I've learned a few lessons from the Gulf Region Disaster in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - the greatest natural disaster in our lifetime - so far:
1. The scope of disaster is mindboggling. I just can't completely comprehend the level of human suffering that has ocurred and that is still ocurring, with people still trapped and a million people displaced.
2. The strength of America is incomprehensible as well.
I heard Condi Rice interviewed this morning saying that the greatness of America is that we care about each other. I would quibble with that. I think people worldwide care about each other in a disaster. The greatness of America is that we've built a society that can pick ourselves up from a disaster, without waiting for the world to come in to rescue us. It's a strong society that has built the structure to rescue itself.
3. The capacity of people to fingerpoint and blame is endless.
I'm outraged by all of the politicians and media/talking heads coming out of the woodwork to blame the Bush administration for deaths.
Folks, get real.
The first response to emergency is local. The mayor and his administration. If you must fingerpoint, you have to start with the fact that they failed their citizens badly. Did Bush send thousands of people into the Superdome with not enough food, water, or security? No. The mayor's people did. Did Bush leave tens of buses parked, to be later flooded, instead of deploying them to evacuate people before the storm? No. All you have to do is look at the AP photo on the "Drudgereport" of all the school buses parked and flooded to know who the first level of failure was.
The second response is the state level. If you have to fingerpoint, you have to put Govenor Blanco on the hook. Did Bush fail to deploy the National Guard quickly enough? No. Lay that at Govenor Blanco's doorstep. Instead of crying on TV, overwhelmed, she should have led. Where were the 8000 members of the Guard who were not deployed to Iraq? For that matter, where were the State Police of Louisiana? Why did Mississippi (who took the direct hit of Katrina and suffered massive damage) and Alabama not collapse the way Blanco did?
What's clear to me is that the government levels in Louisiana, know to be thoroughly corrupt, failed to protect their citizens.
The last response is federal, who step in to rescue overwhelmed local and state resources. Were they slower to respond than they should have been? Maybe? I don't know. But a lot of people are accusing FEMA and others unfairly.
I'm tired already of the race pimps (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson) throwing around the "racist" accusations.
And, how many fingerpointing Democrats, who were the first and second levels of failure, do I have to watch on TV blaming Washington to gain political traction? It's unseemly.
I watched the President of Jefferson Parish on "Meet the Press" this morning telling a heartbreaking story of a woman who was not rescued, and who drowned on Friday, accusing the feds of not helping enough. How does that make sense? If you were right there and couldn't save her, how do you expect the people can come in from several states away and save her? Obviously, I cut this traumatized man a lot of slack in his grief. But enough already, of the blame game.
4. The mainstream media is essentially irrelevant as newsgathering operations.
I wanted to tune in for a few hours last night. What did I find?
CNN and Fox News - excellent and moving coverage
MSNBC - some good, some bad
ABC - worthless. Showing reruns of Super Nanny while people are dying
CBS - worthless. Disgraced anchor Dan Rather interviewing some fingerpointers.
Meet the Press was disgraceful this morning, with Tim Russert in full meltdown mode calling for the Secretary of Homeland Security to resign. Did he question Mayor Nagin? Did he question Governor Blanco? No, just the feds.
5. If you're depending on government, at any level, to keep you safe in a disaster you're making a mistake.
I'm quietly reviewing my preparedness for disaster.
Checking my supplies: food, water, batteries.
Rethinking disaster plans.
Inventorying the guns I own (9mm, rifles, shotgun) and ammo. If you think that's crazy, ask some of the fleeing evacuees this week if they wished they were armed.
Now that I've had my say on lessons and fingerpointing - back to the helping.
Do something. Make a donation. Conserve energy. Take in someone.
Enough fingerpointing.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Friday, September 02, 2005
How Thin is the Veneer of Society?
It is very disconcerting, to say the least, to see anarchy break out in the streets of a major American city. Doubly so on the heels of the worst natural disaster in our country's history.
I have nothing to say politically about the disaster unfolding on our TV screens.
I have only sadness.
And compassion.
For those who are suffering.
For those reacting - those doing it "right" and those doing it "wrong". Thank God they're reacting.
For the beseiged mayors of devastated cities.
For governors and representatives who need to pull together a massive relief effort.
For our President and the Federal officials.
Let's step in and back them all up.
I do have some level of disgust:
For all of those I see on TV throwing the race card into the discussion. You're not helping. Shut the hell up.
For anyone trying to gain political traction out of people's misery and death. You're not helping. Shut the hell up.
And for the criminals who are preying on desperate people in New Orleans. They need to be taken down immediately.
Prayers, and action, for the suffering. That should be our focus.
I have nothing to say politically about the disaster unfolding on our TV screens.
I have only sadness.
And compassion.
For those who are suffering.
For those reacting - those doing it "right" and those doing it "wrong". Thank God they're reacting.
For the beseiged mayors of devastated cities.
For governors and representatives who need to pull together a massive relief effort.
For our President and the Federal officials.
Let's step in and back them all up.
I do have some level of disgust:
For all of those I see on TV throwing the race card into the discussion. You're not helping. Shut the hell up.
For anyone trying to gain political traction out of people's misery and death. You're not helping. Shut the hell up.
And for the criminals who are preying on desperate people in New Orleans. They need to be taken down immediately.
Prayers, and action, for the suffering. That should be our focus.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Missing the Point
I was reading a long article in USA today this morning about schools facing the question of ID vs. Evolution as the school year begins. The article attempts to frame the discussion for readers by, among other things, defining the theories as follows:
Is that a sufficient definition of Intelligent Design? It's good, but from what little reading I've done on ID so far, I would say that it is insufficient. Yes, the argument that life is too complex to be accounted for is part of the story - but it's the negative argument. How can you prove that it's too complex?
I would, and ID proponents have, state the definition slightly differently. I would argue that the complexity of life shows evidence of intelligent design by the nature of the information encoded into it. Information implies a design. Design implies a designer. That's the positive argument.
To only argue the negative is to miss the point. Information, not complexity, is the point. The program of your DNA is information.
The article of course goes on to give a standard definition of evolution, as a theory that "..species evolve over billions of years through natural selection, inheriting small variations that improve individual's abilities to survive and reproduce."
Did the article leave it at that and let you make your own conclusions? Of course not. The author had to immediately add this little caveat:
Oh, as long as we're not taking sides.
"Intelligent Design: Some biological structures, such as DNA instructions, are so complex that they could not occur as a result of evolution and must be the work of an intelligent designer. No answer as to who or what that may be."
Is that a sufficient definition of Intelligent Design? It's good, but from what little reading I've done on ID so far, I would say that it is insufficient. Yes, the argument that life is too complex to be accounted for is part of the story - but it's the negative argument. How can you prove that it's too complex?
I would, and ID proponents have, state the definition slightly differently. I would argue that the complexity of life shows evidence of intelligent design by the nature of the information encoded into it. Information implies a design. Design implies a designer. That's the positive argument.
To only argue the negative is to miss the point. Information, not complexity, is the point. The program of your DNA is information.
The article of course goes on to give a standard definition of evolution, as a theory that "..species evolve over billions of years through natural selection, inheriting small variations that improve individual's abilities to survive and reproduce."
Did the article leave it at that and let you make your own conclusions? Of course not. The author had to immediately add this little caveat:
The theory of evolution is backed up by 150 years of research. White House science advisor John Marburger called it a "cornerstone of modern biology".
Oh, as long as we're not taking sides.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
My Study Project - Evolution vs. ID
As promised in an earlier post, I've launched into a study project on the topic of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. I'm immersing myself in a variety of sources, from popular literature to textbooks to internet flame wars on the topic - some of which I've foolishly but gleefully jumped into.
I'll have comments as I go on whatever strikes me in my studies. They will be high level thoughts, observations, and questions. I promise - no long winded dissertations. After all, I'm not getting paid for this.
Here are some things that I bring to the discussion on the front end:
1. A theistic worldview. I am a Christian man. I am not a materialist. I am obviously open to the concepts of an intelligent agent necessary for acceptance of ID. I have spent a lot of time in theological and apologetics study.
2. A deep appreciation of science. I appreciate the wonders of the natural world and the deep body of knowledge that has been advanced by some brilliant scientists and engineers.
3. A critical view of the evidence on each side. And a passion to study it.
4. An awareness of my limitations. The best I can do as an informed layman is to study diligently the arguments of both sides and make my own call.
5. A sense of humor. The origin of life is an interesting, maybe the most interesting, topic that I can study. But it's just that. I'll study it. I'll have opinions. And I'll keep it in balance.
I use words. I appreciate words. I catch when words are used in an unintentionally humorous way. Two examples:
I was reading a techinical science paper online the other day on the topic of "common descent with modification". The author gave a brief explanation of how lifeforms moved toward "higher taxa". Well, which is it? Are we "descending" into "higher taxa". Pick a direction and stick with it.
On another night I was watching a nature channel documentary, put together with some help from biologists I'm assuming, about giant squid in the ocean. Cut to a drawing of a giant squid with a huge eye dominating the drawing. Voice over: "... with a large eye that is designed to gather all of the possible...". What? Wait a minute. Did he say "designed"? Better watch that, Mr. Voice Over Man. You'll get drummed out of the science community for inferring design.
So, stay tuned. More to come on topics like:
Transcendancy
System Definitions
Assumptions
etc.
I'll have comments as I go on whatever strikes me in my studies. They will be high level thoughts, observations, and questions. I promise - no long winded dissertations. After all, I'm not getting paid for this.
Here are some things that I bring to the discussion on the front end:
1. A theistic worldview. I am a Christian man. I am not a materialist. I am obviously open to the concepts of an intelligent agent necessary for acceptance of ID. I have spent a lot of time in theological and apologetics study.
2. A deep appreciation of science. I appreciate the wonders of the natural world and the deep body of knowledge that has been advanced by some brilliant scientists and engineers.
3. A critical view of the evidence on each side. And a passion to study it.
4. An awareness of my limitations. The best I can do as an informed layman is to study diligently the arguments of both sides and make my own call.
5. A sense of humor. The origin of life is an interesting, maybe the most interesting, topic that I can study. But it's just that. I'll study it. I'll have opinions. And I'll keep it in balance.
I use words. I appreciate words. I catch when words are used in an unintentionally humorous way. Two examples:
I was reading a techinical science paper online the other day on the topic of "common descent with modification". The author gave a brief explanation of how lifeforms moved toward "higher taxa". Well, which is it? Are we "descending" into "higher taxa". Pick a direction and stick with it.
On another night I was watching a nature channel documentary, put together with some help from biologists I'm assuming, about giant squid in the ocean. Cut to a drawing of a giant squid with a huge eye dominating the drawing. Voice over: "... with a large eye that is designed to gather all of the possible...". What? Wait a minute. Did he say "designed"? Better watch that, Mr. Voice Over Man. You'll get drummed out of the science community for inferring design.
So, stay tuned. More to come on topics like:
Transcendancy
System Definitions
Assumptions
etc.
Friday, August 12, 2005
I Told You So
Yes, I did. I told you so.
I said, as far back as this post in April of 2004, that the 9/11 Commission report would be compromised by politics. Why? Because of conflict of interest. It's simple, really.
As far as I'm concerned, one of the most serious issues that the Commission needed to investigate as to why the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies were not able to stop the attack by sharing information and cooperating with each other was "the wall". The wall was a Justice Department policy disallowing cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement.
So, as it's being revealed this week in the press, when the military task force named Able Danger identified Mohammed Atta as a probable terrorist in 2000 and indeed identified Al Qaida cells in the U.S., they were prohibited from sharing that with the law enforcement groups that could have stopped them. Why? The wall.
This was not dealt with in the 9/11 Commission report, which indicates that the report is faulty.
Sadly, this was entirely predictable - and was, in fact, predicted in this blog and others.
Why?
- because the author of the "wall" policy was a Clinton Justice official named Jamie Gorelick, who worked for Janet Reno
- because Jamie Gorelick should have testified before the Commission, but did not
- because Jamie Gorelick was herself a Commission member - in a position to tamper with and hide this testimony
- because when the Commission chairman and co-chairman were confronted with this conflict of interest, while the Commission was in session, they circled the wagons and protected their sitting member - with the result that the investigation of the "wall" policy was handled with kid gloves and political sensibilities instead of aggressive investigation. Go back and read it in the report. It's entirely inaccurate and dangerous because it's a coverup that prevented real action to address the deficiencies of the Clinton policy.
Someone, or several someones, need to fired retroactively. Let's start with both chairmen of the Commission - who have rendered their report inoperative by shielding one of their own and denying the country the truth for which we paid.
Let's also call Commissioner Gorelick into the dock to testify, finally.
I said, as far back as this post in April of 2004, that the 9/11 Commission report would be compromised by politics. Why? Because of conflict of interest. It's simple, really.
As far as I'm concerned, one of the most serious issues that the Commission needed to investigate as to why the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies were not able to stop the attack by sharing information and cooperating with each other was "the wall". The wall was a Justice Department policy disallowing cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement.
So, as it's being revealed this week in the press, when the military task force named Able Danger identified Mohammed Atta as a probable terrorist in 2000 and indeed identified Al Qaida cells in the U.S., they were prohibited from sharing that with the law enforcement groups that could have stopped them. Why? The wall.
This was not dealt with in the 9/11 Commission report, which indicates that the report is faulty.
Sadly, this was entirely predictable - and was, in fact, predicted in this blog and others.
Why?
- because the author of the "wall" policy was a Clinton Justice official named Jamie Gorelick, who worked for Janet Reno
- because Jamie Gorelick should have testified before the Commission, but did not
- because Jamie Gorelick was herself a Commission member - in a position to tamper with and hide this testimony
- because when the Commission chairman and co-chairman were confronted with this conflict of interest, while the Commission was in session, they circled the wagons and protected their sitting member - with the result that the investigation of the "wall" policy was handled with kid gloves and political sensibilities instead of aggressive investigation. Go back and read it in the report. It's entirely inaccurate and dangerous because it's a coverup that prevented real action to address the deficiencies of the Clinton policy.
Someone, or several someones, need to fired retroactively. Let's start with both chairmen of the Commission - who have rendered their report inoperative by shielding one of their own and denying the country the truth for which we paid.
Let's also call Commissioner Gorelick into the dock to testify, finally.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
I thought it was a vacation?
George W. Bush was on the news tonight talking about the topics of discussion during the Cabinet meeting that he held at his ranch today.
Huh? I'm confused. Didn't all of the media tell me he was on vacation for 5 weeks?
I'm going on vacation this week. Note to self: don't schedule any cabinet meetings on my vacation.
Huh? I'm confused. Didn't all of the media tell me he was on vacation for 5 weeks?
I'm going on vacation this week. Note to self: don't schedule any cabinet meetings on my vacation.
Abortion Distortion
The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) issued an advertisement this week accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of taking legal action to support abortion clinic bombers.
This is a blatant and completely dishonest distortion of the facts of the case, and is the new low in the reprehensible behavior of the left in their attempt to defeat the nominee. Have they no shame whatsoever?
The case referenced involved technical arguments over who had jurisdiction to act on issues of legal protests in front of abortion clinics - state or federal. Roberts argued in front of the Supreme Court in favor of it not being a federal issue, and won 6-3. So, simply said, if Roberts was guilty in that action of supporting clinic bombers then so is the Supreme Court. It's ridiculous and completely dishonest.
Don't believe me? See for yourself in this analysis on Factcheck.com
Roberts is adequately on the record deploring violence at clinics and NARAL convieniently leaves that out. Why? Because it's not about the facts, it's about the results. They want to defeat Roberts and will use sleazy tactics to do so.
NARALs dishonest smear campaign against an honorable man is deplorable and outrageous, and we should heap further shame and scorn on an already disreputable organization.
This is a blatant and completely dishonest distortion of the facts of the case, and is the new low in the reprehensible behavior of the left in their attempt to defeat the nominee. Have they no shame whatsoever?
The case referenced involved technical arguments over who had jurisdiction to act on issues of legal protests in front of abortion clinics - state or federal. Roberts argued in front of the Supreme Court in favor of it not being a federal issue, and won 6-3. So, simply said, if Roberts was guilty in that action of supporting clinic bombers then so is the Supreme Court. It's ridiculous and completely dishonest.
Don't believe me? See for yourself in this analysis on Factcheck.com
Roberts is adequately on the record deploring violence at clinics and NARAL convieniently leaves that out. Why? Because it's not about the facts, it's about the results. They want to defeat Roberts and will use sleazy tactics to do so.
NARALs dishonest smear campaign against an honorable man is deplorable and outrageous, and we should heap further shame and scorn on an already disreputable organization.
Bush's Working "Vacation"
I saw news articles yesterday featuring George W. Bush in Illinois to sign legislation on a highway bill.
How can that be?
Didn't the mainstream media outlets all spend a large part of last week blasting the President for going on vacation to Texas for 5 weeks? 5 weeks? In Texas? They got a lot of yardage out of mocking him. How can you possibly, Mr. President, go on vacation for 5 weeks when there is so much to be done? When we are at war?
Yet, there he was on TV in Illinois working. How is that a vacation?
The MSM wouldn't have lied to me, would they? I thought they were objective journalists. (sarcasm off).
How can that be?
Didn't the mainstream media outlets all spend a large part of last week blasting the President for going on vacation to Texas for 5 weeks? 5 weeks? In Texas? They got a lot of yardage out of mocking him. How can you possibly, Mr. President, go on vacation for 5 weeks when there is so much to be done? When we are at war?
Yet, there he was on TV in Illinois working. How is that a vacation?
The MSM wouldn't have lied to me, would they? I thought they were objective journalists. (sarcasm off).
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Evolution vs. Design at the Bookstore
Evolution or Creation? It's one of my favorite study topics dating back almost 30 years to my high school and college days. At different periods of my adult life I've dived back into the topic. Reading books. Attending lectures. Surfing the internet. When I'm in a study phase (or fad?) I digest as much as I can and then move on.
And this week it's back on again.
You might have seen the news stories that set it off. President Bush answered a simple question from a reporter and it blew up. Someone asked him to comment on a recent controversy over whether or not "Intelligent Design" theory should be taught in high school science classes alongside evolution. Bush made a generic, nondescript statements, which immediately got distorted by everyone with an agenda.
"I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."
Nothing radical. Nothing earthshaking. He did not propose that evolution be banned from school. He didn't propose equal weight in science classes. He only opined that kids should know what the debate on evolution is all about.
Of course, secularists in academia and in the press immediately became unhinged. The Darwinist community started accusing the President of everything from imposing ignorant fundamentalism on our nation's schools to bringing back the dark ages. I was particularly impressed with the visiousness of the cartoonist who drew the familiar evolutionary progression of apes with George W. in the last position looking particularly chimpy in Texas boots. Very civil.
It didn't suprise me, of course. The most dogmatic fundamentalists I've ever encountered are Darwinian evolution apologists. No one is to challenge the othordoxy while they are around, scientific method nothwithstanding. To do so invites scorn and ridicule from the keepers of the faith.
Okay, back to my own little struggle with the issue.
Back in my college days, at a major Big Ten University, I spent a lot of time thinking about this issue, but not from the position you would expect. At the time I was an agnostic and an engineering student. In addition to my required coursework of chemistry, physics, calculus, etc. I took electives like Anthropology (2 semesters), Astronomy (2 semesters), and Evolutionary Biology. We also had a regular circuit of guest lecturers on the topic in those days and I attended them all.
I specifically remember my course in Evolution. The course material of course. But the professor as well. I remember going up to the podium after class one day and listening as he held court for the undergrads off the record. He was telling us all how depressed he was by life and that he already had his suicide planned out to the degree that he had pills stored up. You may not see a link between his hoplessness with life and the topic he was teaching, but I did that day and I still do.
Frankly, in those days as an undergrad - even coming from a technical and agnostic background - I had questions about natural selection. I was taught all of the standard "evidences", like the moths changing color ratios in industrial England and the like. I just didn't see how all of that added up to creation of new species ended up in humanity. I would eventually, through future study, understand that differences in microevolution (mutations leading to changes within a species) and macroevolution (creation of new species) frames the essential debate. I have no doubt that natural selection accounts for the variety of life within species. I have a lot of doubt that it accounts for the introduction of new species.
I also question the original spark of life. Scientists like to gloss over this question with vague references to chemistry experiments long ago that were able to produce an amino acid or two in a bottle from some chemicals and electricity. It's a point that is core to the debate and can't be glossed over. Can life come from non-life without a creator?
I've read a lot over 30 years on the topic. I approach it from both a scientific mind and a Christian heart. Criticize that if you will. I think it's a valid approach for a being that is three in nature: body, soul, and spirit. I think it's the only valid approach.
So now it's back in the news, prompted by a simple comment by the President. I expected the Darwin dogmatists to dig in and entrench. However, I'm always irritated by the politically correct "moderate" public officials who show up on TV to debate this and who want to have it both ways. They speak the standard party line of the elite, which is: I may believe that God created us, but I don't want that taught in a science class. It should properly be taught in a philosophy or religion class.
Well, that's hooey. The topic is the origin of life. There are arguments that support Darwinism. There are arguments critical of it. And there are arguments for Design. They all properly belong in a science class.
For example, I'm particularly struck by the microbiologist argument for Intelligent Design based on the priciple of irreducible complexity. It argues that there are some components of cells, having several components, that cannot be reduced to simpler operation. Therefore, they couldn't have come about through a mutational process of natural selection because without all of the components present it would fail. The understandable analogy is a mousetrap. It is a functional design with 4 pieces: a board, a spring, a clip, and a hook. It has to have all 4 pieces to function. If it "evolved" without a hook for example, then it's a failed mousetrap. The existence of all 4 pieces working perfectly together is evidence of design, not evolution. It's the same with the cellular structure. It has to have all pieces present to function, and that's evidence of design - not millions of years and millions of mutation. (The same holds true of a wing evolving from a leg. Long before it became a functional wing it would just be a bad leg.) Design. Engineering. That argument can be made in a science classroom.
Bottom line: my interest in the topic is rekindled and that means a trip to the bookstore to catch up on the current literature. And therein lies my surprise of the day.
I wanted to buy one book each to start again with a study on the origin of life. A representative book on Intelligent Design. And a best case defense of Darwin and natural selection. Both sides.
It was easy to find the Darwin book ("The Blind Watchmaker"), shoulder to shoulder among several choices on the "Science" shelves of my local Barnes and Noble.
But alas, as hard as I looked I could not find a book on Intelligent Design. A quick trip to the information counter and we located it. In the "Religion" section. Give me a break.
And this week it's back on again.
You might have seen the news stories that set it off. President Bush answered a simple question from a reporter and it blew up. Someone asked him to comment on a recent controversy over whether or not "Intelligent Design" theory should be taught in high school science classes alongside evolution. Bush made a generic, nondescript statements, which immediately got distorted by everyone with an agenda.
"I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."
Nothing radical. Nothing earthshaking. He did not propose that evolution be banned from school. He didn't propose equal weight in science classes. He only opined that kids should know what the debate on evolution is all about.
Of course, secularists in academia and in the press immediately became unhinged. The Darwinist community started accusing the President of everything from imposing ignorant fundamentalism on our nation's schools to bringing back the dark ages. I was particularly impressed with the visiousness of the cartoonist who drew the familiar evolutionary progression of apes with George W. in the last position looking particularly chimpy in Texas boots. Very civil.
It didn't suprise me, of course. The most dogmatic fundamentalists I've ever encountered are Darwinian evolution apologists. No one is to challenge the othordoxy while they are around, scientific method nothwithstanding. To do so invites scorn and ridicule from the keepers of the faith.
Okay, back to my own little struggle with the issue.
Back in my college days, at a major Big Ten University, I spent a lot of time thinking about this issue, but not from the position you would expect. At the time I was an agnostic and an engineering student. In addition to my required coursework of chemistry, physics, calculus, etc. I took electives like Anthropology (2 semesters), Astronomy (2 semesters), and Evolutionary Biology. We also had a regular circuit of guest lecturers on the topic in those days and I attended them all.
I specifically remember my course in Evolution. The course material of course. But the professor as well. I remember going up to the podium after class one day and listening as he held court for the undergrads off the record. He was telling us all how depressed he was by life and that he already had his suicide planned out to the degree that he had pills stored up. You may not see a link between his hoplessness with life and the topic he was teaching, but I did that day and I still do.
Frankly, in those days as an undergrad - even coming from a technical and agnostic background - I had questions about natural selection. I was taught all of the standard "evidences", like the moths changing color ratios in industrial England and the like. I just didn't see how all of that added up to creation of new species ended up in humanity. I would eventually, through future study, understand that differences in microevolution (mutations leading to changes within a species) and macroevolution (creation of new species) frames the essential debate. I have no doubt that natural selection accounts for the variety of life within species. I have a lot of doubt that it accounts for the introduction of new species.
I also question the original spark of life. Scientists like to gloss over this question with vague references to chemistry experiments long ago that were able to produce an amino acid or two in a bottle from some chemicals and electricity. It's a point that is core to the debate and can't be glossed over. Can life come from non-life without a creator?
I've read a lot over 30 years on the topic. I approach it from both a scientific mind and a Christian heart. Criticize that if you will. I think it's a valid approach for a being that is three in nature: body, soul, and spirit. I think it's the only valid approach.
So now it's back in the news, prompted by a simple comment by the President. I expected the Darwin dogmatists to dig in and entrench. However, I'm always irritated by the politically correct "moderate" public officials who show up on TV to debate this and who want to have it both ways. They speak the standard party line of the elite, which is: I may believe that God created us, but I don't want that taught in a science class. It should properly be taught in a philosophy or religion class.
Well, that's hooey. The topic is the origin of life. There are arguments that support Darwinism. There are arguments critical of it. And there are arguments for Design. They all properly belong in a science class.
For example, I'm particularly struck by the microbiologist argument for Intelligent Design based on the priciple of irreducible complexity. It argues that there are some components of cells, having several components, that cannot be reduced to simpler operation. Therefore, they couldn't have come about through a mutational process of natural selection because without all of the components present it would fail. The understandable analogy is a mousetrap. It is a functional design with 4 pieces: a board, a spring, a clip, and a hook. It has to have all 4 pieces to function. If it "evolved" without a hook for example, then it's a failed mousetrap. The existence of all 4 pieces working perfectly together is evidence of design, not evolution. It's the same with the cellular structure. It has to have all pieces present to function, and that's evidence of design - not millions of years and millions of mutation. (The same holds true of a wing evolving from a leg. Long before it became a functional wing it would just be a bad leg.) Design. Engineering. That argument can be made in a science classroom.
Bottom line: my interest in the topic is rekindled and that means a trip to the bookstore to catch up on the current literature. And therein lies my surprise of the day.
I wanted to buy one book each to start again with a study on the origin of life. A representative book on Intelligent Design. And a best case defense of Darwin and natural selection. Both sides.
It was easy to find the Darwin book ("The Blind Watchmaker"), shoulder to shoulder among several choices on the "Science" shelves of my local Barnes and Noble.
But alas, as hard as I looked I could not find a book on Intelligent Design. A quick trip to the information counter and we located it. In the "Religion" section. Give me a break.
Friday, August 05, 2005
NY Times Adoption Inquiry Reprehensible
So, it's come to this.
It was easy to speculate that the left in this country, including liberal media outlets like the NY Times, would do anything to attempt a takedown of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Easy, because there is a pattern of behavior to base a prediction on including the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence t Thomas.
The problem that the liberals have is two fold:
First, the President is entitled by the Constitution, and by virtue of having won the election, of choosing a nominee of his liking. He clearly prefers a conservative with tendencies to respect the law and the Constituition and, despite liberal carping and clamoring that he choose a "consensus" nominee (read "evolving liberal"), he chose one in John Roberts.
Second, Roberts has an impeccable and bulletproof resume. Bulletproof, that is, if one is laying by respectable rules.
Therein lies the problem. Based on past patterns, the left will not play by civil rules. They will attack and smear and take any low road to take down a respectable and honorable man just because they differ from his view. Despicable, but predictable.
Were we wrong? Have we gone overboard in our predictions of the low behavior of the left? Of course not. A case in point:
Conservative media was aflame yesterday with reports that the NY Times had launched an investigation into the adoption of John Robert's two children. Confirmation is found in this Newsmax story. They had no probable cause to launch an investigation. It's a pure fishing expedition to find dirt to trash someone personally. They cloaked in in terms of a "background check", despite it being an apparent smear hunt.
I'm outraged at this, as I have been by no other story in a long time.
As an adoptive father twice myself, I want to state unequivocably that this attempt by the NY Times to pierce the sealed adoption records in this context is reprehensible and is completely out of bounds. Shame should heaped on the appropriate officials at this newspaper for reaching a new low in journalism.
Despicable.
It was easy to speculate that the left in this country, including liberal media outlets like the NY Times, would do anything to attempt a takedown of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Easy, because there is a pattern of behavior to base a prediction on including the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence t Thomas.
The problem that the liberals have is two fold:
First, the President is entitled by the Constitution, and by virtue of having won the election, of choosing a nominee of his liking. He clearly prefers a conservative with tendencies to respect the law and the Constituition and, despite liberal carping and clamoring that he choose a "consensus" nominee (read "evolving liberal"), he chose one in John Roberts.
Second, Roberts has an impeccable and bulletproof resume. Bulletproof, that is, if one is laying by respectable rules.
Therein lies the problem. Based on past patterns, the left will not play by civil rules. They will attack and smear and take any low road to take down a respectable and honorable man just because they differ from his view. Despicable, but predictable.
Were we wrong? Have we gone overboard in our predictions of the low behavior of the left? Of course not. A case in point:
Conservative media was aflame yesterday with reports that the NY Times had launched an investigation into the adoption of John Robert's two children. Confirmation is found in this Newsmax story. They had no probable cause to launch an investigation. It's a pure fishing expedition to find dirt to trash someone personally. They cloaked in in terms of a "background check", despite it being an apparent smear hunt.
I'm outraged at this, as I have been by no other story in a long time.
As an adoptive father twice myself, I want to state unequivocably that this attempt by the NY Times to pierce the sealed adoption records in this context is reprehensible and is completely out of bounds. Shame should heaped on the appropriate officials at this newspaper for reaching a new low in journalism.
Despicable.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
The President is Never on Vacation
It's the silly season with the Washington Press Corps, again.
Every August, without exception, they run the same exact story: The President is leaving for a 5 week vacation at his home/ranch.
They play this story big and always with all the negative spins:
- why does the President get to go on a 5 week vacation?
- how can he do that when we're at war?
- how will things get done if the President isn't in Washington?
Michael Moore made a huge deal out of this story in the opening of "Farenheit 9/11", where he played up the fact that President Bush was on "vacation" for 40 days in August right before 9/11.
They leave out the facts that would provide balance and context.
- Everyone's gone from Washington. The Supreme Court is out of session. Congress is out of session. Did they run a headline that said "535 Congressman go on 3 month vacation!" ? No, they just smear the President.
- When Congressmen leave Washington to go home and meet with their constituents in their district, do they call it a vacation? They work from their home and go out and meet people. Same with the President. He'll work from Texas and go out and conduct meetings in 10 states while he's on "vacation". Who says he has to work out of Washington all of the time, especially when no one else is there.
- The President is never on "vacation". He has National Security briefings every day. He has a guy following him around with the nuclear codes. He's "on" every day that he's supposedly on "vacation".
Can we give this ridiculous vacation story a rest this year.
Every August, without exception, they run the same exact story: The President is leaving for a 5 week vacation at his home/ranch.
They play this story big and always with all the negative spins:
- why does the President get to go on a 5 week vacation?
- how can he do that when we're at war?
- how will things get done if the President isn't in Washington?
Michael Moore made a huge deal out of this story in the opening of "Farenheit 9/11", where he played up the fact that President Bush was on "vacation" for 40 days in August right before 9/11.
They leave out the facts that would provide balance and context.
- Everyone's gone from Washington. The Supreme Court is out of session. Congress is out of session. Did they run a headline that said "535 Congressman go on 3 month vacation!" ? No, they just smear the President.
- When Congressmen leave Washington to go home and meet with their constituents in their district, do they call it a vacation? They work from their home and go out and meet people. Same with the President. He'll work from Texas and go out and conduct meetings in 10 states while he's on "vacation". Who says he has to work out of Washington all of the time, especially when no one else is there.
- The President is never on "vacation". He has National Security briefings every day. He has a guy following him around with the nuclear codes. He's "on" every day that he's supposedly on "vacation".
Can we give this ridiculous vacation story a rest this year.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
My Club G'itmo Initiation
I listen, obviously, to a lot of news talk radio. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham, and even Air America if I can find it (for comic relief).
I've never, however, bought merchandise from their websites or gear stores. No "Factor gear" from Bill O'Reilly. No newsletters. No subscriptions to program webcams. None of that. Maybe a book or two that I could have gotten at a bookstore. But no merchandise.
That's changed. I made an exception. I ordered a "Club G'itmo" t-shirt from the Rush Limbaugh EIB store.
On the front it says: Club G'itmo.
On the back it says: "Your tropical retreat from the stress of Jihad".
Funny. Satirical. And it makes a point.
I bought the shirt as a reaction to the outrageous statement made by my Senator, Dick Durbin, on the floor of the U.S. Senate where he compared the US military run detainee camp at Guatenmo Bay Cuba (G'itmo) to the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot and their treatment of prisoners. It was inaccurate, inappropriate, and deeply offensive.
Limbaugh has been running a satire since then about "Club G'itmo", making the point that the treatment of these 500 animals taken from the battlefield trying to kill Americans is actually pretty good, comparatively. Despite the overblown stories in the media about abuses at G'itmo. If a Koran was abused, as the stories claim, it's only because they have a Koran because we provided it to them. We give them prayer mats. We let them pray 5 times a day. And they get dietary meals sensitive to their religion that are better than what our troops are eating in the field. Hence, the effective satire of "Club G'itmo" to counter Durbin's anti-troop tirade.
So, I bought the shirt. It's bright orange, and sure to draw attention.
Today, I got to wear it out into public for the first time. I had to shop in some department stores and I wondered if the shirt would elicit comment. Not on the first wearing, however. There will be more outings in the shirt, to make my statement.
I'll have to find Senator Durbin's office in our area and wear it there to register my contempt for his statement and offer my opinion that he should resign.
So, I'm now initiated into Club G'itmo. Thanks, Rush.
I've never, however, bought merchandise from their websites or gear stores. No "Factor gear" from Bill O'Reilly. No newsletters. No subscriptions to program webcams. None of that. Maybe a book or two that I could have gotten at a bookstore. But no merchandise.
That's changed. I made an exception. I ordered a "Club G'itmo" t-shirt from the Rush Limbaugh EIB store.
On the front it says: Club G'itmo.
On the back it says: "Your tropical retreat from the stress of Jihad".
Funny. Satirical. And it makes a point.
I bought the shirt as a reaction to the outrageous statement made by my Senator, Dick Durbin, on the floor of the U.S. Senate where he compared the US military run detainee camp at Guatenmo Bay Cuba (G'itmo) to the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot and their treatment of prisoners. It was inaccurate, inappropriate, and deeply offensive.
Limbaugh has been running a satire since then about "Club G'itmo", making the point that the treatment of these 500 animals taken from the battlefield trying to kill Americans is actually pretty good, comparatively. Despite the overblown stories in the media about abuses at G'itmo. If a Koran was abused, as the stories claim, it's only because they have a Koran because we provided it to them. We give them prayer mats. We let them pray 5 times a day. And they get dietary meals sensitive to their religion that are better than what our troops are eating in the field. Hence, the effective satire of "Club G'itmo" to counter Durbin's anti-troop tirade.
So, I bought the shirt. It's bright orange, and sure to draw attention.
Today, I got to wear it out into public for the first time. I had to shop in some department stores and I wondered if the shirt would elicit comment. Not on the first wearing, however. There will be more outings in the shirt, to make my statement.
I'll have to find Senator Durbin's office in our area and wear it there to register my contempt for his statement and offer my opinion that he should resign.
So, I'm now initiated into Club G'itmo. Thanks, Rush.
Sacrament Theory Proved
Liberal reaction to President Bush's selection of Judge John Roberts as a Supreme Court nominee prove that Rush Limbaugh and others have been right all along in one particular explanation of liberalism that goes like this:
Simple. True. Abortion rights are the be-all and end-all of modern American liberalism. Hence, liberal pro-abortion activists at NOW, NARAL, et. al are lining up to slander Judge Roberts before the first hearing has been held.
You don't have to look far on in any 24-hour news cycle to find this theory borne out.
For example, the newspaper I read on Friday as I ate my lunch prominently featured the results of a poll that asked three questions:
1. Do you like Bush's pick of Judge Roberts?
2. Do you think that Roberts should be confirmed?
3. Do you think that Roberts should reveal his views on abortion to Congress during the nomination hearings?
All day that day, on every media outlet, the press was playing up a slight majority favorable on question number 3.
Nobody asked this question: why was question 3 in the poll as the sole question on policy?
Don't you want to know Judge Roberts' views on other topics? On:
- the limits of the role of the Federal Government
- the viability of military tribunals in the War on Terror
- private property rights vs. the ability of the government to take your property
- taxes
- other cultural issues such as the definition of marriage or the proper role of religious expression in the public square
Don't you want to know about those things and the hundreds of other issues that come before the court?
So, why did the poll - drafted by liberal media outlets, with probable influence from liberal interest groups - only ask about abortion?
Simple. Because it is the overriding and defining liberal sacrament.
And the coming Supreme Court battle that the left will launch against the nominee will make that abundantly clear.
The sole sacrament in the temple of liberalism is abortion.
Simple. True. Abortion rights are the be-all and end-all of modern American liberalism. Hence, liberal pro-abortion activists at NOW, NARAL, et. al are lining up to slander Judge Roberts before the first hearing has been held.
You don't have to look far on in any 24-hour news cycle to find this theory borne out.
For example, the newspaper I read on Friday as I ate my lunch prominently featured the results of a poll that asked three questions:
1. Do you like Bush's pick of Judge Roberts?
2. Do you think that Roberts should be confirmed?
3. Do you think that Roberts should reveal his views on abortion to Congress during the nomination hearings?
All day that day, on every media outlet, the press was playing up a slight majority favorable on question number 3.
Nobody asked this question: why was question 3 in the poll as the sole question on policy?
Don't you want to know Judge Roberts' views on other topics? On:
- the limits of the role of the Federal Government
- the viability of military tribunals in the War on Terror
- private property rights vs. the ability of the government to take your property
- taxes
- other cultural issues such as the definition of marriage or the proper role of religious expression in the public square
Don't you want to know about those things and the hundreds of other issues that come before the court?
So, why did the poll - drafted by liberal media outlets, with probable influence from liberal interest groups - only ask about abortion?
Simple. Because it is the overriding and defining liberal sacrament.
And the coming Supreme Court battle that the left will launch against the nominee will make that abundantly clear.
Liberals Suddenly Discover Respect for Security
If it wasn't so outrageous, it would be funny.
I'm talking about the liberals' sudden discover of respect for National Security in the Karl Rove affair. The smell blood in this story. To achieve the end of taking down their archenemy - Karl Rove, who is 2 for 2 in defeating them in Presidential elections - they will embrace any position, consistent with their past behavior or not.
For example, liberals on leftist websites are falling all over themselves to decry the incredible betrayal of national security by exposing a CIA agent. I'm sorry, aren't these the same leftists who on any other story would be ranting about the bad reputation that America has in the world because of rogue CIA operations that train terrorists like Osama bin Laden? The same leftists who passed laws when they had control of Congress to handcuff the CIA and limit their effectiveness? But now, when it fits with their agenda of taking down Bush and Rove, they will sing of the critical role of the CIA in our nation's security.
Another example: Liberals are mad. Hopping mad. They want Karl Rove's security clearance pulled now - no waiting for the results of the special prosecutor's investigation. How, they ask, can a person work in the White House if there is any suspcion about their deservedness of a security clearance. Almost any day now you can find politicians like Chuck Shumer or angry White House press corps members like Helen Thomas find a microphone and demand that Rove's security clearance be pulled.
I can only laugh. Hysterically. Spewing out my drink funny.
Let me hold in my mind for a minute the visual spectacle of an angry Helen Thomas, in the White House briefing room, lecturing White House Press Secretary Scott Mclellan about the need to pull Rove's security clearance.
The reason this is hysterically funny is that for months, if not years, after President Clinton took office his Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers did not have a security clearance. She wouldn't bother getting one. Neither did a large percentage of the White House staff, including members of Clinton's National Security Council staff.
I refer you back to the excellent book by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich entitled "Ulimited Access". Aldrich was the FBI agent assigned to the White House with the primary function of vetting staff for security clearances. As you would guess, the FBI is not in the habit of assigning that post to incompetent morons. Aldrich and his partner were highly regarded veteran agents assigned to a high profile and sensitive post in the White House. They took their role seriously.
Aldrich writes in his book that the Clinton Administration virtually nullified the security clearance procedure, mainly because a large percentage of them could not qualify for the clearance. Clinton brought to the White House a contingent of 60's radical lefties who had issues: drug usage, radical protest pasts, communist affiliations, whatever. Mostly drug use. Aldrich relates stories of interviewing staffers about their current drug use frequency and getting answers like 400 times a year.
How did the Clinton Administration respond to the fact that many of their staffers and policy makers could not qualify for a security clearance? They basically voided the policy and allowed permanent staff to walk around with visitor's passes for months on end.
Any wonder how Chinese government front company agents walked into the White House with bags of cash in exchange for permission to buy nuclear missile technology? It's because the White House security policy was trashed under Clinton. Hence his title, Unlimited Access.
So, do you think that when Helen Thomas was questioning Dee Dee Myers in the press briefing room that she made a stink about Myers attending policy meetings in the White House without a security clearance? Of course not. But now, she wants Rove's clearance pulled and delivered to the press on a silver platter.
Hypocrites.
By the way, did Aldrich receive praise as a whistle blower for alerting us to the trashed security system in the White House - the way the press is currently heaping praise on Joe Wilson as a hero? Of course not. In fact, the White House squad led by partisan political hack George Stephanopoulis organized a call campaign to pressure all of the network news shows to cancel interviews with Aldrich. Which they promptly did. The book was a best seller, despite a mainstream news media blackout.
They also managed to cause significant damage to Aldrich's reputation. So, where was Helen Thomas and the leftists bleating about the damage caused to national security by a White House smear campaign against a reputable FBI agent? Nowhere. They were in the scrum piling on.
Hypocrites.
I just have to laugh.
I'm talking about the liberals' sudden discover of respect for National Security in the Karl Rove affair. The smell blood in this story. To achieve the end of taking down their archenemy - Karl Rove, who is 2 for 2 in defeating them in Presidential elections - they will embrace any position, consistent with their past behavior or not.
For example, liberals on leftist websites are falling all over themselves to decry the incredible betrayal of national security by exposing a CIA agent. I'm sorry, aren't these the same leftists who on any other story would be ranting about the bad reputation that America has in the world because of rogue CIA operations that train terrorists like Osama bin Laden? The same leftists who passed laws when they had control of Congress to handcuff the CIA and limit their effectiveness? But now, when it fits with their agenda of taking down Bush and Rove, they will sing of the critical role of the CIA in our nation's security.
Another example: Liberals are mad. Hopping mad. They want Karl Rove's security clearance pulled now - no waiting for the results of the special prosecutor's investigation. How, they ask, can a person work in the White House if there is any suspcion about their deservedness of a security clearance. Almost any day now you can find politicians like Chuck Shumer or angry White House press corps members like Helen Thomas find a microphone and demand that Rove's security clearance be pulled.
I can only laugh. Hysterically. Spewing out my drink funny.
Let me hold in my mind for a minute the visual spectacle of an angry Helen Thomas, in the White House briefing room, lecturing White House Press Secretary Scott Mclellan about the need to pull Rove's security clearance.
The reason this is hysterically funny is that for months, if not years, after President Clinton took office his Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers did not have a security clearance. She wouldn't bother getting one. Neither did a large percentage of the White House staff, including members of Clinton's National Security Council staff.
I refer you back to the excellent book by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich entitled "Ulimited Access". Aldrich was the FBI agent assigned to the White House with the primary function of vetting staff for security clearances. As you would guess, the FBI is not in the habit of assigning that post to incompetent morons. Aldrich and his partner were highly regarded veteran agents assigned to a high profile and sensitive post in the White House. They took their role seriously.
Aldrich writes in his book that the Clinton Administration virtually nullified the security clearance procedure, mainly because a large percentage of them could not qualify for the clearance. Clinton brought to the White House a contingent of 60's radical lefties who had issues: drug usage, radical protest pasts, communist affiliations, whatever. Mostly drug use. Aldrich relates stories of interviewing staffers about their current drug use frequency and getting answers like 400 times a year.
How did the Clinton Administration respond to the fact that many of their staffers and policy makers could not qualify for a security clearance? They basically voided the policy and allowed permanent staff to walk around with visitor's passes for months on end.
Any wonder how Chinese government front company agents walked into the White House with bags of cash in exchange for permission to buy nuclear missile technology? It's because the White House security policy was trashed under Clinton. Hence his title, Unlimited Access.
So, do you think that when Helen Thomas was questioning Dee Dee Myers in the press briefing room that she made a stink about Myers attending policy meetings in the White House without a security clearance? Of course not. But now, she wants Rove's clearance pulled and delivered to the press on a silver platter.
Hypocrites.
By the way, did Aldrich receive praise as a whistle blower for alerting us to the trashed security system in the White House - the way the press is currently heaping praise on Joe Wilson as a hero? Of course not. In fact, the White House squad led by partisan political hack George Stephanopoulis organized a call campaign to pressure all of the network news shows to cancel interviews with Aldrich. Which they promptly did. The book was a best seller, despite a mainstream news media blackout.
They also managed to cause significant damage to Aldrich's reputation. So, where was Helen Thomas and the leftists bleating about the damage caused to national security by a White House smear campaign against a reputable FBI agent? Nowhere. They were in the scrum piling on.
Hypocrites.
I just have to laugh.
Can we Please Stop Calling it a "Leak"?
Washington liberals and the White House Press Corps, allies in promoting liberal causes, continue to be aflame in their fervent attack on Karl Rove. They've concocted a compelling scandal meme that goes something like this.
That's my summary of the left's case against Rove. I think I've accurately conveyed it.
Here's the major problem with the whole story: there is no "leak".
Why? Because Valerie Plame does not fit the definition of a "covert operative" in the relevant law that was written to protect CIA operatives. What you need to know, and the media is not making clear in it's reporting, is that not everyone at the CIA is covered by the leak law. The definition of an "operative" is clearly spelled out in the language of the law. You have to have been posted overseas, in a covert role that the Agency is making affirmative efforts to protect, within the last 5 years.
That's important, because Valerie Plame does not meet that definition.
Was she a CIA employee? Yes. Was she a covert operative? No. She had been posted overseas years ago, but had been manning a desk in Washington for longer than the law covers. Therefore, to reveal that she works at the CIA is not a "leak". Let's quit calling it that. There is no crime here.
The remainder of the scandal meme falls apart as well.
Was Karl Rove calling around to reporters to smear Wilson? No, the reporter called him about a different story. At the end of the call, Matt Cooper asked a "oh, by the way" question. He asked if it was true that Dick Cheney sent Joe Wilson on the Africa investigation. (That was a relevant question becuase everyone in Washington was asking why Cheney would have sent Wilson, a partisan Democratic hack, on a sensitive investigation.) Rove replied that the story was incorrect and that Wilson's wife, who works at the agency arranged for the trip. That's a scandal? A scandal deserving of the label of treason that the leftists have applied? Give me a break.
Was Wilson a patriotic whistle blower? No, he was a hack Democratic operative who went on to work in the Kerry campaign. His investigation, conducted by talking to people at a hotel swimming pool, was a sham. He never filed a written report. He never was paid for a report. In short, he was an attack dog whose story was discredited by a bipartisan Senate report on the matter.
This is a story that has been completely distorted by a press corps hostile to President Bush and by partisan Democrat opponents of the President. Simple as that.
We can kill this story by using truthful words, starting with no longer calling it a "leak".
Joe Wilson, conscientious public servant, wrote a whistle-blowing op-ed piece in the New York Times claiming that the Bush Administration was lying about a claim that Sadaam Hussein was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa. Wilson had gone to Africa and debunked the claim and was bring it to America's attention as a patriotic duty. The White House goon squad, led by Karl Rove and company, went on the attack to discredit Wilson with the press. As part of this viscious partisan attack on Wilson, the goon squad tried to misdirect the press by incorrectly claiming that Wilson's wife Valerie Plame, not Dick Cheney, sent Wilson to Africa - thereby intentionally "leaking" and compromising her role as a covert CIA "operative" in a partisan political smear campaign.
The correct response to this politically motivated "leak", according to various leftists, is one or all of the following:
- indictment of Rove for treason
- conviction
- execution
- removal of Rove's security clearance to work in the White House.
That's my summary of the left's case against Rove. I think I've accurately conveyed it.
Here's the major problem with the whole story: there is no "leak".
Why? Because Valerie Plame does not fit the definition of a "covert operative" in the relevant law that was written to protect CIA operatives. What you need to know, and the media is not making clear in it's reporting, is that not everyone at the CIA is covered by the leak law. The definition of an "operative" is clearly spelled out in the language of the law. You have to have been posted overseas, in a covert role that the Agency is making affirmative efforts to protect, within the last 5 years.
That's important, because Valerie Plame does not meet that definition.
Was she a CIA employee? Yes. Was she a covert operative? No. She had been posted overseas years ago, but had been manning a desk in Washington for longer than the law covers. Therefore, to reveal that she works at the CIA is not a "leak". Let's quit calling it that. There is no crime here.
The remainder of the scandal meme falls apart as well.
Was Karl Rove calling around to reporters to smear Wilson? No, the reporter called him about a different story. At the end of the call, Matt Cooper asked a "oh, by the way" question. He asked if it was true that Dick Cheney sent Joe Wilson on the Africa investigation. (That was a relevant question becuase everyone in Washington was asking why Cheney would have sent Wilson, a partisan Democratic hack, on a sensitive investigation.) Rove replied that the story was incorrect and that Wilson's wife, who works at the agency arranged for the trip. That's a scandal? A scandal deserving of the label of treason that the leftists have applied? Give me a break.
Was Wilson a patriotic whistle blower? No, he was a hack Democratic operative who went on to work in the Kerry campaign. His investigation, conducted by talking to people at a hotel swimming pool, was a sham. He never filed a written report. He never was paid for a report. In short, he was an attack dog whose story was discredited by a bipartisan Senate report on the matter.
This is a story that has been completely distorted by a press corps hostile to President Bush and by partisan Democrat opponents of the President. Simple as that.
We can kill this story by using truthful words, starting with no longer calling it a "leak".
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Good Choice!
I've been meaning to write about President Bush's pending nomination of a Supreme Court justice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.
I would have offered two pieces of advice:
1. Don't hurry. Democrats are going to pounce on whoever you nominate. So don't give them months to beat up your nominee. Announce the candidate as late as you can and limit the savaging of your candidate. Let your opponents sweat it out.
2. Don't necessarily appoint a woman to replace O'Connor, just because she was a woman.
I was amazed at the argument that he should do just that. Are they saying that there is a de facto "woman's seat" on the court in perpetuity? Why? Where is that in the Constitution? So, don't cement that thought by purposely picking a woman. Pick the best candidate.
Since I didn't get to this until tonight after President Bush announced his nominee - Judge Roberts - I'll just say this:
Good choice. Well done. Let's vote and confirm and move on.
I would have offered two pieces of advice:
1. Don't hurry. Democrats are going to pounce on whoever you nominate. So don't give them months to beat up your nominee. Announce the candidate as late as you can and limit the savaging of your candidate. Let your opponents sweat it out.
2. Don't necessarily appoint a woman to replace O'Connor, just because she was a woman.
I was amazed at the argument that he should do just that. Are they saying that there is a de facto "woman's seat" on the court in perpetuity? Why? Where is that in the Constitution? So, don't cement that thought by purposely picking a woman. Pick the best candidate.
Since I didn't get to this until tonight after President Bush announced his nominee - Judge Roberts - I'll just say this:
Good choice. Well done. Let's vote and confirm and move on.
The Sin of Hypocrisy
It's got to be hell when you're a liberal and you think you have the President's henchman in your sites for the takedown, and all of your facts fall apart.
The media and the left have totally gone over the edge on the Karl Rove - Leakgate story. They thought they had their archenemy, Karl Rove, taken down in a scandal for leaking the name of a CIA agent. A few problems though:
- First, it's clear if you've been following all of the evidence, not just the press briefings or the Democrat talking points, that their has not been a crime committed here. Period. All you have to do is listen to the folks who wrote the relevant law about divulging the name of a CIA agent. Victoria Toensing and colleagues who drafted the law have been clear on the talk shows that this case does not in anyway violate that law. End of story. Or at least it should be.
- Second, the Rove haters have allied themselves with Joe Wilson, the CIA agent's husband and supposed "whistle-blower" who took on the Administration about Sadaam's nuclear program. The problem is that Joe Wilson credibility has been thoroughly damaged by, among other things, the Senate's bi-partisan investigation into the matter which concluded that Wilson misrepresented every aspect of this case and is not credible. That hasn't stopped the left from lionizing him and completely tying their credibility to his.
- Third, after all of the facts have deserted the left on this one, they have fallen back on their favorite charge: hypocrisy. In fact, in can be fairly asserted that the left's one recognized cardinal sin - amongst a group that regularly discounts the existence of sin - is hypocrisy. They love to take a person of character, someone who espouses a standard, and "catch" that person in a contradiction of the standard. Then they leep out from behind the bushes and yell "Hypocrite!". Remember, for example the case of William Bennett, author of "The book of Virtues". A year or so ago Bennett had an issue with gambling. He didn't hurt anyone. He didn't lose money he couldn't afford to. In fact, I'm not sure why it was even news - other than the fact that liberals could point at him and yell hypocrite. They don't, in and of itself, think gambling is wrong. They just gleefully loved catching Bennett in a supposed act of hypocrisy.
The same is true of Rove gate. After all of the facts have failed them, after it's clear that no law has been violated, after it's clear that Bush is not going to fire Rove short of an indictment, the press is left yelling hypocrite. For days now they have been trying to argue that President Bush has changed his standard of ethics from firing anyone if they "were involved" in the leak, to firing them "if a crime has been committed". The press has been trying to trump up a case of cover up because of this alleged moving of the goal posts. The problem is that Bush did not change his standard. But that's all the press is left to shout about: hypocrisy. Ridiculous.
As infuriating as it is, it is useful watching the press and the Democrats join hands in marching off the credibility cliff with Joe Wilson.
The media and the left have totally gone over the edge on the Karl Rove - Leakgate story. They thought they had their archenemy, Karl Rove, taken down in a scandal for leaking the name of a CIA agent. A few problems though:
- First, it's clear if you've been following all of the evidence, not just the press briefings or the Democrat talking points, that their has not been a crime committed here. Period. All you have to do is listen to the folks who wrote the relevant law about divulging the name of a CIA agent. Victoria Toensing and colleagues who drafted the law have been clear on the talk shows that this case does not in anyway violate that law. End of story. Or at least it should be.
- Second, the Rove haters have allied themselves with Joe Wilson, the CIA agent's husband and supposed "whistle-blower" who took on the Administration about Sadaam's nuclear program. The problem is that Joe Wilson credibility has been thoroughly damaged by, among other things, the Senate's bi-partisan investigation into the matter which concluded that Wilson misrepresented every aspect of this case and is not credible. That hasn't stopped the left from lionizing him and completely tying their credibility to his.
- Third, after all of the facts have deserted the left on this one, they have fallen back on their favorite charge: hypocrisy. In fact, in can be fairly asserted that the left's one recognized cardinal sin - amongst a group that regularly discounts the existence of sin - is hypocrisy. They love to take a person of character, someone who espouses a standard, and "catch" that person in a contradiction of the standard. Then they leep out from behind the bushes and yell "Hypocrite!". Remember, for example the case of William Bennett, author of "The book of Virtues". A year or so ago Bennett had an issue with gambling. He didn't hurt anyone. He didn't lose money he couldn't afford to. In fact, I'm not sure why it was even news - other than the fact that liberals could point at him and yell hypocrite. They don't, in and of itself, think gambling is wrong. They just gleefully loved catching Bennett in a supposed act of hypocrisy.
The same is true of Rove gate. After all of the facts have failed them, after it's clear that no law has been violated, after it's clear that Bush is not going to fire Rove short of an indictment, the press is left yelling hypocrite. For days now they have been trying to argue that President Bush has changed his standard of ethics from firing anyone if they "were involved" in the leak, to firing them "if a crime has been committed". The press has been trying to trump up a case of cover up because of this alleged moving of the goal posts. The problem is that Bush did not change his standard. But that's all the press is left to shout about: hypocrisy. Ridiculous.
As infuriating as it is, it is useful watching the press and the Democrats join hands in marching off the credibility cliff with Joe Wilson.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Feeling Patriotic
I love the 4th of July.
Sharing traditions together. Watching the town all come out together for a day of recreating in the park. Feeling honored as a veteran, and honoring those serving now. Enjoying fireworks after dark.
If you can watch amazing fireworks in a stadium, set to "Proud to be an American", and not feel proud to be an American - then I really feel sorry for you.
I'll say God Bless our country, our leaders, and our troops and their families.
Sharing traditions together. Watching the town all come out together for a day of recreating in the park. Feeling honored as a veteran, and honoring those serving now. Enjoying fireworks after dark.
If you can watch amazing fireworks in a stadium, set to "Proud to be an American", and not feel proud to be an American - then I really feel sorry for you.
I'll say God Bless our country, our leaders, and our troops and their families.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Concert of Guilt
Hey, I love a good concert as much as anybody. Which is why I tuned in briefly here and there to watch some of the Live8 concerts this weekend. I can get down with the music.
I can't however, get down with the large doses of liberal guilt driving the event. Once again, we have mega rich celebrities lecturing all of us how about how cheap we are in neglecting poverty in Africa. Hey, can you turn the music down for a minute and remind me how many Range Rovers and Hummers and Rolls Royce's it took to get your posse to the stadium? I've forgotten, since the last time I watched MTV's "Cribs" how many rides with 21" rims you have parked outside of your mansion. Okay, you can resume lecturing me about poverty. Idiots.
Here's an excellent article putting it all in perspective for you. It's called "Aid to Africa Redux", by Herb London. It asks the excellent question of what happened to the $2 billion raised the last time in the Live Aid concerts, and to the $25 billion that Western countries have poured into Africa in the last decade.
It's a simple answer. Warlords stole it and used it as weapons against their enemy tribes or stashed it in Swiss bank accounts. Until you can fix the problem of corrupt warlords in Africa, more aid won't help. It was said best this way in the article:
As Peter Baur, the father of development economics once noted, "foreign aid is little more than poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries."
But you won't hear that on MTV, or on any of the mainstream news coverage of the event - where liberal guilt will trump facts.
But, hey, music is music and I can enjoy a good concert.
I can't however, get down with the large doses of liberal guilt driving the event. Once again, we have mega rich celebrities lecturing all of us how about how cheap we are in neglecting poverty in Africa. Hey, can you turn the music down for a minute and remind me how many Range Rovers and Hummers and Rolls Royce's it took to get your posse to the stadium? I've forgotten, since the last time I watched MTV's "Cribs" how many rides with 21" rims you have parked outside of your mansion. Okay, you can resume lecturing me about poverty. Idiots.
Here's an excellent article putting it all in perspective for you. It's called "Aid to Africa Redux", by Herb London. It asks the excellent question of what happened to the $2 billion raised the last time in the Live Aid concerts, and to the $25 billion that Western countries have poured into Africa in the last decade.
It's a simple answer. Warlords stole it and used it as weapons against their enemy tribes or stashed it in Swiss bank accounts. Until you can fix the problem of corrupt warlords in Africa, more aid won't help. It was said best this way in the article:
As Peter Baur, the father of development economics once noted, "foreign aid is little more than poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries."
But you won't hear that on MTV, or on any of the mainstream news coverage of the event - where liberal guilt will trump facts.
But, hey, music is music and I can enjoy a good concert.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Battle for the Court
I'll have a lot to say in the coming weeks on the inevitable battle over the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Here's three things I know today:
1. It will be a battle. The left will demonize, and I use that word purposefully, any nominee that Bush puts forward. Whoever it is will be instantly labelled an extremist and will be fought. How do I know? They have already started doing it, and Bush hasn't even nominated anyone. NOW, for example, has already called for a march on the capitol by their membership to oppose right-wing extremist judicial nominations.
2. It's a critical battle. The court decisions this year make it clear how critical the courts are in formation of policy now in our nation. The composition of the court is critical to both sides.
3. The battle will be joined. No more Robert Borks, where the left in this country succeeded in demonizing a qualified jurist with smears and vitriolic hyperbole because the right was not mobilized to fight back and the Reagan Administration was not prepared for the fight. No more. There is an organized right now. There is an alternative media now. It will be a fight, and we're here for it.
Bring it on.
Here's three things I know today:
1. It will be a battle. The left will demonize, and I use that word purposefully, any nominee that Bush puts forward. Whoever it is will be instantly labelled an extremist and will be fought. How do I know? They have already started doing it, and Bush hasn't even nominated anyone. NOW, for example, has already called for a march on the capitol by their membership to oppose right-wing extremist judicial nominations.
2. It's a critical battle. The court decisions this year make it clear how critical the courts are in formation of policy now in our nation. The composition of the court is critical to both sides.
3. The battle will be joined. No more Robert Borks, where the left in this country succeeded in demonizing a qualified jurist with smears and vitriolic hyperbole because the right was not mobilized to fight back and the Reagan Administration was not prepared for the fight. No more. There is an organized right now. There is an alternative media now. It will be a fight, and we're here for it.
Bring it on.
Battle for the Court
I'll have a lot to say in the coming weeks on the inevitable battle over the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Here's three things I know today:
1. It will be a battle. The left will demonize, and I use that word purposefully, any nominee that Bush puts forward. Whoever it is will be instantly labelled an extremist and will be fought. How do I know? They have already started doing it, and Bush hasn't even nominated anyone. NOW, for example, has already called for a march on the capitol by their membership to oppose right-wing extremist judicial nominations.
2. It's a critical battle. The court decisions this year make it clear how critical the courts are in formation of policy now in our nation. The composition of the court is critical to both sides.
3. The battle will be joined. No more Robert Borks, where the left in this country succeeded in demonizing a qualified jurist with smears and vitriolic hyperbole because the right was not mobilized to fight back and the Reagan Administration was not prepared for the fight. No more. There is an organized right now. There is an alternative media now. It will be a fight, and we're here for it.
Bring it on.
Here's three things I know today:
1. It will be a battle. The left will demonize, and I use that word purposefully, any nominee that Bush puts forward. Whoever it is will be instantly labelled an extremist and will be fought. How do I know? They have already started doing it, and Bush hasn't even nominated anyone. NOW, for example, has already called for a march on the capitol by their membership to oppose right-wing extremist judicial nominations.
2. It's a critical battle. The court decisions this year make it clear how critical the courts are in formation of policy now in our nation. The composition of the court is critical to both sides.
3. The battle will be joined. No more Robert Borks, where the left in this country succeeded in demonizing a qualified jurist with smears and vitriolic hyperbole because the right was not mobilized to fight back and the Reagan Administration was not prepared for the fight. No more. There is an organized right now. There is an alternative media now. It will be a fight, and we're here for it.
Bring it on.
Monsters Amongst Us
Watching the BTK serial killer recount his murders - stalking and strangling at least 10 innocent people - in a cold and dispassionate manner in a publicized court trial this week reminds us that there are indeed monsters among us. Monsters that don't look like monsters, but look just like us. Chilling.
Listening to the recorded confession of Mr. Couley in Florida - who abducted, sexually assaulted, and then buried alive Jessica Lunsford - reminds us that there is evil in this world.
If you are a parent of young kids, as I am, it's a chilling week.
Fortunately, the rescue of the two abducted kids in Idaho this morning gives hope as well.
As for the evil, for these monster murderers, swift execution is warranted. As for the other monsters, yet to be caught.
Listening to the recorded confession of Mr. Couley in Florida - who abducted, sexually assaulted, and then buried alive Jessica Lunsford - reminds us that there is evil in this world.
If you are a parent of young kids, as I am, it's a chilling week.
Fortunately, the rescue of the two abducted kids in Idaho this morning gives hope as well.
As for the evil, for these monster murderers, swift execution is warranted. As for the other monsters, yet to be caught.
Words Mean Things
I've been wanting to write for a while now. So much has happened this summer to comment on, and so little time.
I missed several stories to comment on:
- Sen. Dick ("the turbin") Durbin's outrageous comments from the floor of the U.S. Senate equating U.S. soldier's treatment of detainees at Gitmo with Nazi atrocities, the Soviet gulags, and Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia. It was a deeply offensive and heinous comment, exposing the Democrat party's true thinking about the War on Terror and their knee-jerk tendency to label America as the worst offender in history. It was appalling and it deserved a resignation.
- Supreme Court rulings allowing the seizure of private property by local governments and disallowing the display of the Ten Commandments. This year has been an awful year for the Court, with one disastrous and activist decision after another being decided wrongly and not in the spirit of the Constitution.
- Gitmo itself, with the left in this country (Democrats, mainstream media, academics) throwing everything they have to undermine our war efforts in order to bring down the President that they clearly despise. They're in hyperbolic overdrive as they whine and wring their hands and moan and wail about the damage that Gitmo has done to our reputation around the world. In fact, it is the assaultive hyperbole that is harming our reputation.
The connecting thread in all of these stories is the damage done to political discourse in this country by the abuse of language on the part of the left. Words mean things, specific things, or at least they used to until the demagogues on the left got hold of them. Their talent, their particular talent honed to a sharp edge during 30 years of the abortion debate, is to take words and stretch and abuse them until they have stripped all meaning out of them and they are just useful weapons.
Some examples, from recent stories:
- Gulag: Dick Durbin and his crowd can repeat every day of the year, as they do, that our terrorist detainee camp at Guantanemo Bay in Cuba (GITMO) is a "gulag", but that doesn't make it true. As many on the right have now reminded them, the gulag was an chain of hundreds of camps where dissidents were sent to be worked to death or starved. Millions died at the hands of brutal communist tyrants.
Somehow, the no. 2 ranking Democrat leader in the U.S. Senate cannot tell the difference between that, or the Nazi death ovens, and the treatment of violent terrorists at a U.S. military base. Nor can Time Magazine, which ran the gulag analogy with a barbed wire photo in a cover story about Gitmo. Appalling.
Durbin's comments, and Time Magazine's story (as with Newsweek's Quran trashing story before it), have been picked up by Al Jazeera news network for propaganda purposes in the islamic military world. Nice. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It's appalling.
By the way, I shouldn't have to say this but because of the distortion of words on the left, I will - Gitmo is not a torture gulag. It's an extension of the battlefield in a global War on Terror. Stop undermining it.
- Terrorist: apparently, so soon still after 9-11, this word has fallen out of favor with our elite media. They prefer a word that blurs morality a little better, in order that they can make moral relativistic connections between them and us easier. The new term is "insurgent", implying that the daily murderous bombings in Iraq are the work of ordinary people rising up to throw off our illegitimate occupation. Again, that is a worldview of people that despise President Bush, not an accurate news reporting description.
They are not insurgents. It is not the regular citizens of Iraq that are attacking our troops still in Iraq. Those people are going about building hospitals and schools, with our help, and setting up a government and and a constitution. The bombings are being committed by terrorists pouring over the border from Iran and Syria. Islamic terrorists. Some are Al Qaida, in fact. Terrorists, not insurgents. Get it right, already.
- Quagmire: Teddy Kennedy likes to step up to a microphone every other day and declare our efforts in Iraq to be a "quagmire". Saying this constantly does not make it true. It's only been two years since we started this effort, and we're making incredible strides toward building a democracy in a region that was formerly a threat to us. If you are so history challenged that you think that this pahse of the War on Terror is a quagmire, you should take time to reflect on this 4th of July weekend on how long it took our own country to go from the Declaration of Independence to an approved Constitution. 11 years. You could look it up. Or you could just keep listening to Teddy Kennedy and company blather on about quagmire, and undermine our war effort the process. Nice.
- Extremist: The Democrats have promptly labelled every nominee that President Bush has made for appeals court leve judges to be "extremists". Every one. They fought them tooth and nail with fillibusters for 4 years, stepping in front of a microphone every chance they got to call them right-wing extremists. Clearly, a dispassionate review of their records indicate that they are mainstream conservatives. But, thanks to the collaboration of the mostly-Democrats in the media, conservative now equals "right-wing extremist". Or, to say it another way, extremist = not liberal.
- Private property: for more than two hundred years it's been a foundational principal of our country that one of the keystones of liberty is the right to own private property. It's one of the defining elements of freedom. It's your land. Your neighbors can't take it away from you. The rich guy down the street can't get it from you if you don't want to sell. And, especially, government can't take it away from you except in the most compelling circumstances for "public use". We've believed that for two hundred years. Until last week, when a liberal activist Supreme Court drove a truck through the strict meaning of "Public use", completely destroying the meaning of the term. Now, the court ruled, governments can take your private property and give it to another private interest if the public benefits in some way, like higher property tax revenue. It's a serious blow to freedom from tyranny.
I'm telling you folks, these past weeks have not been the "War of the Worlds", but the war of the words. If we don't want to let the left in this country continue to undermine the War on Terrorism and degrade freedom, we have to start calling B.S. on their distortion and destruction of the meaning of some really important words.
I missed several stories to comment on:
- Sen. Dick ("the turbin") Durbin's outrageous comments from the floor of the U.S. Senate equating U.S. soldier's treatment of detainees at Gitmo with Nazi atrocities, the Soviet gulags, and Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia. It was a deeply offensive and heinous comment, exposing the Democrat party's true thinking about the War on Terror and their knee-jerk tendency to label America as the worst offender in history. It was appalling and it deserved a resignation.
- Supreme Court rulings allowing the seizure of private property by local governments and disallowing the display of the Ten Commandments. This year has been an awful year for the Court, with one disastrous and activist decision after another being decided wrongly and not in the spirit of the Constitution.
- Gitmo itself, with the left in this country (Democrats, mainstream media, academics) throwing everything they have to undermine our war efforts in order to bring down the President that they clearly despise. They're in hyperbolic overdrive as they whine and wring their hands and moan and wail about the damage that Gitmo has done to our reputation around the world. In fact, it is the assaultive hyperbole that is harming our reputation.
The connecting thread in all of these stories is the damage done to political discourse in this country by the abuse of language on the part of the left. Words mean things, specific things, or at least they used to until the demagogues on the left got hold of them. Their talent, their particular talent honed to a sharp edge during 30 years of the abortion debate, is to take words and stretch and abuse them until they have stripped all meaning out of them and they are just useful weapons.
Some examples, from recent stories:
- Gulag: Dick Durbin and his crowd can repeat every day of the year, as they do, that our terrorist detainee camp at Guantanemo Bay in Cuba (GITMO) is a "gulag", but that doesn't make it true. As many on the right have now reminded them, the gulag was an chain of hundreds of camps where dissidents were sent to be worked to death or starved. Millions died at the hands of brutal communist tyrants.
Somehow, the no. 2 ranking Democrat leader in the U.S. Senate cannot tell the difference between that, or the Nazi death ovens, and the treatment of violent terrorists at a U.S. military base. Nor can Time Magazine, which ran the gulag analogy with a barbed wire photo in a cover story about Gitmo. Appalling.
Durbin's comments, and Time Magazine's story (as with Newsweek's Quran trashing story before it), have been picked up by Al Jazeera news network for propaganda purposes in the islamic military world. Nice. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It's appalling.
By the way, I shouldn't have to say this but because of the distortion of words on the left, I will - Gitmo is not a torture gulag. It's an extension of the battlefield in a global War on Terror. Stop undermining it.
- Terrorist: apparently, so soon still after 9-11, this word has fallen out of favor with our elite media. They prefer a word that blurs morality a little better, in order that they can make moral relativistic connections between them and us easier. The new term is "insurgent", implying that the daily murderous bombings in Iraq are the work of ordinary people rising up to throw off our illegitimate occupation. Again, that is a worldview of people that despise President Bush, not an accurate news reporting description.
They are not insurgents. It is not the regular citizens of Iraq that are attacking our troops still in Iraq. Those people are going about building hospitals and schools, with our help, and setting up a government and and a constitution. The bombings are being committed by terrorists pouring over the border from Iran and Syria. Islamic terrorists. Some are Al Qaida, in fact. Terrorists, not insurgents. Get it right, already.
- Quagmire: Teddy Kennedy likes to step up to a microphone every other day and declare our efforts in Iraq to be a "quagmire". Saying this constantly does not make it true. It's only been two years since we started this effort, and we're making incredible strides toward building a democracy in a region that was formerly a threat to us. If you are so history challenged that you think that this pahse of the War on Terror is a quagmire, you should take time to reflect on this 4th of July weekend on how long it took our own country to go from the Declaration of Independence to an approved Constitution. 11 years. You could look it up. Or you could just keep listening to Teddy Kennedy and company blather on about quagmire, and undermine our war effort the process. Nice.
- Extremist: The Democrats have promptly labelled every nominee that President Bush has made for appeals court leve judges to be "extremists". Every one. They fought them tooth and nail with fillibusters for 4 years, stepping in front of a microphone every chance they got to call them right-wing extremists. Clearly, a dispassionate review of their records indicate that they are mainstream conservatives. But, thanks to the collaboration of the mostly-Democrats in the media, conservative now equals "right-wing extremist". Or, to say it another way, extremist = not liberal.
- Private property: for more than two hundred years it's been a foundational principal of our country that one of the keystones of liberty is the right to own private property. It's one of the defining elements of freedom. It's your land. Your neighbors can't take it away from you. The rich guy down the street can't get it from you if you don't want to sell. And, especially, government can't take it away from you except in the most compelling circumstances for "public use". We've believed that for two hundred years. Until last week, when a liberal activist Supreme Court drove a truck through the strict meaning of "Public use", completely destroying the meaning of the term. Now, the court ruled, governments can take your private property and give it to another private interest if the public benefits in some way, like higher property tax revenue. It's a serious blow to freedom from tyranny.
I'm telling you folks, these past weeks have not been the "War of the Worlds", but the war of the words. If we don't want to let the left in this country continue to undermine the War on Terrorism and degrade freedom, we have to start calling B.S. on their distortion and destruction of the meaning of some really important words.
Monday, June 13, 2005
the Preciousness of Life
I am struck this week by loss.
A collective sense of loss in story after story in the news. The War. Little girls senselessly murdered in Florida. The all American girl lost in Aruba after one probably fatal mistake on vacation.
Family loss, in the passing of a loved one.
I'm struck, most of all, by the preciousness of life.
I was reminded this week of the life that we all share here together. It's easy to lose track of that in this world of opinion blogging. To take sides. To draw camps. To be us and them. Sometimes we get reminded to broaden our view of each other.
I learned this week of the death of a young lady. I never met her and I never would have run into her. But through the miracle of this web we inhabit, I've gotten a chance to know a little about her.
She was a journaler as well, and I've gotten to read of her and her life on the web in this electronic paper trail that we journalers leave.
She was an activist. A strong and passionate advocate for the causes she believed in, and more importantly, the people she could help through this medium. Clearly, from the posts of the devastated people she left behind, she helped many - selflessly.
It wasn't hard to see from what I've read that she and I would have been on opposite sides of all of the issues that we each talked about. She probably would hate this blog. I've always said here, though, that I admire activists on both sides of issues. People who get in the game and care. I respect that, and from reading about her - I respect her.
It's not important what I think about her. Or who would have been right or wrong on issues if we had a debate. I didn't even know her. But I care about her, and the difference that she made.
I'm just struck tonight by loss.
And the preciousness of life.
A collective sense of loss in story after story in the news. The War. Little girls senselessly murdered in Florida. The all American girl lost in Aruba after one probably fatal mistake on vacation.
Family loss, in the passing of a loved one.
I'm struck, most of all, by the preciousness of life.
I was reminded this week of the life that we all share here together. It's easy to lose track of that in this world of opinion blogging. To take sides. To draw camps. To be us and them. Sometimes we get reminded to broaden our view of each other.
I learned this week of the death of a young lady. I never met her and I never would have run into her. But through the miracle of this web we inhabit, I've gotten a chance to know a little about her.
She was a journaler as well, and I've gotten to read of her and her life on the web in this electronic paper trail that we journalers leave.
She was an activist. A strong and passionate advocate for the causes she believed in, and more importantly, the people she could help through this medium. Clearly, from the posts of the devastated people she left behind, she helped many - selflessly.
It wasn't hard to see from what I've read that she and I would have been on opposite sides of all of the issues that we each talked about. She probably would hate this blog. I've always said here, though, that I admire activists on both sides of issues. People who get in the game and care. I respect that, and from reading about her - I respect her.
It's not important what I think about her. Or who would have been right or wrong on issues if we had a debate. I didn't even know her. But I care about her, and the difference that she made.
I'm just struck tonight by loss.
And the preciousness of life.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Elites are Upsidedown on Religion
My summer hiatus from this blog lasted less than a week. I'm back.
What brought me back is a series of articles that I read this morning over the course of a lazy Saturday morning spent with all of the newspapers that I missed during a busy week.
You should try it sometime. Read a whole week's worth of newspapers in one sitting. It was informative, to say the least. Troubling would be another word that comes to mind.
It's easier to see patterns in the news when you encounter it all at once. And I did see a pattern regarding the general discussion in the press and among the power brokers about Christianity vs. Islam.
And the pattern is this: Among the left and the elites (who are generally liberal and secular) there are two subjects that are fair game for hammering and ridicule:
1. Any critical or disrespectful treatment of Muslims or Islam
2. Any positive public mention of Christianity
Let's take a look at three specific articles that I read.
First, an opinion column by Bill O'Reilly regarding his observation that the anti-Bush left (websites, news organizations, 527's, NGO's) have an organized effort going. The effort is rooted in the stunning defeat of the left in the last two elections in the U.S. and the succesful elections in Iraq which make it likely that Bush will be seen as a hero setting up the Republicans for a win again in 2008. How to get Hillary elected instead? By taking down the President in public opinion. How to do that? By hammering and distorting the Administration's role in the "torture" allegations from Abu Gahraib and Guantanemo. The press has been hammering the idea that our troops are torturers, that we have set up gulags, that our reputation has suffered around the world, and that it's all George Bush's fault. (Gee, is it the chicken or the egg if our reputation has suffered after 50 front page stories in the New York Times on Abu Gahraib?)
I think O'Reilly has it exactly right, and then some. I think that left has an organized effort going to take down the President to set up Hillary Clinton's election in 2008. But I think it's more than that. I think it's the left's compatible agenda to take down Christianity's influence in the United States as well.
Story two was an AP article "Pentagon confirms Quran mishandling". Okay, we get it already. Apparently in the cause of detainee interrogations to prevent further terrorist activities to harm or kill Americans, some soldiers may have misused the Quran. Story after story are hammering this point lately, including this article that runs a half page and 12 paragraphs in my paper. I get it. Is this an offense on par with how Christianity is treated in Muslim nations - where you can be beheaded for stating publicly that you are a Christian, or sold into slavery in the Sudan for the same offense? Hardly. But, to the liberal press, this abuse of the Quran is highest priority news event of the day. Not the positive things we are doing to provide freedom in Afghanistan and increasingly in Iraq. No, you won't find those stories. They would get in the way of the ink space needed to expose the evil Bush administration's desecration of the Quran.
Story Three was a another in the series of stories and telecasts that I've seen in the media about the atrocity ocurring at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Horror of all horrors, this outrage was exposed again in the article by the AP entitled "Intolerance at military school". I'll issue a warning for sensitive souls here to be careful reading on. It appears, from the hours of press coverage that I've seen, that "Evangelical Christian" chaplains at the Academy are guilty of - "proselytizing" for Christianity. That, in short, summarizes the case for intolerance.
"The superindendent of the Air Force Academy acknowledged to leaders of a national Jewish group Friday that religious intolerance permeates the military school."
"As a commander, I know I have problems in my cadet wing", Lt. Gen. John Rosa said.He also said that the problem is "something that keeps me up at night".
What problem? Well, apparently the problem that he admonished his No. 2 commander for. The problem for which "we sat down and said, 'this is not right'".
The problem: Brig. Gen Weida, a born again Christian, had sent an email promoting National Prayer Day. A day, by the way, which is recognized federally and is honored by the President of the United States in the White House every year. But let's not let that fact stop the recoginition that the email represented intolerance and that the liberal elites demand his punishment.
Further evidence of intolerance cited was the transfer of Capt. Melinda Morton, chaplain, from the Academy after she complained of proselytizing at the Academy. I've seen Capt. Morton making the rounds of news programs complaining of evangelism on the campus. Amazingly to me, as an Air Force veteran, was that none of the intrepid journalists interviewing her exercisized the same tenacity that they used to validate her charges to ask her if her Rosie O'Donnell butch haircut was an indication that she may have had her own personal issues with evangelical Christianity. It would have been a legitimate question. But, don't ask, don't tell.
I won't even comment on a fourth article celebrating a liberal New England church's ordination of their first "trans-gendered" clergy. The congregation feels enlightened. Although, apparently not every one in the congregation. The others must be the intolerant.
What brought me back is a series of articles that I read this morning over the course of a lazy Saturday morning spent with all of the newspapers that I missed during a busy week.
You should try it sometime. Read a whole week's worth of newspapers in one sitting. It was informative, to say the least. Troubling would be another word that comes to mind.
It's easier to see patterns in the news when you encounter it all at once. And I did see a pattern regarding the general discussion in the press and among the power brokers about Christianity vs. Islam.
And the pattern is this: Among the left and the elites (who are generally liberal and secular) there are two subjects that are fair game for hammering and ridicule:
1. Any critical or disrespectful treatment of Muslims or Islam
2. Any positive public mention of Christianity
Let's take a look at three specific articles that I read.
First, an opinion column by Bill O'Reilly regarding his observation that the anti-Bush left (websites, news organizations, 527's, NGO's) have an organized effort going. The effort is rooted in the stunning defeat of the left in the last two elections in the U.S. and the succesful elections in Iraq which make it likely that Bush will be seen as a hero setting up the Republicans for a win again in 2008. How to get Hillary elected instead? By taking down the President in public opinion. How to do that? By hammering and distorting the Administration's role in the "torture" allegations from Abu Gahraib and Guantanemo. The press has been hammering the idea that our troops are torturers, that we have set up gulags, that our reputation has suffered around the world, and that it's all George Bush's fault. (Gee, is it the chicken or the egg if our reputation has suffered after 50 front page stories in the New York Times on Abu Gahraib?)
I think O'Reilly has it exactly right, and then some. I think that left has an organized effort going to take down the President to set up Hillary Clinton's election in 2008. But I think it's more than that. I think it's the left's compatible agenda to take down Christianity's influence in the United States as well.
Story two was an AP article "Pentagon confirms Quran mishandling". Okay, we get it already. Apparently in the cause of detainee interrogations to prevent further terrorist activities to harm or kill Americans, some soldiers may have misused the Quran. Story after story are hammering this point lately, including this article that runs a half page and 12 paragraphs in my paper. I get it. Is this an offense on par with how Christianity is treated in Muslim nations - where you can be beheaded for stating publicly that you are a Christian, or sold into slavery in the Sudan for the same offense? Hardly. But, to the liberal press, this abuse of the Quran is highest priority news event of the day. Not the positive things we are doing to provide freedom in Afghanistan and increasingly in Iraq. No, you won't find those stories. They would get in the way of the ink space needed to expose the evil Bush administration's desecration of the Quran.
Story Three was a another in the series of stories and telecasts that I've seen in the media about the atrocity ocurring at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Horror of all horrors, this outrage was exposed again in the article by the AP entitled "Intolerance at military school". I'll issue a warning for sensitive souls here to be careful reading on. It appears, from the hours of press coverage that I've seen, that "Evangelical Christian" chaplains at the Academy are guilty of - "proselytizing" for Christianity. That, in short, summarizes the case for intolerance.
"The superindendent of the Air Force Academy acknowledged to leaders of a national Jewish group Friday that religious intolerance permeates the military school."
"As a commander, I know I have problems in my cadet wing", Lt. Gen. John Rosa said.He also said that the problem is "something that keeps me up at night".
What problem? Well, apparently the problem that he admonished his No. 2 commander for. The problem for which "we sat down and said, 'this is not right'".
The problem: Brig. Gen Weida, a born again Christian, had sent an email promoting National Prayer Day. A day, by the way, which is recognized federally and is honored by the President of the United States in the White House every year. But let's not let that fact stop the recoginition that the email represented intolerance and that the liberal elites demand his punishment.
Further evidence of intolerance cited was the transfer of Capt. Melinda Morton, chaplain, from the Academy after she complained of proselytizing at the Academy. I've seen Capt. Morton making the rounds of news programs complaining of evangelism on the campus. Amazingly to me, as an Air Force veteran, was that none of the intrepid journalists interviewing her exercisized the same tenacity that they used to validate her charges to ask her if her Rosie O'Donnell butch haircut was an indication that she may have had her own personal issues with evangelical Christianity. It would have been a legitimate question. But, don't ask, don't tell.
I won't even comment on a fourth article celebrating a liberal New England church's ordination of their first "trans-gendered" clergy. The congregation feels enlightened. Although, apparently not every one in the congregation. The others must be the intolerant.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
On Hiatus
I'm going to pause this blog, Partisan Newsjunkie, for the summer.
I love this blog, and the opportunity to vent my unsolicited, partisan, semi-hysterical opinions on current events.
However, it doesn't help my customers, or help my company, or advance my career, or make me money.
So, I'm going to focus my activities on tasks that do those four things.
I'll probably be back.
Thanks for reading.
I love this blog, and the opportunity to vent my unsolicited, partisan, semi-hysterical opinions on current events.
However, it doesn't help my customers, or help my company, or advance my career, or make me money.
So, I'm going to focus my activities on tasks that do those four things.
I'll probably be back.
Thanks for reading.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Sellouts
The "compromise" agreement reached by the "moderate" Senators in the U.S. Senate today to end the fillibuster will be analyzed endlessly over the next few days in the press and in the blogs.
Did the compromisers save the Senate? Do they represent the reasonable middle in thwarting the plans of their leadership to have a showdown on principle? Is there a "middle" in politics?
My take is simple: the gang of 14 that crafted the compromise are sellouts. A 14% minority who have hijacked the important debate on principle with a plan that merely punts the fight down the road. It's cowardly, in the best tradition of the cowardly Senate.
Is there a middle. No, not a principled middle. An apathetic middle, maybe. A middle that wants to run and hide from a principled fight maybe. But not a principled middle. There are two sides to this debate, not three. The only middle is to sellout and take the ball and go home.
The only bright side in the compromise deal is that 3 of the 7 judges that are at the center of the controversy will get the up or down vote they deserve in the Senate. They are well qualified and will be confirmed.
The downside is that the Democrats escaped having to stand up and take the stage and put the lie that they are unqualified on display by fillibustering in public. They got away with the lie.
My disgust will, of course, center on the RINO's (Republicans in name only) amonst the sellouts who sold their President's well qualified nominees - the 4 who may not get an up or down vote - down the river to have peace with their Democrat colleagues who have abused the process. Disgusting.
Did the compromisers save the Senate? Do they represent the reasonable middle in thwarting the plans of their leadership to have a showdown on principle? Is there a "middle" in politics?
My take is simple: the gang of 14 that crafted the compromise are sellouts. A 14% minority who have hijacked the important debate on principle with a plan that merely punts the fight down the road. It's cowardly, in the best tradition of the cowardly Senate.
Is there a middle. No, not a principled middle. An apathetic middle, maybe. A middle that wants to run and hide from a principled fight maybe. But not a principled middle. There are two sides to this debate, not three. The only middle is to sellout and take the ball and go home.
The only bright side in the compromise deal is that 3 of the 7 judges that are at the center of the controversy will get the up or down vote they deserve in the Senate. They are well qualified and will be confirmed.
The downside is that the Democrats escaped having to stand up and take the stage and put the lie that they are unqualified on display by fillibustering in public. They got away with the lie.
My disgust will, of course, center on the RINO's (Republicans in name only) amonst the sellouts who sold their President's well qualified nominees - the 4 who may not get an up or down vote - down the river to have peace with their Democrat colleagues who have abused the process. Disgusting.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Closure
I always know when news stories start. They occupy significant space on the front page.
All different types of stories. For example:
Politics: Democrats made significant traction before and during the 2004 election by accusing Vice President Dick Cheney of holding Energy Committee hearings in secret because he invited in his oil industry buddies to let them write the energy laws. Democrats sued to get access to the meeting notes. Front page news.
War: Liberals in general, and anti-war liberals in particular, made a lot of the story of the U.S. Marine who entered a room and shot and killed an Iraqi laying on the floor. NBC camermen filmed the exchange. Despite movements that could be interpreted as life threatening, liberals chose the interpretation that the shooting was unjustified and demanded a court martial. Front page news.
Personal Interest: an FBI task force asked the public for help in locating an abused girl who showed up on the internet in more than 200 anonymous child porn photos. Tipsters identified one room she was in as a popular resort hotel. But where was she now? Front page news.
I don't always know when these stories reach closure. Often, as with these three stories above, they are only covered in small inocuous articles deep inside the paper. Had I not been reading closely I might not have known how these stories concluded.
Dick Cheney was exonerated 8 - 0 by an appeals court.
The U.S. Marine was acquitted, with the shooting judged to be justified.
And the little internet girl was found safe. Thank God.
All different types of stories. For example:
Politics: Democrats made significant traction before and during the 2004 election by accusing Vice President Dick Cheney of holding Energy Committee hearings in secret because he invited in his oil industry buddies to let them write the energy laws. Democrats sued to get access to the meeting notes. Front page news.
War: Liberals in general, and anti-war liberals in particular, made a lot of the story of the U.S. Marine who entered a room and shot and killed an Iraqi laying on the floor. NBC camermen filmed the exchange. Despite movements that could be interpreted as life threatening, liberals chose the interpretation that the shooting was unjustified and demanded a court martial. Front page news.
Personal Interest: an FBI task force asked the public for help in locating an abused girl who showed up on the internet in more than 200 anonymous child porn photos. Tipsters identified one room she was in as a popular resort hotel. But where was she now? Front page news.
I don't always know when these stories reach closure. Often, as with these three stories above, they are only covered in small inocuous articles deep inside the paper. Had I not been reading closely I might not have known how these stories concluded.
Dick Cheney was exonerated 8 - 0 by an appeals court.
The U.S. Marine was acquitted, with the shooting judged to be justified.
And the little internet girl was found safe. Thank God.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Why Do I Know This Stuff?
Dinner conversation tonight, in a group of all male colleagues at the conclusion of a sporting event, started naturally on the topic of sports. The status of the NBA playoffs. Who was overrated in the NFL. That sort of trivia.
I can hang in during a sports discussion, but just barely. It's not my thing.
Politics is my thing. The Senate filibuster fight is my playoffs. Conspiracy theories are my season. Elections are my Olympics. I can quote stats and dates, but on scandals in Washington D.C. and not from the ballpark. I can recite the history and timelines of events. I can connect the dots. I can make esoteric arguments about complicated policy issues. I can define the words liberal and conservative and libertarian without using a dictionary.
In the course of our dinner conversation the topic shifted from sports to politics, and I had the floor. I held court, with some degree of passion, on topics that I've written about here, such as the terrorist / Iraqi connections to the Oklahoma City Bombing. As we talked, it became clear to me that I probably study political topics more than most people do.
It reminded me of stumbling on a sports show on a sports network this week, whereby contestants match wits with a guy named "Schwab" on sports trivia questions like "name 4 Baltimore Orioles players who were named league MVP's" or whatever. I mentioned to my dinner companions that my thought, as I watched this trivia show in sports-speak that was almost a foreign language to me, was:
"Why would someone know these things?"
An ironic question, of course, as the laughter of my dinner companions confirmed.
So, thanks go out to my fellow political bloggers - who speak my language and share my passion for Cable News and CSPAN. And, of course, the blogosphere.
Now, if I can only figure out how to use this quirky hobby to become obscenely rich!
I can hang in during a sports discussion, but just barely. It's not my thing.
Politics is my thing. The Senate filibuster fight is my playoffs. Conspiracy theories are my season. Elections are my Olympics. I can quote stats and dates, but on scandals in Washington D.C. and not from the ballpark. I can recite the history and timelines of events. I can connect the dots. I can make esoteric arguments about complicated policy issues. I can define the words liberal and conservative and libertarian without using a dictionary.
In the course of our dinner conversation the topic shifted from sports to politics, and I had the floor. I held court, with some degree of passion, on topics that I've written about here, such as the terrorist / Iraqi connections to the Oklahoma City Bombing. As we talked, it became clear to me that I probably study political topics more than most people do.
It reminded me of stumbling on a sports show on a sports network this week, whereby contestants match wits with a guy named "Schwab" on sports trivia questions like "name 4 Baltimore Orioles players who were named league MVP's" or whatever. I mentioned to my dinner companions that my thought, as I watched this trivia show in sports-speak that was almost a foreign language to me, was:
"Why would someone know these things?"
An ironic question, of course, as the laughter of my dinner companions confirmed.
So, thanks go out to my fellow political bloggers - who speak my language and share my passion for Cable News and CSPAN. And, of course, the blogosphere.
Now, if I can only figure out how to use this quirky hobby to become obscenely rich!
Monday, May 09, 2005
"Not in My Name" Party
The Democrat Party of late is reminding me of their vocal, fringe, anti-war protest wing who went under the banner of "Not in My Name" before and during the Iraq War. The Demcrats seem to have adopted a NIMN strategy for their participation in government. Obstructionism is the whole of their agenda.
The key focus of their obstinancy, as I've written before, is the filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominations in the Senate - where 10 of Bush's most critical judge choices are bottled up in committee. Their rationale there was explained this past Saturday in Sen. Schumer's response to the President's weekly radio address. Schumer stated that the Republicans were trying to overturn the Constitution's system of checks and balances (by defeating the filibuster option) and must be stopped.
This is a lie and it must be labeled as a lie.
Yes, the Constitution provides for a check on the President's ability to appoint judges by requiring that the Senate consent. Clearly, the Constitutional threshold is consent by a majority. 51%.
However, by invoking a filibuster, the Democrats are trying to impose a super-majority standard on consent by requiring the super-majority to break the filibuster. This is not a Constitutional provision, but merely a parlimentary trick using the rules of the Senate. A rule on the order of, say, what time to break for lunch or how to format the page structure of a bill. It's an organizational operating rule, not on the level of Constitutional gravity.
A parade of Senators has appeared on TV news programs to defend, and even exalt, the "time-honored traditions of the Senate" - chiefly the tradition of being able to bring everything to a halt by blabbering endlessly into a microphone. One after another they roll out the quote that the Senate is the "saucer that cools the tea" in cooling down the hot passions of their brethern in the House.
The "saucer that cools the tea"?
Who do they think can relate to this analogy? I guess I'm taking my lunch break wrong at work, because it's been a long time since I was high tea. I don't have any saucers on my styrofoam cups. Apparently the Princes and Princesses of the Senate use a lot of saucers.
Do they really think this brings honor to their profession? Let me translate their long winded defenses of Senate rules for you:
"Hey, look at us. We're your government's speed bumps!"
or
"If you think we're going to take a vote on anything while I can find a microphone to block a majority, then you Sir are sadly mistaken."
Enough already. Senators - have your saucer-cooled tea. And then let the judges have an up-or-down vote. You're embarrassing yourselves and the process.
The key focus of their obstinancy, as I've written before, is the filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominations in the Senate - where 10 of Bush's most critical judge choices are bottled up in committee. Their rationale there was explained this past Saturday in Sen. Schumer's response to the President's weekly radio address. Schumer stated that the Republicans were trying to overturn the Constitution's system of checks and balances (by defeating the filibuster option) and must be stopped.
This is a lie and it must be labeled as a lie.
Yes, the Constitution provides for a check on the President's ability to appoint judges by requiring that the Senate consent. Clearly, the Constitutional threshold is consent by a majority. 51%.
However, by invoking a filibuster, the Democrats are trying to impose a super-majority standard on consent by requiring the super-majority to break the filibuster. This is not a Constitutional provision, but merely a parlimentary trick using the rules of the Senate. A rule on the order of, say, what time to break for lunch or how to format the page structure of a bill. It's an organizational operating rule, not on the level of Constitutional gravity.
A parade of Senators has appeared on TV news programs to defend, and even exalt, the "time-honored traditions of the Senate" - chiefly the tradition of being able to bring everything to a halt by blabbering endlessly into a microphone. One after another they roll out the quote that the Senate is the "saucer that cools the tea" in cooling down the hot passions of their brethern in the House.
The "saucer that cools the tea"?
Who do they think can relate to this analogy? I guess I'm taking my lunch break wrong at work, because it's been a long time since I was high tea. I don't have any saucers on my styrofoam cups. Apparently the Princes and Princesses of the Senate use a lot of saucers.
Do they really think this brings honor to their profession? Let me translate their long winded defenses of Senate rules for you:
"Hey, look at us. We're your government's speed bumps!"
or
"If you think we're going to take a vote on anything while I can find a microphone to block a majority, then you Sir are sadly mistaken."
Enough already. Senators - have your saucer-cooled tea. And then let the judges have an up-or-down vote. You're embarrassing yourselves and the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)