now that the CBS reporters aren't even thinking about telling lies, its a way of life for them like it is for drug addicts. As in dealing with drug addicts, you begin to think, What's the point of trying to argue with them. Claims of Saddam's WMD had no foundation? There were all sorts of reports of WMD's, there was a time in the past when we know he had them because he used them. We have found sarin gas there now although not in large quantities. The Duelfer Report makes it clear Saddam wanted his neighbors to believe he had WMDs and , most important, he had the capability of making them. Somehow it is not enough to the left to tell the truth-- some of the claims Powell made to the U. N. rested on faulty evidence-- maybe it is the lawyer in me-- faulty evidence is not the same as no evidence. In law, it is a very big difference. For example, in a libel suit if you believed you were telling the truth, you can avoid punitive damages and you may avoid damages altogether, though the statement you made, believing it was true, turned out to be false. Is this too subtle and nuanced for liberals? If this reporter so casually repeats a Michael Moore lie as if it were true, he should not be a reporter.
White House adviser Rice 'likely' to succeed Powell - Coal - Food and Beverage - Forest Products and Paper - Industrial, Diversified - Mining and Metals - Oil and Gas - Natural Resources - Industrial Products & Services - Energy - Bond Market - Economy - War & Terrorism: "Iraq has dominated Powell's attention during his nearly four years with the administration. He will perhaps be best remembered for his appearance before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, during which he argued that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein must be removed from power because he possessed weapons of mass destruction.
There is no evidence that those claims had any foundation. Powell has maintained all along that the use of force by the United States-led coalition in Iraq was justified."
White House adviser Rice 'likely' to succeed Powell - Coal - Food and Beverage - Forest Products and Paper - Industrial, Diversified - Mining and Metals - Oil and Gas - Natural Resources - Industrial Products & Services - Energy - Bond Market - Economy - War & Terrorism: "Iraq has dominated Powell's attention during his nearly four years with the administration. He will perhaps be best remembered for his appearance before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, during which he argued that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein must be removed from power because he possessed weapons of mass destruction.
There is no evidence that those claims had any foundation. Powell has maintained all along that the use of force by the United States-led coalition in Iraq was justified."
Working Poor is an Oxymoron
As Steven Malanga demonstrates in this article: City Journal Autumn 2004 | The Myth of the Working Poor by Steven Malanga
If you work hard and don't blow it on drugs or other bad choices the evidence is that you will no longer be poor even if you have only a high school education and no particular skills. The American dream is alive and well, but the left doesn't like it. Why? Probably so they can live in style while sneering at the people whose tax money they live off in the guise of government programs to help the poor.
If you work hard and don't blow it on drugs or other bad choices the evidence is that you will no longer be poor even if you have only a high school education and no particular skills. The American dream is alive and well, but the left doesn't like it. Why? Probably so they can live in style while sneering at the people whose tax money they live off in the guise of government programs to help the poor.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
From one Theo to Another in Holland
Dhimmi Watch: "While the Arab-European League accused the Dutch immigration minister of giving a 'Hitler speech' at a rally in protest at van Gogh's murder, the Dutch know who the real Hitlers are. Even the most liberal society is illiberal when it is a question of survival. The Dutch see those who dream of Europe under a revived caliphate as a threat to their way of life. The prospect of Islamist imams imposing sharia law on Dutch cities amounts, they feel, to a new Nazi occupation
Unlike his great, great, great uncle Vincent, Theo van Gogh was not a genius. Was he really an artist at all? But van Gogh's murder has proved him right about the hardline Islamists. Their ideology is inimical to all that the Dutch hold dear. Last night, as van Gogh's cremation was seen on television, the tension was palpable. Holland is now the crucible of Europe. Not even the most tolerant people on earth can tolerate the Islamists."
When I first read this story, I thought my brain was confused. Theo Van Gogh-- wasn't that the brother of Vincent, the one who supported him and took care of him. Well, this the was a great great grandson, apparently, of that Theo. He made a movie about how Muslims treat women. I watched it on the net, it wasn't great, but it was critical. For this action. of telling the truth of Muslims and women, told by women who had been Muslim, he was murdered in broad daylight on a Dutch street. Apparently, the Dutch are, at last, offended. Perhaps the tide will turn before Eurabia becomes a reality.
Unlike his great, great, great uncle Vincent, Theo van Gogh was not a genius. Was he really an artist at all? But van Gogh's murder has proved him right about the hardline Islamists. Their ideology is inimical to all that the Dutch hold dear. Last night, as van Gogh's cremation was seen on television, the tension was palpable. Holland is now the crucible of Europe. Not even the most tolerant people on earth can tolerate the Islamists."
When I first read this story, I thought my brain was confused. Theo Van Gogh-- wasn't that the brother of Vincent, the one who supported him and took care of him. Well, this the was a great great grandson, apparently, of that Theo. He made a movie about how Muslims treat women. I watched it on the net, it wasn't great, but it was critical. For this action. of telling the truth of Muslims and women, told by women who had been Muslim, he was murdered in broad daylight on a Dutch street. Apparently, the Dutch are, at last, offended. Perhaps the tide will turn before Eurabia becomes a reality.
Orrin Hatch gets it just right
Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views): "We are therefore pleased to learn that Sen. Orrin Hatch is introducing his own constitutional amendment. His version reads as follows: 'Civil marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any union other than that of a man and a woman.' This amendment would not only clearly allow civil unions to be enacted by legislatures; it would even allow legislatures to enact full-fledged same-sex marriage. But it would bar federal or state courts from imposing either.
Some conservatives will object that this amendment does not go far enough. But what it does is meet the challenge that actually inspired an amendment in the first place: the threat that judges will impose same-sex marriage or its equivalent in disregard of the public will. Hatch's language has the additional advantage of being clear and understandable to the layman. For most people, the notion that legislators should be making these decisions will seem like simple common sense.'
This my friends, is a winner. It is a Constitutional Amendment that CAN BE PASSED and that addresses the STATED concerns of people who are pro-gay marriage. This Amendment leaves the decision to the states & it does not use the Constitution to settle the issue of gay marriage forevermore. Of course, a lot of people who are pro-gay marriage would fight this Amendment tooth and nail because despite their claims to the contrary, they want the judiciary to impose gay marriage on America. But fighting against an Amendment like this would expose their real agenda for what it is.
On the other hand, as National Review said, there may be some conservatives who oppose this Amendment because they believe it doesn't go far enough. Hey, I understand where they're coming from, but you have to take your victories where you can find them. As I mentioned last week, Constitutional Amendments are difficult to get approved under the best of circumstances and this isn't the best of circumstances. So if we can pass an Amendment that protects states from having gay marriage imposed on them by the judiciary -- and as I said, I think Hatch's Amendment could be passed -- that would be a notable improvement over the current situation.
So if W. finds that he doesn't have the votes to get the Constitutional Amendment he's pushing for through Congress -- and that will probably be the case --I would strongly recommend that he throw his full support behind Hatch's Amendment or something very much like it."
John Hawkins in Rightwingnews.com also gets it right. Orrin Hatch's proposed amendment to the constitution exactly meets the attempt by gay activists to force marriage down the throat of the American people. It makes quite clear that the state propositions which have passed will be the law of those states and will not be set aside by activist judges. It also captures the elusive middle. That is, while it does not settle the question forever and for all time, it does require a vote of a legislature or the people of a state. If that amendment had been part of the constitution, Massachusetts would not now have gay marriage.
Some conservatives will object that this amendment does not go far enough. But what it does is meet the challenge that actually inspired an amendment in the first place: the threat that judges will impose same-sex marriage or its equivalent in disregard of the public will. Hatch's language has the additional advantage of being clear and understandable to the layman. For most people, the notion that legislators should be making these decisions will seem like simple common sense.'
This my friends, is a winner. It is a Constitutional Amendment that CAN BE PASSED and that addresses the STATED concerns of people who are pro-gay marriage. This Amendment leaves the decision to the states & it does not use the Constitution to settle the issue of gay marriage forevermore. Of course, a lot of people who are pro-gay marriage would fight this Amendment tooth and nail because despite their claims to the contrary, they want the judiciary to impose gay marriage on America. But fighting against an Amendment like this would expose their real agenda for what it is.
On the other hand, as National Review said, there may be some conservatives who oppose this Amendment because they believe it doesn't go far enough. Hey, I understand where they're coming from, but you have to take your victories where you can find them. As I mentioned last week, Constitutional Amendments are difficult to get approved under the best of circumstances and this isn't the best of circumstances. So if we can pass an Amendment that protects states from having gay marriage imposed on them by the judiciary -- and as I said, I think Hatch's Amendment could be passed -- that would be a notable improvement over the current situation.
So if W. finds that he doesn't have the votes to get the Constitutional Amendment he's pushing for through Congress -- and that will probably be the case --I would strongly recommend that he throw his full support behind Hatch's Amendment or something very much like it."
John Hawkins in Rightwingnews.com also gets it right. Orrin Hatch's proposed amendment to the constitution exactly meets the attempt by gay activists to force marriage down the throat of the American people. It makes quite clear that the state propositions which have passed will be the law of those states and will not be set aside by activist judges. It also captures the elusive middle. That is, while it does not settle the question forever and for all time, it does require a vote of a legislature or the people of a state. If that amendment had been part of the constitution, Massachusetts would not now have gay marriage.
Gonzales will be a better pick than others think.
Captain's Quarters: "It seems to me that Bush did little for himself politically with this selection. Perhaps Rudy Giuliani and Larry Thompson made it known that they were not interested, but in the short time frame that the decision was made, it simply appears that Gonzalez was the pick all along. Either Giuliani or Thompson would have had a much easier time going through the confirmation process. Giuliani's star quality would have made him a highly effective proponent for the Patriot Act renewal, and his track record would have lent more trust to its implementation. Thompson would have been a smooth transition, professional and low-key, whose conservative bent would have kept Bush's base happy.
While I believe Gonzalez to be qualified to do the job, I don't think he was the most effective pick. Look for more challenges and partisan sniping from both the confirmation process and the Patriot Act renewal campaign in the upcoming session."
I think the captain has it wrong. First, let's look at plain old voting blocks. Picking Gonzales is saying to Hispanics who voted for him, thanks for your supports. Second, while it won't mollify the left, it will reassure the middle that hears all the left wing hysterics about the new theocracy. Gonzales is clearly not that guy. On the other hand, he is a loyal friend. Contrary to what you hear from the left, where the real extremism in this country is located, Roe v. Wade does not stand in the way of banning partial birth abortion. Roe v. Wade explicitly allows the government to regulate the treatment accorded to VIABLE fetuses. Partial birth abortions are only performed on viable fetuses. When they are not viable there is no need to kill them. (Which is part of the legal definition of partial birth abortion). Gonzales, I hope, will be the guy who can explain this to the worried middle. Contrary to what many pundits claim, abortion is an issue with a compromise position, made possible by the left's extremism. To protect viable fetuses is now characterized by the leadership of the Democratic party as an extreme right wing position. It is also one which some 70 percent of the American people agree with.
While I believe Gonzalez to be qualified to do the job, I don't think he was the most effective pick. Look for more challenges and partisan sniping from both the confirmation process and the Patriot Act renewal campaign in the upcoming session."
I think the captain has it wrong. First, let's look at plain old voting blocks. Picking Gonzales is saying to Hispanics who voted for him, thanks for your supports. Second, while it won't mollify the left, it will reassure the middle that hears all the left wing hysterics about the new theocracy. Gonzales is clearly not that guy. On the other hand, he is a loyal friend. Contrary to what you hear from the left, where the real extremism in this country is located, Roe v. Wade does not stand in the way of banning partial birth abortion. Roe v. Wade explicitly allows the government to regulate the treatment accorded to VIABLE fetuses. Partial birth abortions are only performed on viable fetuses. When they are not viable there is no need to kill them. (Which is part of the legal definition of partial birth abortion). Gonzales, I hope, will be the guy who can explain this to the worried middle. Contrary to what many pundits claim, abortion is an issue with a compromise position, made possible by the left's extremism. To protect viable fetuses is now characterized by the leadership of the Democratic party as an extreme right wing position. It is also one which some 70 percent of the American people agree with.
Monday, November 08, 2004
As Usual, Lying with Statistics
What the following report doesnt' tell you is that other countries do not count as infant deaths babies born near death. Thus the infant mortality rate in the U. S. always looks worse than that of nations that don't report every live birth as a birth.
Also , they really attribute the ususal leftwing reasons without any research into the facts. For example, lack of health insurance does not mean lack of medical care. There is no effort here to differentiate based on age of mother (teenage mothers have a higher infant mortality rate) or other non public health related factors.
FOXNews.com - Health - Minnesota Tops List of State Health Rankings : "The survey has documented steady improvements in a host of health indicators across the country since 1990 in areas including deaths from infectious diseases, motor vehicle accidents, and violent crime. But experts now warn that gains seen up until 2000 have leveled off to near stagnation.
“We’re not really making progress year over year,” says Reed Tuckson, MD, vice president of the United Health Foundation, one of three groups releasing the study.
Tuckson cites a near-doubling in national obesity rates since 1990 as a major drag on what could otherwise be an improving health picture for Americans. While death from violent crimes, cancer, infectious diseases, and car accidents are down, those gains appear to be at least partially erased by a 23 perhaps obesity rate in the adult population.
Obesity is associated with a variety of health problems, including diabetes, pregnancy difficulties, and cardiovascular disease. A study published earlier this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association predicted that by next year obesity could overtake smoking as the leading preventable cause of death in the U.S."
Also , they really attribute the ususal leftwing reasons without any research into the facts. For example, lack of health insurance does not mean lack of medical care. There is no effort here to differentiate based on age of mother (teenage mothers have a higher infant mortality rate) or other non public health related factors.
FOXNews.com - Health - Minnesota Tops List of State Health Rankings : "The survey has documented steady improvements in a host of health indicators across the country since 1990 in areas including deaths from infectious diseases, motor vehicle accidents, and violent crime. But experts now warn that gains seen up until 2000 have leveled off to near stagnation.
“We’re not really making progress year over year,” says Reed Tuckson, MD, vice president of the United Health Foundation, one of three groups releasing the study.
Tuckson cites a near-doubling in national obesity rates since 1990 as a major drag on what could otherwise be an improving health picture for Americans. While death from violent crimes, cancer, infectious diseases, and car accidents are down, those gains appear to be at least partially erased by a 23 perhaps obesity rate in the adult population.
Obesity is associated with a variety of health problems, including diabetes, pregnancy difficulties, and cardiovascular disease. A study published earlier this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association predicted that by next year obesity could overtake smoking as the leading preventable cause of death in the U.S."
The Best post election analysis going
The Horserace Blog: Election Analysis Part II: Bush and the Republicans: "Note: Sorry this is a tad late. The Horserace Blogger needed to sleep in today!!!
As Bush-Cheney 2004 (BC04) was a reelection campaign, it had a fundamental advantage – it had the experience of four years ago upon which to draw. There were many lessons for them to have learned from Bush-Cheney 2000 (BC00). BC00 was run much the same that traditional Republican campaigns have been run. It was a top-down affair. BC00 did a masterful job of cultivating a good relationship with the media. Bush was decidedly chummy with his traveling press corps, and this chumminess engendered many a positive story – if you have any doubt, check out Alexandra Pelosi’s fantastic Journeys with George. It is important to remember that Bush was perceived differently that year. Bush and Rove worked very hard to cast Bush as a transcendent Republican, i.e. a Republican who could make peace with the Democrats, a Republican who could end the animosity that lingered after Clinton’s impeachment, a Republican who was not cast of Gingrich’s mold. Bush’s personality was perfectly suited to this task. He is, by all accounts, a very, very amiable fellow. A combination of Bush’s personality and the general theme of the campaign made this quite a smart strategy.
"
As Bush-Cheney 2004 (BC04) was a reelection campaign, it had a fundamental advantage – it had the experience of four years ago upon which to draw. There were many lessons for them to have learned from Bush-Cheney 2000 (BC00). BC00 was run much the same that traditional Republican campaigns have been run. It was a top-down affair. BC00 did a masterful job of cultivating a good relationship with the media. Bush was decidedly chummy with his traveling press corps, and this chumminess engendered many a positive story – if you have any doubt, check out Alexandra Pelosi’s fantastic Journeys with George. It is important to remember that Bush was perceived differently that year. Bush and Rove worked very hard to cast Bush as a transcendent Republican, i.e. a Republican who could make peace with the Democrats, a Republican who could end the animosity that lingered after Clinton’s impeachment, a Republican who was not cast of Gingrich’s mold. Bush’s personality was perfectly suited to this task. He is, by all accounts, a very, very amiable fellow. A combination of Bush’s personality and the general theme of the campaign made this quite a smart strategy.
"
Another Orwellian Label-The reality Based Community
Warblogging.com: The Reality-Based Community — Read in the White House: "There is the faith-based community and the reality-based community. In the reality-based community we have such odd bedfellows as Patrick Buchanan, John Kerry and Jim Wallis (a Sojourner minister who has met with Bush on several occasions). As Matthew Yglesias notes, we may have finally found the unifying theme for the 'anti-Bush coalition'. Reality.
Gene Healy has suggested that we start printing and wearing 'Reality-Based Community' t-shirts. It may not be a bad idea."
Reality based? Cut me a break. The left continually tries to create their own reality and when reality does not conform to their ideas they ignore it.
Here is some reality: RE: Same sex marriage: My ex, who is gay,and I still see each other and have a bond some 30 years after we were divorced. What is it? Our children. His children are my children. Our Grandchild. There is a sense, which any parents can tell you, in which you will always be married to the person with whom you produced children. Your lives are inextricably tied together in a way that cannot ever be replicated in a same sex relationship. When we look at that little carrier of both of our DNA, he's the same little guy and that same biological urge to protect and promote and save, hits us both. It takes a man and a woman to have a baby. That's reality.
On the issue of babies, by the way, the left goes way beyond Roe v. Wade, which held that states could not prohibit abortions BEFORE the baby is viable. Unfortunately for NARAL and the doctrinaire left, medical science keeps moving that line back. Further, NARAL insists on the right to have and "abortion" right up until the baby is delivered, completely and naturally. Newsflash to the left, partial birth abortion, which NARAL has made a test case is different from an early delivery only in the fact that the baby is killed before it leaves the womb. The reason for that is that these so called abortions are performed late in a pregnancy when, if the baby is not killed before it leaves the womb, it might well survive. You can pretend all you want that that physical object that has a heart beat and a brain and which will breathe on its own once it is allowed to be born without being killed is not a baby, but those of us in the real reality based community know, that it is a baby, a small human person.
We know that, for example, if the person who killed Laci Peterson had pulled her baby from the womb, he would likely still be alive.
This is reality. The truth is the left is constantly engaged in spinning and denying reality so as not to have to see the consequences of the self centered agenda that they advocate.
With regard to the war-- the truth is that the islamofascists want to kill us because we are not islamofascists, that most of the civilians who have died in the war are the victims of arab terrorists not U. S. troops and that we must end Islamofascism if we are to live safely in this world.
That's the reality. Somehow, we who have faith in a greater power seem to be more able to face reality than the faithless so called reality based community. They find reality way too painful so they spin it which is a nice way of saying they lie to themselves and others about it. Babies or old people inconvenient because they make us either be responsible for others or face or own selfishness?-- No problem, lets pass laws allowing for abortion of even perfectly formed, adequately mature babies in the womb and assisted suicide laws. That way we can get rid of the helpless inconvenient life that would draw us away from our higher pursuits of patting each other on the back.
Do I sound angry? Well, I am.
Gene Healy has suggested that we start printing and wearing 'Reality-Based Community' t-shirts. It may not be a bad idea."
Reality based? Cut me a break. The left continually tries to create their own reality and when reality does not conform to their ideas they ignore it.
Here is some reality: RE: Same sex marriage: My ex, who is gay,and I still see each other and have a bond some 30 years after we were divorced. What is it? Our children. His children are my children. Our Grandchild. There is a sense, which any parents can tell you, in which you will always be married to the person with whom you produced children. Your lives are inextricably tied together in a way that cannot ever be replicated in a same sex relationship. When we look at that little carrier of both of our DNA, he's the same little guy and that same biological urge to protect and promote and save, hits us both. It takes a man and a woman to have a baby. That's reality.
On the issue of babies, by the way, the left goes way beyond Roe v. Wade, which held that states could not prohibit abortions BEFORE the baby is viable. Unfortunately for NARAL and the doctrinaire left, medical science keeps moving that line back. Further, NARAL insists on the right to have and "abortion" right up until the baby is delivered, completely and naturally. Newsflash to the left, partial birth abortion, which NARAL has made a test case is different from an early delivery only in the fact that the baby is killed before it leaves the womb. The reason for that is that these so called abortions are performed late in a pregnancy when, if the baby is not killed before it leaves the womb, it might well survive. You can pretend all you want that that physical object that has a heart beat and a brain and which will breathe on its own once it is allowed to be born without being killed is not a baby, but those of us in the real reality based community know, that it is a baby, a small human person.
We know that, for example, if the person who killed Laci Peterson had pulled her baby from the womb, he would likely still be alive.
This is reality. The truth is the left is constantly engaged in spinning and denying reality so as not to have to see the consequences of the self centered agenda that they advocate.
With regard to the war-- the truth is that the islamofascists want to kill us because we are not islamofascists, that most of the civilians who have died in the war are the victims of arab terrorists not U. S. troops and that we must end Islamofascism if we are to live safely in this world.
That's the reality. Somehow, we who have faith in a greater power seem to be more able to face reality than the faithless so called reality based community. They find reality way too painful so they spin it which is a nice way of saying they lie to themselves and others about it. Babies or old people inconvenient because they make us either be responsible for others or face or own selfishness?-- No problem, lets pass laws allowing for abortion of even perfectly formed, adequately mature babies in the womb and assisted suicide laws. That way we can get rid of the helpless inconvenient life that would draw us away from our higher pursuits of patting each other on the back.
Do I sound angry? Well, I am.
The Gay Agenda Has Not Stopped
Gay News From 365Gay.com: "(San Francisco, California) A bill that would make same-sex marriage legal in California will be one of the first items on the agenda when the new session of the state Assembly convenes says the man who wrote the legislation.
Assemblymember Mark Leno tells the San Francisco Chronicle that he is not concerned that all eleven states which had constitutional bans on the ballot last week passed the measures.
Leno says that he has broad bipartisan support for his bill. Although it does not specifically mention same-sex marriage it redefines the definition of marriage from a contract 'between a man and a woman'' to a contract 'between two persons.''
The San Francisco Democrat, who is openly gay, said that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and about 30 other legislators plus Treasurer Phil Angelides, Controller Steve Westly and Secretary of State Kevin Shelley support the bill."
Nevermind the California Constitutional Amendment that specifically states that marriage is between one man and one woman. And why? Because the right people really want it. Why is it that, to the left, what they want is always more important than what anyone else wants? Because they are, as Tammy Bruce notes, malignant narcissists.
Assemblymember Mark Leno tells the San Francisco Chronicle that he is not concerned that all eleven states which had constitutional bans on the ballot last week passed the measures.
Leno says that he has broad bipartisan support for his bill. Although it does not specifically mention same-sex marriage it redefines the definition of marriage from a contract 'between a man and a woman'' to a contract 'between two persons.''
The San Francisco Democrat, who is openly gay, said that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and about 30 other legislators plus Treasurer Phil Angelides, Controller Steve Westly and Secretary of State Kevin Shelley support the bill."
Nevermind the California Constitutional Amendment that specifically states that marriage is between one man and one woman. And why? Because the right people really want it. Why is it that, to the left, what they want is always more important than what anyone else wants? Because they are, as Tammy Bruce notes, malignant narcissists.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Another Polling Flaw is Revealed
In most polling organizations on the presidential election, people are asked whether they are happy with the direction the country is headed. A no answer to that question is generally interpreted as being negative for the incumbent. In this case I think that interpretation was wrong. Put simply, the direction of the country emcompasses everything from Janet Jackson's breast to the the War in Iraq. For Values Voters, the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, coupled with actions by Gavin Newsome, the mayor of San Francisco decreeing gay marriage by fiat, were definite indicators that the country was headed in the wrong direction. Couple that with court decisions invalidating the partial birth abortion ban that was passed and they are very unhappy about the direction the country is headed in. But, Most Importantly, they didn't blame the president, nor should they have. They blamed the Democrats, and should have. The most wonderful thing about this election is that in very few instances were voters fooled by Democratic campaign rhetoric which tried to obscure their true positions.
The Bush Realignment: "What Kerry failed to see, and ultimately what sealed the fate of his candidacy, was a similarly momentous change in people's view of social issues brought into play earlier this year by the high court of his own home state. As we argued in these pages a month before the election ('The Rise of the Values Voter,' Oct. 11), survey research commissioned by Time and MSNBC/Knight-Ridder revealed that concern over social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage had taken a quantum leap this year and had become far more favorable to Republicans than in previous election cycles, particularly in the swing states in which the election was ultimately decided.
"
The Bush Realignment: "What Kerry failed to see, and ultimately what sealed the fate of his candidacy, was a similarly momentous change in people's view of social issues brought into play earlier this year by the high court of his own home state. As we argued in these pages a month before the election ('The Rise of the Values Voter,' Oct. 11), survey research commissioned by Time and MSNBC/Knight-Ridder revealed that concern over social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage had taken a quantum leap this year and had become far more favorable to Republicans than in previous election cycles, particularly in the swing states in which the election was ultimately decided.
"
Thursday, November 04, 2004
After The Election
A lot of pundits are pondering the meaning of the election. I agree most with the Wall Street Journal. Miguel Estrada for the Supreme Court. Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown for the 9th Circuit. At a minimum. To people like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who, torn between his liberal values regarding social issues and his strong support for the war in Iraq, I say, please take another look at those social values. There is, indeed, a halfway point on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Abortion has never been about the right of a woman to control her own body. It is about that other person that grows inside her. Her baby. 80 percent of the American people, when they have the procedure explained to them, are opposed to partial birth abortion. The extreme position demanded by NARAL of any politician who wants national Democratic Party support, is killing the Democratic Party. What do I mean by extreme? Democrats, by their votes, assert that a woman has a right to engage a doctor to kill a baby which would be able to breathe, eat and cry on its own absent a pair of scissors inserted into its brain stem to kill it. They assert the right of a woman to engage a doctor to do this act for any reason the woman finds compelling. They refuse to acknowledge the reality of that baby's human being. They voted against the Lacy Peterson act, finding two victims when the woman is pregnant because it implicitly acknowledges the personhood of an unborn infant. The problem with partial birth abortion issue is that anyone who has ever had a baby or who has ever held a newborn baby knows that a day or a week before, if this infant had had to be delivered fromm even a dead mother, it would have lived. They know that this is a fully formed human being capable of life outside the womb by, at the outside, the sixth month. NARAL doesn't just want to protect Roe v. Wade, they insist on extending it. In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court set the boundary of when the states could legislate protection for the unborn at the point where an infant could survive outside the womb. That is not enough for NARAL, they insist on an interpretation that allows a mother to have a doctor kill a baby which has partially emerged from the womb, its legs and body, hands and arms.
On the issue of gay marriage, again, the Republican majority can probably be talked into laws regulating domestic partnerships, if such laws are not cast in sexual terms. In California, for example, we have statutes concerning auto sales contracts, landlord and tenant arrangements and a host of other, essentially, contractual relationships. These laws require some contract terms, disallow some others and create a model contract in some cases, for those who do not have the money or time to construct their own. Similarly, there is a model will for the same reason. There is nothing inherently wrong in a state saying that it recognizes that persons who are not husband and wife may wish to enter a contractual relationship concerng their living situations and providing a model contract for that purpose. This could include, for example a grandmother and her grandchildren living with her. There is no reason for limiting a domestic partnership to persons maintaining a sexual relationship. Afer all, the claim made by homosexuals is that they are not able to have the defined obligations of marriage. But why shouldn't a man and woman who want to live together, for example, be able to enter a domestic partnership/
AS for marriage itself, I think that institution. to the extent it is recognized legally, must be reserved for a man and a woman, for the reasons I have set forth before.
On these two issues, Mr. Friedman and others who feel as he does, there is room for reasonable people to resolve their differences. If they are willing to budge one inch off of their positions.
On the issue of gay marriage, again, the Republican majority can probably be talked into laws regulating domestic partnerships, if such laws are not cast in sexual terms. In California, for example, we have statutes concerning auto sales contracts, landlord and tenant arrangements and a host of other, essentially, contractual relationships. These laws require some contract terms, disallow some others and create a model contract in some cases, for those who do not have the money or time to construct their own. Similarly, there is a model will for the same reason. There is nothing inherently wrong in a state saying that it recognizes that persons who are not husband and wife may wish to enter a contractual relationship concerng their living situations and providing a model contract for that purpose. This could include, for example a grandmother and her grandchildren living with her. There is no reason for limiting a domestic partnership to persons maintaining a sexual relationship. Afer all, the claim made by homosexuals is that they are not able to have the defined obligations of marriage. But why shouldn't a man and woman who want to live together, for example, be able to enter a domestic partnership/
AS for marriage itself, I think that institution. to the extent it is recognized legally, must be reserved for a man and a woman, for the reasons I have set forth before.
On these two issues, Mr. Friedman and others who feel as he does, there is room for reasonable people to resolve their differences. If they are willing to budge one inch off of their positions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)