She's Dead

Everybody happy now?

Minutemen Are Coming

Columnist Michell Malkin has, in my opinion, identified the next big news story that will catch hold after the Terri Schiavo case moves off of the news headlines. Go read her excellent column The ACLU vs. America.

The situation is this: A group of volunteers calling themselves the Minutemen are going to patrol our Southern border watching for illegal immigrants breaking into the country. They won't confront anyone. They won't use violence. They will just observe the illegal entries, notify the border patrol, and document the entries. Harmless enough.

And of course, the ACLU will oppose them. Read Michelle's excellent column as to why. And of course these volunteers will be pilloried in the press as racist, right-wing, gun-totin', militia types. It's not too hard to predict the MSM script.

The bottom line is this: our border is out of control. Illegal "immigration" is out of control. This represents a very real and present security threat to the United States. And the Federal Government is taking insufficient steps to control it.

Some will dispute that the border is out of control, or even that the border should be controlled. Those people are at odds with the official law of the land which provides a definition and means of "legal" immigration. That is represented by all of the folks in foreign lands, who are welcome in America, who follow the law and the process and enter legally. It follows then that if there is a defined legal way to immigrate then there is correspondingly an illegal way to enter. And by which method would you guess that terrorists who want to enter America to do us harm would choose to enter now after 9/11?

The core definition of a sovereign nation is definable borders and rules about who is allowed within those borders as citizens or guests. The concept of America as a sovereign nation is greatly weakened by an out-of-control border in the South.

I, for one, will appreciate the volunteer efforts of the Minutemen (and women!). I just hope that they are ready for the heat that is going to come down on their heads from the American left and their allies in the media.

Deathwatch, Day 13

I've written about all I can write about the impending death of Terri Schiavo in Florida. Today is day 13 of her ordeal which has captivated the nation. Today, as we wait and watch her struggle, I'll just offer some brief thoughts.

- I was sceptical of the arrival of Jesse Jackson at the scene of the hospice so late in the proceedings, as it could just be another example of his opportunism. But as I watched him on the news shows yesterday I decided to just give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. He was not grandstanding or showboating. He was quietly stating that this was wrong and that he was there at the request of the family. I believe him. I'll cut him a lot of slack on this one and just appreciate his efforts.

- Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, could easily be Jack Kervorkian's successor in the selling of death as a right. The man was eerie as he came out to address the cameras about how "peaceful" Terri's starvation death is. My question is, why is this man allowed in her room at will and her parent's comings and goings are strictly regulated? That's an injustice.

- Go read Pat Buchanan's column today on this topic, called "The Culture of Death Advances". It's excellent and he said it all, better than I could have.

The Nerve of That Woman

I heard a caller to Rush Limbaugh's program today express a point of view that I'm seeing on the web and elsewhere. His basic point was that, while he was "horrified at what's going on down in Florida" with Terri Schiavo, he's tired of the story and wants to stop talking about it and move on.

sarcasm

Well then. The nerve of Terri Schiavo to not starve to death faster so that this man does not have to be burden with talking about it too long.

Doesn't she know that this American's now have a Constitutional right, unwritten but de facto in today's attention-span-deficient America, to not be bored? Doesn't she? Why won't she just die already so we can all get back to March Madness?

/sarcasm

Hail to the Orange, Hail to the Blue

I'm caught up in March Madness and am wallowing in NCAA basketball this weekend.

So, some kudos and condolences are in order:

Kudos to the Fighting Illini of the University of Illinois. My team. I attended college there in Champaign - Urbana from 1978 through 1981. ( I ended up graduating elsewhere, but that's another story.) The Illini earned their way to the Final Four last night in one of the most exciting college basketball games I have ever seen, coming from 15 points down to win it in OT. (To my readers who know that I am a jinx when I watch Illinois basketball - I had someone tape it and only watched it after they won!)

Condolences to a large part of my extended family who are diehard fans of the Blue and White of the University of Kentucky Wildcats. They lost their bid to the final four today in a hard fought game.

On to St. Louis for the championship. Go Illinois!

Sanity will resume in April.

Humor in Anarchy

I need a little humor break after the intensity of the last several posts that I've written.

I was surfing my political sites today, including Free Republic, a conservative chat site where people post articles and then other members - myself included - post their comments to the article.

The article that made me laugh today was about Anarchy.

Someone posted a news article about an Anarchist's Book Fair in San Francisco. Anarchists from all over gathered for the fair to buy books on smashing government, protesting, hating America and the Middle Class, etc. The usual.

It was the 10th Anniversary of the Anarchist's Book Fair. They had 75 vendors set up booths this year.

So, what was the commenters take on the article? Two things:

1. 10th Anniversary? 75 vendors? That seems to be quite organized for Anarchists. (think about it. :) )

2. Anarchists use the F-word a lot.

For what it's worth - it made me laugh. Thanks FR.

Personal vs. Theoretical

I'm approaching the issue of the Terri Schiavo case from a theoretical position rather than a personal one. From the point of view of my beliefs, formed by my life and my faith and my education.

I realized this week by reading the letters-to-the-editor that a lot of people are approaching this issue from a personal point of view. From having had to face a end-of-life medical decision from within their own family. And thus they are invested in the issue with a perspective that I'm yet to have. They have a personal vested stake in what the answer to this tough life question and their position on this subject has a lot to do with justifying their own decisions in the matter.

It follows that a lot of people, as our population ages, will be approaching the question from a personal rather than a theoretical POV. Eventually, maybe even a majority of people will.

We've already been down this path in the abortion debate.

In 1973, very few people nationwide had personal experience with abortion as the nation wrestled with Roe v. Wade.

Do the math and you will see that, in 2005, that's no longer the case. 40 plus million abortions since 1973. That's 40 million women. Add a partner in most of those cases who assisted in the decision either supportively or coercively. Add friends who provided advice, counsel, and financial and/or logistical support. Add some amount of parents who knew about the crisis pregnancy and did the same. It's easy to get to a number of over 100 million people out of 240 million people who were involved to some degree in the completion of an abortion. 100 million people for who the topic of abortion is not theoretical but personal and who have a vested interest in justifying their decision when the take a position on a theoretical topic. That's the math for abortion.

And that's becoming the math for end-of-life decisions as well.

That's not right or wrong. It just is. These discussions are now personal and not theoretical.

Nazi Doctors and the Slippery Slope

In 1973, as Roe v. Wade was being decided by the Supreme Court, opponents argued that the danger was that the legalization of abortion was the first step of a slippery slope that would lead to much more drastic issues like forced euthanasia. Proponents of Roe, denied the slippery slope argument.

Who was right? Is there a slippery slope in regards to the cheapening of life?

It's 2005. We can look back now and evaluate that argument. Time for the score card.

In 1973 what was legalized was limited abortion rights. Permissable in the first term. Limited in the second trimester. Outlawed in the third.

In 2005 abortion is hardly even the issue any more. Those limitations have eroded to the point of irrelevancy. Late term abortion is no longer even rare. Down the slope we've gone. 1.5 million abortions a year. Yawn, says the country. Get current. We have abortion rights and millions of people want more. We want the "right to die". We want assisted suicide. We want to create embryos to destroy them for research to find cures. Let's have Stem Cell Research right now! - and if you oppose it you're just a religious fanatic. Get out of our way!

And yet, millions still deny the slippery slope.

One of the turning points in my life that contributed to my conversion to a pro-life stance was reading a quiet little book written by a doctor. It wasn't a book about abortion. It was essentially a social studies book written by a man named Robert Jay Lifton, who was a doctor. Being a doctor, Lifton was fascinated by a simple question. The question was: how could doctors - who probably took an oath to do no wrong - become the designers and implementers of the Holocaust? Yes, the Nazis dreamed up the death camps and the "final solution", but doctors made it happen. From selecting the victims, to the mechanisms of death like the gas chamber, to disposing of the corpses it took doctors to implement. Why did they participate?

A good question. And a fascinating one.

The answer, of course, was the slippery slope. The doctors didn't start out fitting showers with deadly gas in the camps. They started with the more benign issue of sterilizing the mentally retarded. From their they graduated down the slope to euthansia of those who were "life unworthy of life". The doctors made the killing of millions in death camps feasible.

It was an excellent book and it had a profound impact on my thinking on these issues. You can read more about it (here).

I'm not making any comparisons here of anyone involved in any of the current issues in the United States to Nazis. I'm not. That would be totally irresponsible.

But I am saying that there are valid historical lessons here for us to learn as we struggle in this country with the right-to-life issues of abortion, Stem Cell Research, and the end-of-life issues like we are dealing with this week as we have the public spectacle of the end of Terri Schiavo's life.

And I am saying that we are well down the slippery slope of the cheapening of life.

Dignity and Death

There is a lot of discussion in the Schiavo case on the topic of dignity. Almost exclusively the discussion centers around the incapacitated person. Should she be allowed to "die with dignity"? Is it cruel to have her linger in this "undignified" condition? The right-to-die movement is all about death with dignity.

Valid questions, worthy of discussion.

And as my contribution to the discussion, I'm going to approach it from a different direction and suggest that the question of dignity applies to more than just the person dying and involves the care-givers as well.

Now that I'm in my forties, I've had the opportunity to watch family members care for dying loved ones. That includes in-laws who cared for a dying parent. That includes an uncle who cared for years for a disabled and dying spouse. And that includes my father (and an older brother) who cared for my mother as ended a four year battle with a ravaging battle. She passed away, delerious and uncomprehending, in her living room with hospice care.

I learned from watching those deaths that death affects more than the dying. And that those who shoulder the sacrifices and burdens of caring for the dying face a test of dignity themselves. In the three cases I mentioned above the caregivers demonstrated an enormous and superhuman degree of dignity and were each ultimately blessed by their task. They were a lesson for me as I potentially face the test of dignity myself in the future as a caregiver. They showed me the way.

Legal vs. Right

Okay. I get it. All of the courts have ruled on the Terri Shiavo rescue appeals. State courts, Federal Courts, the Supreme Court. They've all ruled the same way. Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, has the legal guardianship right to make the determination to remove his wife's sustenance until she's dead. I get it.

The legal argument is decided.

But you won't convince me that starving this woman to death is the right thing to do in this one specific case. You just won't.

Death Party Discovers Limited Government

I admit it. I'm captivated by the case of Terri Schiavo in Florida. The case pits her husband, who is trying to kill her, against her family, who wants to care for her.

I woke back up at midnight last night to watch Congress go into special weekend session to pass a bill, signed in the early morning hours by President Bush, to allow her case to be heard by a Federal Court in the latest bid to keep her alive.

All of the Democrats who spoke up cemented their status as the Death Party. The champions of the "Right to Die". Or more accurately, the right for someone else to die if they're inconvenient to me. From abortion to euthansia the Death Party is consistent. The right to privacy, they insist, includes the right to kill those who would be better off dead in their judgement. Harsh, but true.

Now they won't come out and say it that bluntly. Oh no. They are the master of euphemism, having honed their word-craft in the thirty years of the abortion debate - where "product of conception" equals an unborn baby and "surgical termination" equals death by abortion.

No, to a man / woman the Democrats caged their arguments to let Terri die as follows:

1. Government should not insert itself into family life.
2. The Federal government shouldn't address this, states should.
3. The Congress should be paying attention to more important things like health care or the price of gas.

Even Michael Shiavo, Terri's husband, parroted these talking points after he angrily told everyone to butt out because his "wife had been adjudicated". Who talks that way about their wife? Scott Peterson, that's who. I've come to the conclusion that Michael Schiavo is Scott Peterson in slow motion. He's trying to kill his wife so that he can go live his other life with his baby-mama. Pathetic.

As to the Democrats suddenly discovering limited government in this case, it's laughable.

These are the same Democrats who stay awake at night figuring out how to extend government into every aspect of your life. Cradle to grave. Democrats champion every conceiveable government entitlement to intrude into your family.

These are the same Democrats, for example, who champion the right of government paid school nurses to drive your minor child across state lines to have an abortion without the parent's knowledge. Suddenly they've decided that government shouldn't intrude into families.

It's laughable - only it's not. It's tragic.

As to the argument about whether or not the Federal Government should be involved:

The fundamental right that the Federal Government should protect above all others for its citizens is the right to life.

As to whether or not Congress is to busy to get involved and should be paying attention to other things, a crass and heartless argument if I've ever heard one:

If the government cannot protect you from being starved to death, the price of gasoline will be a moot point to you.

Where are the Feminists When You Need Them?

I don't know if you've been paying attention to the Terri Schiavo case in Florida, but I have. It's a case that has gone on since 1990 and may be drawing to an end this week, if her husband has his way and Terri is slowly starved to death.

It's a complicated case, and I don't pretend to know all of the answers. That doesn't stop most pundits, on either side of the issue, from having and expressing the exact right answer. I am not firmly convinced what the right answer is in this deeply tragic family trauma. I am emphathetic to the personal tragedy of the situation, and am not sure if I would want to stay alive in Terri's condition. And I certainly sympathize with all of the family, her husband included, in trying to make the right decision here. When I'm not convinced of the right answer I try to err on the side of life. As I would in this case, where "life" only means the insertion of a feeding tube and no other heroic measures like respirators. Err on the side of life.

I can draw some observations on the case, however, as it has played out on the national stage. Here's two:

First, I am appalled by the behavior of her husband who is fighting for her "right to die", based on a single statement that she alledgedly said about not wanting to live in that kind of state. A statement he remembered seven years after her injury. Michael Schiavo is a thoroughly compromised claimant in this case and should step aside. Terri's family has fought for her and cared for her through this whole ordeal and is seeking to be granted custody to care for her. Michael has refused and is pushing for her to die. Is he motivated solely by the love for and wishes of his wife? Hardly. He has a motive to have her out of his life, that motive being his life with another woman with which he has fathered two children. And he has a financial motive related to the million or so dollars that they were awarded to care for her - which he has not spent on her care or rehabilitation. Michael Schiavo is thoroughly and completely compromised and should not be allowed to be the sole decision maker in whether or not his "wife" should die.

My second observation is this: I am appalled, but not surprised, that the feminist leaders in this country have either remained silent on this case or have jumped in on the "right to die" side. It's not surprising because feminism is completely sold out to the ethic of "right to die" in the form of abortion. Abortion rights are the sole inviable article of faith in the feminist temple, and anything - anything - that comes close to having any negative implications for abortion rights must be thrown under the bus. It's why the sold out their sexual harrassment principles the minute that their chief abortion rights champion, President Bill Clinton, became a notorious sexual harrasser. The completely sold out their stance and marched out, under orders, to proclaim that having sex with an intern in the office on company time wasn't, in fact, sexual harrassment if you're the President and you're willing to keep abortion legal. Now their selling out Terri Schiavo.

Feminists: let me set up the case for you. It's a softball, really. You could knock it out of the park.

You have a woman. So far, so good. She's incapacitated and needs help. She has a husband. (Feminists can feel free to boo here.) He's a bad guy. He's cheating on Terri, even as she lays in a hospital bed needing his help. He has made a new life with this other woman. He wants Terri out of the way. Plus, he stands to have his hands on a million dollars that he should have spent on her care (more booing please. It's appropriate this time), if only she would have the courtesy to die. She has a family that's willing to care for her, if only the bad husband would step aside. But court after court has ruled that the husband trumps everything. What he says goes. Even if he wants to pull her feeding tube and have her die. He tells her parents to shut up. He tells the courts to shut up. He tells the legislature of Florida to shut up. What he says, goes. And what he says is that Terri should die.

And the feminists will go along with it. Why. Because Michael Schiavo has played their trump card, "the right to die". And feminists, whose core belief and cardinal principal - abortion rights - is all about the "right to die", will throw Terri Schiavo under the bus rather than grant that any right to life exists.

Congress is meeting in a rare weekend joint session today to pass a specific law, affecting Terri Schiavo only, to save her. I don't know if it's appropriate for Congress to jump into this or not. And I blame Michael Schiavo for letting it get this far. I don't know if it's the proper role for Congress or not. But I'm rooting for them.

Because no one has the only and obvious answer. And if we're going to err, let's do so on the side of life.

Bumper Sticker Outrage

I was driving behind a car this week that had a bumper sticker which read:

"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

Being an ocassional reader of left-wing liberal (excuse me, "progressive") websites, plus deciphering the other bumper stickers of the "Not in my Name" variety, I was able to discern the root of the driver's outrage.

He was outraged that the Bush administration has been decisive enough to take the War on Terrorism seriously and to take the battle overseas to our enemies with the resulting liberation of Afganhistan and Iraq from the hands of murderous terrorists and thugs and in doing so planting the seeds of liberty that are quickly bearing fruit throughout the Middle East in areas like Palestine and Lebanon.

Oh wait, just kidding. That's all true, but probably not what he meant. I doubt my friend the driver has caught up with the reality of all of that yet. In his denial of reality and in his bitterness over the 2004 election, here's what he probably meant.

He's outraged that the Bush administration launched an uprovoked attack on a country that never did anything to us, after murdering 500,000 innocent Iraqi kids with cruel sanctions, in order to make richer his Saudi Arabian loving oil buddies, Haliburton, instead of listening to our wonderful friends - the French - who, are so much more enlightened than the chimp that we have as President and want nothing but peace and harmony for the world.

That's probably more like what he meant.

Me personally, I'm outraged by more mundane things.

Politically, I'm outraged by obstructionist Democrats who offer no solutions of their own and continue to block effective change in antiquated programs like Social Security and who continue to behave badly by blocking qualified judges from the bench by proceduraly tricker like filibuster when they know, I repeat know, that those judges would be confirmed by the constitutionally required majority if a full vote on the floor of the Senate was allowed. That outrages me.

Personally, I'm outraged by evil. Which came home to us again this week in the kidnapping and murder of that precious innocent little girl in Florida - Jessica Lunsford. I'm outraged that a dangerous sex offender like her killer - Mr. Couey - was out on the streets to be a predator again. And as a parent, I'm outraged and horrified by the thought that a lethal sexual predator may be living across the street watching my children.

Believe, me I'm paying attention. And I can be plenty outraged. Just by different things than my new passing acquaintance, Mr. Bumper Sticker man.

Democrat Speech Codes

As a political blogger, and a partisan one at that, part of my daily reading ritual includes reading the major discussion forums. They represent the pulse of the people. The everyday thoughts, rants, and ramblings of everyday people who are interested in politics, the issues, and current events. They are passionate and raw and not at all for the political faint of heart.

It is a political education in and of itself just to read the two main partisan discusssion forums. One on the right - conservative in nature. One on the left - liberal or "progressive" in nature. Most people gravitate naturally to one or the other. I read both. Granted, one of them is purely for comic relief. But I read both.

On the right I read Free Republic. This site is conservative in nature and features several forums for posting articles, with lively discussion following each article by posters including yours truly. Free Republic gained notoriety lately with a post that started the takedown of Dan Rather over memogate, when an alert poster caught the fact that the memos were fabricated - almost in real time.

On the far, far, wacky left I read Democratic Underground. If you haven't checked it out, you should. If you want to take the pulse of the anti-war, Bush hating, hysterical left - this is the place. Try the discussion forum for the election of 2004, which is still in full hysterical meltdown over the election. (I would post a link for you to check out, but they generally get vulgar quickly, so I'll protect the sensibilities of some of my readers. Go there at your own risk.) This is the forum where they were pushing the conspiracy theory that the owners of Diebold company, as friends of Bush (or shrub or **** or Chimpy or other names that they call him), stole the election by hacking the electronic voting machines. Really.

I have a screen name at Free Republic, which makes me a "Freeper". And a proud one.

I've thought about registering at DU to comment on their posts on ocassion, but I'm pretty sure that I would be quickly banned as a conservative "disruptor". Yeah, that's right. Democrats - champions of free speech - have a draconian speech code known as the "rules for posting" that ban conservative speech as coming from "disruptors". Translation - they're too frail to have their opinions challenged, so don't bother them. If you're a conservative, or generally think that Bush is doing a good job, don't bother posting. Don't believe me? Here's a quote from their "Rules for Posting":

Who is Welcome on Democratic Underground, and Who is Not

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

Notice that you don't have to behave badly to get banned. You don't have to swear, or call people names, or pick fights, or type in all caps, or any other disruptive behavior to be a "dispruptor". You just have to disagree with them.

You can read all of the rules for posting, in the form of a draconian speech code, here at this link.

I checked Free Republics rules. They just say, essentially, please don't behave badly.

Yeah, Democrats are all for free speech. Unless you disagree with them. Then you are a disruptor who must be banned. Wimps.

America's Pastime takes the Stand

There seems to be wall-to-wall cable news coverage today of the Major League Baseball testimony to a House committee on the use of steroids.

Why is Congress involved in this? Other than to decide whether or not steroids should be illegal. But aren't they already illegal?

Why is Congress investigating how often players are tested?

Granted, I don't know all of the legal issues involved, including the issue of Congress's granting of anti-trust protection to baseball. It's beyond me.

But I do have a general sense that this is Congress overreaching.It's more big government being where it doesn't belong in our lives.

The proper approach, it seems to me, is to handle this issue in a private industry in a private fashion. Shame the league into doing the right thing by refusing to go to games that features players who you can't trust not to be cheating. Simple as that. Stay home. Let them show up at stadiums full of empty seats, until they figure out how to behave ethically and to be worthy of America's trust and support.

Bring back shame. It's effective and, in the case of Major League Baseball, appropriate.

More Airplane Pet Peeves...

Two more things that bug me on airplanes as a business traveler:

1. Stop reclining your seats! It's a zero sum game here, people. Any space you gain for yourself you've taken from me. I'm a businessman. On a long trip that means I'm going to use my laptop. I can't do that if you're in my lap.

2. Stop taking your shoes off on the plane to air out your piggies. It's not your living room. This especially applies if you're wearing flip-flops and no socks.

What is with Women and Multi-tasking?

This will clearly be classified as a "cranky" post and it will surely get me in trouble. But I have to ask: What is it with women and multi-tasking?

What ocassioned this question was today's visit to my barbershop. On most Saturday's all five chairs are full with five barbers (4 women, 1 man) cutting like crazy. There is a steady stream of chatter, mostly about the ballgame on TV. Today, by contrast, I was the sole patron with 3 lady barbers to choose from.

I walked in, selected from among the 3 ladies and sat down in the chair. Apparently, an impromptu business meeting was in progress at the time and several conversations were going on at once. So many topics, alternating from sentence to sentence, that I wasn't even sure they were paying attention to each other.

More importantly, my barber wasn't paying attention to me. She was in automatic pilot as she dressed me in my neck tissue and sheet/apron. She emerged briefly from the inane shop dialogue to acknowledge me long enough to ask what kind of cut I wanted. Then it was back into meeting mode as she cut. "What kind of combs did you want to order?" Snip. "I don't remember what they are called." Comb. (3rd barber) "Where do you want these receipts?" Snip. "Have you looked through the catalog". Comb. "Has anybody ordered dinner?" Snip, snip, snip.

Granted, I was grouchy. I had just come off a tantrum battle with a raging 6 year old about a stupid broken 50 cent toy. And my next task was to stop on the way home to get some super toxic corrosive power chemical to unstop the unstoppable clog in our bathroom sink. All I wanted was some quiet and a nice haircut and maybe a glimpse of a game for a few minutes. But now, suddenly, all I wanted was some sense of reassurance that the person cutting my hair for my important business meeting this week had some level of attention to the task at hand - cutting my hair.

I almost - almost - got up from the chair with some dramatic statement like "Can we wait and start this haircut when you are actually ready to cut my hair? Is that too much to ask?" I didn't. I have to get my hair cut here two weeks from now.

But I'll ask the question here: Is that too much to ask?

I know. I know the answer. "I can do both at the same time"

But why would you want to? Stop the meeting and cut my hair!

I know. I know. They cut hair all day every day and can probably do it in their sleep. That would make a great sign out front - "We can cut hair in our sleep!".

Oh, well. It worked out. I told a joke to get her out of meeting mode and struck up our own conversation so that at least she was present at our chair.

And I got a nice haircut.

Now, it's time to work out my crankiness on that sink clog......

Abused by Incivility

I fly every week on business. I board at least four flights every week if you consider a roundtrip with a connection each way. Sometimes more. I deal with all of the issues of business travel: early check-ins, getting through security without beeping and ocasionally getting the full patdown anyway, trying to get an aisle seat on each flight (I'm a big guy!), whether my seatmate(s) will want to chat or not, making tight connections by hurrying through concourses, trying to find a place to get online in an airport, etc. If you travel a lot you know the drill.

I've gotten good at travel. I can work the system. I can work amiably week after week with my travel agent to get where I need to go with minimum hassles. I can deal pleasantly with gate agents who have just denied me boarding at 10:00 pm because the plane has "weight and balance" issues due to too much luggage. I can re-route flights and catch hotels on the fly. I can figure out how to be productive and/or entertained on a six hour layover.

I can even almost always deal with the "sheep" in the process as well. "Sheep" being a semi-humorous, non-denigrating, term for you non-business travelers who are seriously in our way as we navigate the airport experience week after week. I understand. I've been you in a past life. I recognize and can even sympathize with all of the mistakes that you make that slow down the process. Oversize bags that won't fit in the overhead, three trips through the X-ray until you get everything out of your pockets, etc. I understand. But you're still in my way and that's a fact.

Occasionally, the sheep get on my nerves. Like the incident last month at security in Dallas. It was a 6 am Sunday morning flight back home for me and I wasn't in the mood for delays. So who do I get in front of me at Security? Mr. slick gum-chomping arrogant frat-boy salesman who wants to tweak the TSA agents. He refused, at a loud volume, to take off his shoes and put them on the conveyor to go through the machine. (I know he's a sheep at this point. You don't see businessmen arguing about shoes. We're the guys and gals in line efficiently stripping down and filling the bins with our clothes and laptops.) He insisted, no - taunted, that there was no way his shoes were going to beep. The TSA agents were remarkably polite. "Sir, it will save you a lot of time if you just place your shoes on conveyor". But Mr. frat-boy wouldn't have it. "You can't make me take them off". Of course, he kept them on and strutted through the arch. He turned back to the TSA agent with a huge smirk on his face and his finger poked at him: "See, I told you I wouldn't beep." I, being on the other side of the arch, could see all of the flashing red lights going off. I had the last laugh as the TSA agents swarmed Mr. Smarmy and politely escorted him off to the side for the full body wanding. Justice sure, but the bottom line is that his antics delayed me. Sheep.

What's harder to deal with is the incivility of some of the sheep. I'm talking mostly about young sheep, mostly male sheep, who are just outright ill-mannered, rude, and vulgar in airports in an alarming manner. Really, have we lost all sense of manners? Do I have to be, as I was this week, subjected to two college guys (probably frat boys) seated in the row behind me going on spring break - already drunk - talking at top volume in the crudest, most vulgar and profane, and worst of all boring manner? What's wrong with you people? Do you not understand how important manners are for a hundred people all packed in an aluminum tube hurtling through space for two hours?

I wanted to turn around and say to them what I say to my two boys, ages 6 and 11, on almost every car trip: "How close is your brother to you? Do you have to talk at top volume?" Everybody in the plane could hear these two idiots and yet they are totally unaware of their behavior. They just kept periodically yelling "We're going to Vegas!", like anybody cared. Did the flight attendants ask them to quiet down? No, they just sold them two more beers apiece during the beverage service. That helped. They just got louder and more profane. Do I need to hear the F-word 3 times in every sentence for two hours?

I felt abused. I should have upgraded to business class.

Get Out Your Wallets...

...Hillary Clinton's friends overseas need abortions. And you're expected to pay for them. Right now. Cash on the barrelhead. Pony up, and don't be stingy.

Sen. Clinton is in the news this week because of the tenth anniversary of the United Nation's Fourth Conference on Women. The U.S. delegation to the conference ten years ago was, I believe, led by Hillary on behalf of her husband - President Clinton. It gave Hillary a global stage to parrot their supporter's abortion-on-demand as a woman's natural rights message with United Nations seal of approval on it. Hillary had a far-left agenda then and, on the tenth anniversary, has a far-left agenda still.

According to the article on Newsmax.com:

Senator Hillary Clinton says the Bush administration's policy of withholding aid from overseas groups that perform abortions is hurting women and forcing clinics to close.

Clinton spoke yesterday at a New York University forum to mark the 10th anniversary of the United Nations' fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing.

She said 20 million women worldwide risk unsafe abortions every year, 68,000 die, and many more are injured.

President Bush reinstituted the so-called global gag rule when he took office. Under the rule, overseas non-governmental organizations that perform abortions or advocate the legalization of abortion are ineligible for U.S. government money.

Let me see if I have this right: If average American citizens, like myself, do not want to coercively pony up tax money out of our paychecks to hand over to foreign groups to perform free abortions, then we are hurting women? Is that so.

This, the logic of Democratic leaders like their presumptive leader Sen. Hillary Clinton, is why Democrats running a long losing streak in major elections.

Just for the record, the United Nations does not have the right to insist that American taxpayers fund abortions overseas. Period. Plain and simple. Nor could Sen. Clinton put that up for a vote in a referendum in America and win it.

Thank God that President Bush is holding the line on this outrage.

the Petty Party

Have Democrats lost their minds since the election of 2004?

Honestly, it's a serious question. The behavior of the Democrat leadership is getting increasingly bizarre and petty.

Granted that because of stunning strings of victories in the Presidency and Congress in the last several years the Democrat Party has been reduced to being the Petty Party, reduced to nothing more than sniping at the party in power. They've long run out of any new ideas, being still enmeshed as the New Deal broker of entitlements, and are constantly whining with some new petty variant of "you can't do that" when Republicans take on big things and succeed. Seriously, have Barbara Boxer or Harry Reid said anything other than that of late?

President Bush, on the other hand, staked his administration on big ideas and big actions and was vindicated with re-election. Under his leadership, his administration and his Republican allies have run up a string of successes both foreign and domestic. Despite Democrat carping about the impossibility of his actions in the War on Terror, Bush keeps racking up wins with elections in Afghanistan and Iraq that the Petty Party claimed were impossible.

I know that it's unnerving for Democrats to be wrong so many times in a row. And it must be infuriating for them to see the Bush Administration stand up for our national defense in an uncompromising way, and to ignore their sniping at his heels.

But really, have they lost their ever loving minds lately, in response?

I refer to 3 recent events, for discussion:

1. The election of the most strident, most left-wing, most anti-war, most bomb-throwing candidate - Mr. Howard Dean - as the Chairman of the Democrat Party

2. Chairman Dean's recent speech in which he implied that conservatives were evil. Not merely wrong, mind you, but evil.

"This is a struggle of good and evil," he told the gathered activists, who paid $100 apiece to hear the new Democratic chairman. "And we're the good."

Folks, we have a two party system in this country. One may be wrong at any point in time, as I believe the left in general and the Democrats in specific are most of the time, but neither party is evil. When you start labeling domestic political opponents as "evil", you've lost the argument.

3. Sen. Robert Byrd (D, W. VA) gave a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate this week concerning a proposed change in arcane filibustering rules in which he compared the actions of the Republicans to change the rules to the actions of Adolph Hitler in the Third Reich.

This is eggregious on so many levels and Sen Byrd, former Klansman, should be the object of scorn by his fellow Democrats for using the platform of the U.S. Senate to level such an outlandish charge. He will not be, of course, because such actions are no longer beneath the dignity of the Petty Party.

Snubbing Oscar Back

I won't be watching the Oscars this year.

As hard as it is for a movie buff like myself, I will be undertaking a personal and insconsequential boycott. No one will care that I'm not watching the show. I won't make news or even cause a blip in the Nielsen ratings. Personal statements are what they are, personal. But they are worth making anyway.

I am a movie buff. I have been since childhood when I grew to love the movies. So much so that I chose as my high school summer job to be a theater usher just so I could get in free to movies. I'm the guy hanging out in the theater to watch the end credits and who does pretty well in game "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon". A movie buff. A fan. And a periennial Oscar watcher. Except for this year. I've been snubbed by Oscar, and I'm not taking it lightly.

Okay, I don't want to be overly dramatic here. I haven't personally been snubbed. But my movie choice for best picture, "The Passion of the Christ", was. As was it's courageous director, Mel Gibson.

I don't normally care if my personal taste for movies is not vindicated by awards. People have different tastes. I certainly have different tastes than most Academy voters. No surprise there.

But the Passion was more than just a movie. It was a cutural event, and was in fact ground zero of the cultural divide in America around Easter season. It was the Red State/Blue State divide of entertainment and culture. And we learned two things from the clash:

1. Hollywood despised the movie. Universally, they despised it. Why? Was it because it was a bad movie? No, clearly not. Gibson is one of the best in the director's role and he brought every ounce of his professionalism to this task. It was, from a filmmaking perspective alone, a great film. I defy you to watch the scene where Mary Magdalene avoids the stoning and tell me that this is not great movie making. And I'll refer you to film critic Roger Ebert's excellent professional review of the movie here.

2. It was a significant event, beyond the mere entertainment of a motion picture to a large segment of middle America, as evidenced by it's box office take which overwhelmed all projections. If I'm not mistaken, the "Passion of the Christ" out earned the box office take of all 5 best picture nominees combined. Combined. That means something.

(By the way, I know you won't believe me on this, but I knew when I saw the box office numbers for the Passion that George Bush would win reelection in November. I knew that the same hidden majority that Hollywood underestimated would also be underestimated by the political elites and would show up in force for the election. I knew it.)

I was reading an article in USA Today this week on an airline and was amused by their article on the Oscars. The writers noted that the combined box office total of the 5 nominees was down 41% from the average of totals from the last ten years. The writers then conjectured why that might be. Maybe, they posited, America just had "tearjerker" fatigue. Maybe. And maybe the writers of the USA Today have no clue as to what they are talking about. Maybe the incredibly obvious is true and Hollywood continues to produce and to honor films that are out of sync with the values of middle America. You think?

By snubbing the Passion in it's nominations for best picture, best actor, and best director Hollywood has made a clear statement to those of us who cared about that movie. The statement is that our values are different. We don't care about what you care about. We don't value what you value. That's fine. Make that statement. You're entitled. But I don't have to support you or your product with my money. I hope your proud of your statement, and your 41% pay cut that is a clear result.

So, here we are. The big event is less than 24 hours away. Hollywood is tuning up it's tuxes and dresses and statues. And for the first time in my 44 year old memory, I won't be watching. I'll probably be watching my newly purchased DVD version of "The Passion of the Christ".

Oscar snubbed me. I'm snubbing him back.

Inconsolable Sadness

There are no easy answers in life. I know that. Believe me, I do. Even though I write strongly opinionated articles here on this blog, like the recent post on the issue of abortion on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I know that. And ocassionally we all get brought up short by life's circumstances in a way that reminds us that there are no easy answers. As I was reminded this weekend.

I saw the face of inconsolable sadness. Twice. And it was a lot to bear.

I saw sadness on a mother's face. Deep, lingering, all-consuming sadness that I tried my best to ease. I had arranged to meet with the birth-mother of my youngest adopted son. The circumstances of his adoption are not important - other than to note that he came to our home, and by default not to her home, at birth. I've known that as fact for some years now. I saw that as reality two days ago. And I was deeply moved by her story, in her own tearful words, of the grieving that she went through -is still going through - in returning home from the hospital to the room that she had set up for him, without him. I saw the years of sadness on her face, and heard them in her voice.

I had risked meeting with her, against the advice of others, to answer the questions that I knew she would have after all these years. Simple questions. Basic questions. Was he happy? Was he healthy? What does he look like? What is his day like? I could answer those questions, and provide her pictures and stories, and assure her that yes he is a happy, healthy, and handsome young man. I could also offer her hope for a path for a future reunion. I think it was the right decision to meet her, and I think I offered her hope, and I know that I shared in her sadness, though I couldn't erase it. The only thing sadder that I can imagine is the alternative, that he hadn't been born. But he was born, and God provides, and there's hope for the future. God bless her and comfort her.

And I saw sadness in a little boy's face. My other son's sweet and troubled face.

He suffers in silence, still - as a preteen - deeply affected by the circumstances of his birth and the months of neglect and malnourishment that occurred before he came to us. Not visibly affected, but affected nonetheless.

We were having special time with Dad, playing on the playground on an unexpectedly beautiful day. In the midst of the frenetic activity of the playground I saw him. Alone, separated, sitting hunched over on a strut underneath the structure - distraught. He was frustrated in his attempts to succeed on the standard playground equipment and was grieving that his talents were not the ones that he coveted - standard talents of playground baseball and basketball and such. His talents, while considerable, are not the ones that a little boy craves.

We had a good talk, he and I, and I had the opportunity to explain that God blesses each of us with different talents and that God has blessed him with an intellect and with creativity that will shine some day and that God can use some day to help others. It wasn't enough, but it was hope and his countenance brightened somewhat.

In one of God's little miraculous coincidences, that hope was confirmed the next morning. I teach Bible Memory class on Sundays for my son's class. The verse for this week, which was selected months before on a random schedule by a publishing company somewhere far removed, was 1 Peter 4:10, which reads:

Everyone should use the gifts he has received to serve others.

As a last straw, I discovered during a talk with this son over dinner during "Dad time" that he has been experiencing almost daily harrassment from a bully, a privileged and athletic kid, for years from which he has suffered in silence. Incomprehensible and uncalled for abuse. I was enraged. How can that be, that a child would pick a weaker child to victimize daily for sport? It was all I could do this morning to not climb on the bus and take that punk out. I want to protect my son, which I did by intervening with the school authorities today, but I can't do it retroactively and my heart aches for the pain he has already suffered.

There are no easy answers. Sometimes there's only sadness. And God's hope.

Democracy comes to Iraq

I don't have any profound commentary or wisdom on the topic of today's historic election in Iraq. Other than to observe that it is truly historic. And to express goodd wishes to the people of Iraq as they set the course of their future, and to hope for a peaceful process and for the protection of the Iraqi people, coalition troops, and of course the brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces as they safeguard the process.

God bless and protect them on this day.

The Tragedy of Abortion

I can't let the 32nd Anniversary of the historic Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade pass without comment. In the last week many more eloquent columnists than I have written profound columns on the topic of abortion in light of the anniversary and the marches in Washington both on the pro-life side and the pro-choice side.

I'm not going to try to emulate the professional writers and try to address the issue in comprehensive detail. I'll just point you to where others have already done it well, as in this column by Ann Coulter addressing the need to change the law, not just "hearts and minds". She points out, rightly in my opinion, that an issue of life and death that is this divisive in the country needs to be a matter decided by representative democracy, not judicial fiat. Let the people vote! My opinion, after years of study and activism on this issue, is that the current status of abortion policy (available in all 9 months, for almost any reason, paid for by federal taxes if necessary) would not survive a public vote, and for good reason. It's an egregious affront to respect for life and it's entirely untenable.

Of course, in the week of the anniversary of Roe, the slogans and euphemisms were flying. Hillary Clinton began the pandering in one of her speeches designed to "move her to the center" to position for the 2008 presidential election. She said

"We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

In that, we agree. We just radically disagree on how to deal with the issue. Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is a hardcore abortion-at-all costs supporter, as demonstrated by her actions in public over the years. As was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who's first action on his first day in office was to immediately sign five bills to broaden the access to abortion. His first act, on purpose, to reward his most vocal supporters - the extreme abortion on demand for any reason activists.

Honestly, I find the whole issue of abortion slogans tiresome. How many times do we have to dissect the empty, deceptive, and misdirecting slogans of the abortion peddlers? Really, it's so easy to do that it's tiresome. Let's take a couple, for example:

Bill Clinton: who announced that he would like abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare". Ooohhhh. Have you stopped swooning at the total compassion and reasonableness of that wonderful statement yet? Then let me ask you two questions:

1. If abortion is just the removal of a clump of tissue, as abortion peddlers have argued for so long, analogous to a tonsillectomy and with absolutely no moral issues involved - then why do you care if it's "rare"? Do you care how many appendectomies are performed every year?

2. If, on the other hand, an unborn baby is a baby, a life deserving of the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that our country was founded on - and an abortion is the premature forced taking of that precious life by brutal force of a suction or saline abortion - then why do you only care that it is "safe, and legal"?

The vast majority of the activists on the other side of the rally carrying their "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" signs or waving coat hangers have never thought through those issues. But they are so very self-righteous in their zeal to make the death of an unborn baby as cavalier and meaningless and widespread as possible.

Other slogans are equally ridiculous platitudes designed to depersonalize the issue to hide the moral issues or to sound compassionate when they are in fact murderous. Let's take one more, for example:

Planned Parenthood's slogan: "Every child a wanted child". Fine. Wonderful. Compassionate. Progressive, even. Let's all hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya. Oh, wait a minute. Given that Planned Parenthood is the single largest provider of abortions in the United States and that a majority of the 1.5 Million unborn babies end their short life on earth in a Planned Parenthood facility, shouldn't honesty in advertising require them to finish the thought: "...and every unwanted child a dead child - no questions asked at our facility for only $350 cash on the barrelhead". That's brutal, but it's true and it would at least be honest.

By the way, I toured a Planned Parenthood facility once. I called the United Way to ask them about exempting PP from my annual UW donation, and the perky and zealous activist that answered the phone offered to arrange a personal tour of the clinic for me to keep me from exempting them. I took her up on it and got a personal one-on-one tour by the director of the local clinic. During the tour of the death-mart, in the midst of all of the talk about how all of the abortion counseling was done by a qualified "nurse-practioner" (no doctor on board, what happened to all of that talk about abortion being between a woman and her doctor?), I asked the director if she referred patients to DCFS or other agencies for placement of the child for adoption. She was visibly baffled by the question, had no idea what the adoption options were, and assured me that DCFS did not do adoptions. I assured her, as a father who has adopted two children from DCFS, that they certainly do. So much for choice.

Instead of fighting the whole fight in this one column, let me just make it personal and declare my bias. I believe everyone, certainly the activists, bring a personal bias to this issue because it is a very personal issue. And just the sheer numbers of abortions in this country, 35 plus million in 32 years, make it inevitable that everyone has some experience with the issue: miscarriages, abortions as the woman or as the male or friend who counseled on the decision, parents and grandparents who were active or helpless accomplices, etc. Everyone has a reason to have an opinion. I have all of the standard moral and religious reasons, which are substantial and intellectually reasonable, but I also have a personal bias. So here's my bias:

My wife and I were childless for the first thirteen years of our marriage. Many attempts, many miscarriages and the trauma that accompanies that. We eventually set our hopes on adoption. Like many of the 1.5 million couples in America at any given time who are hoping to adopt, I saw the disconnect in the 1.5 million abortions at the same time that there are parents desperate to adopt. In the meantime, we became foster parents to help the many children in the system who need a home. In the course of fostering, we adopted two very special and precious boys who are alternately wonderful and trying. But they are always a blessing. And it hasn't escaped my attention that their two birth mothers, in the midst of their stressful and dysfunctional birth circumstances, opted to give birth. And even through everything these children went through, they are alive. And I thank God often for that. Had those two moms wandered into the clutches of a Planned Parenthood counselor, they very well might not be alive. And I can't fathom how that's an "enlightened choice" of an enlightened country. You tell me.

There's a building two blocks down from the office building I work in. It's non-descript and bland, barely marked. There's a parking lot in the back. And this week, the anniversary week of Roe v. Wade, like almost every week of the year, I will look at this building on my way out to lunch on Wednesday's and Thursdays and observe that the parking lot in the back is full. The real life, tangible, fruit of the abortion peddler's work. 70 desperate people filling the parking lot each week to slink in the back door with cash in hand. 35 precious babies on Wednesday and 35 precious babies on Thursday, each and every week, who will not live to meet their peers, or the couples who are desperately waiting to raise them. And I take that very personally. And yes, occasionally you will find me in respectful prayer out on the sidewalk of that horrible space.

I know that abortion is a sad and tragic and desperate choice for a woman. I know that, really I do. In this I agree with Hillary. I just disagree that we have to leave women in this desperation and provide them murder as a solution. Really, have we sunk so low as a people that this is our solution? Are we that morally bereft? That is the question for our generation. The great moral test that we face, as other generations have faced moral question before us. We are failing the test.

My choice, my answer to the test, is to work hard to support the abortion "alternatives" like Crisis Pregnancy Centers who support women in the choice to have the child and to find a way to make it work. (I find that most "pro-choice" shouter don't even know that the CPC's exist, or have a twisted view of their function). My question for each of you is: why is this an "alternative"? Why isn't this the preferred choice of a moral people?

Dr. Dobson, Spongebob, and Liberal knee-jerking

Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and one of my personal heroes is taking a beating in the liberal press this week. In a week that should have been totally dominated by the Innauguration and by the anniversary of Roe V. Wade, all of the media is transfixed with the story of James Dobson vs. Spongebob Squarepants.

I heard the story everywhere: on WLS talk radio from Chicago, on MSNBC from the smug and self-righteous Keith Olberman, and even tonight on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update from the cute but equally smug Tina Fey. They all told the story essentially the same way. I'll paraphrase them: "Dr. James Dobson, the conservative Christian founder of Focus on the Family, is claiming that Spongebob Squarepants is gay, and is brainwashing schoolchildren through a video in schools that encourages tolerance." Ha, Ha, Ha. Let's all have a laugh at the crazy religious zealot.

Of course, I knew better. I've followed Dobson's ministry for many years. He's conservative and passionate and now even political. But he's very sane and very mainstream and does not throw around wild accusations. The story must be more complex than the knee-jerk liberal press was reporting. And it is.

Here are the facts:

- Record producer Nile Rodgers is producing the video and distributing 60,000 copies to elementary schools, with teacher's guides.

- The video features a selection of cartoon characters promoting a message of "tolerance". SpongeBob Squarepants is one of the characters.

- Dr. Dobson did not explicitly say that the character is gay. He "alluded to SpongeBob SquarePants' role in a 'pro-homosexual video' ". (AP article) The same AP article that quoted Dobson also acknowledges that some cultural analysts have mused about whether SpongeBob, a talking sponge, is "gay" and that "the cartoon character does have a loyal following among gay men". Oh, but it's crazy for Dobson to assert that the producer's use of Spongebob in his video may have something to do with a gay agenda.

- The video includes a "tolerance pledge" for the little kiddies to say which says:

"To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."

Oh, but it's wrong to point out the "sexuality identity" part of the "pledge" which elementary school students are encouraged to pledge as a group. That's just crazy religious zealotry.

Okay, just to recap: the issue is not about Spongebob Squarepants. (Personal disclosure: I have kids and yes, they watch Spongebob - endlessly). The issue is about the agenda of the video's producers, who co-opted Spongebob, Clifford the Big Red Dog, and others.

I personally think it's egregious for the producer to use cartoon characters to advance an agenda in an elementary school. I think it's right for parents to challenge any agenda inserted into the school outside of the school board approved curriculum. And I think that Dobson was right to highlight it.

And, if you think that a Hollywood music producer produced 61,000 videos for free distribution to elementary schools, with teachers guides, including "pledges" for the students to recite, without having an agenda that needs to be challenged - then you need to rethink who is the crazy one here.

We Can Leave Today

Today I'd like to point you to Mona Charen's excellent column on "Muslims and the Tsunami" on Townhall.com . Mona does an excellent job capturing the disgust and irritation I feel concerning the ingratitude of the Muslim world toward America's involvement in the relief effort.

First it was the U.N. carping about America and the West being "stingy". Never mind the track record of America always being sacrifial and generous in disaster relief. The UN functionary had to poke his finger in our eye.

Now, it's the governments of the disaster affected Muslim nations, with legions of suffering citizens, who have to make a show of their hatred of America as we're flying aid in via military transport at great risk to the crews. Demanding that the U.S. Marines show up unarmed. That America agree to withdraw any military troops by March 31st. Why wait that long, I say. We can leave today. Ingrates.

Dennis Prager, an excellent editorial columnist, has pointed out this phenomenon before. Muslim countries routinely refuse aid from Israel in times of disaster. Israel has world class resue teams trained and ready and often offers them to countries that are overtly hostile to Israel's survival - like Iran. Muslim countries often refuse the help, preferring that their citizens suffer and die rather than accept aid from their enemy Israel. Apparently, we fall into that category now too.

Here's the unvarnished truth about America and the West, versus Muslim nations, regarding disaster aid. America and Western democracies provide a huge amount of aid to to the world because we can. Not because we're privileged or elitist or resource hogs or any of the other evils that liberals attribute to us. It's because we've built civilizations and technologies that are capable of supporting ourselves and generating excess capacity to give aid to others. Period. Muslim nations, on the other hand, are intentionally backward third world nations that cannot support themselves (without oil money) on a day-to-day basis, let alone rescue themselves in times of disaster.

How many Muslim nations are stepping up to aid Indonesia versus the amount of aid America will generate? They won't because they can't. They haven't built the infrastructure to do it. We have.

In fact, how many Indonesian ships, aircraft, water purification stations showed up in Florida last year to aid the hurricane victims?

Yet they want to insult us even as we gear up, once again, to rescue them.

I repeat: We can leave today.

No Need for Bush Apology on WMD's

The Bush administration announced yesterday that it was ceasing the search for WMD's in Iraq after more than a year of looking for them. Critics of the administration immediately pounced on the news and demanded an apology from the Bush adminstration for allegedly taking us to war based on a falsehood. Nancy Pelosi, U.S. House of Representatives Democrat minority leader said:

"Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war,"

This and other statements from the President's critics are based on the mistaken premise that Bush took us to war over proof of Sadaam having WMD's. This position willfully ignores the basic premise of the U.N. resolutions that were the principal cause of our invasion of Iraq, principally that the burden of proof was on Sadaam.

Let me say that again. The burden of proof was on Sadaam, not the U.S. The conditions of the cease fire at the conclusion of the Gulf War demanded that Sadaam not only destroy the WMD's that everyone knew he had, but also that he provide proof that he had done so. Yes, there were U.N. inspectors involved. But their mission was not to find the WMD's and prove that they were there. It was to verify Sadaam's proof. All of the ensuing sanctions and following on U.N. resolutions were to insist that Sadaam destroy the weapons, and provide proof to the world, or there would be "serious consequences". Sadaam scoffed. Bush lived up to the serious consequences. No apology needed.

The only apologies needed are from France / Germany / Russia for enabling Sadaam's defiance of the U.N. resolutions by throwing their vote in the Security Council in exchange for bribes from the oil-for-food program. Scandalous.

Also scandalous are the statements of Democratic leaders, like Congresswoman Pelosi, who know better and continue to accuse the President of the United States of lying to the world. It undermines our collective credibility as a people in the eyes of the world for cheap partisan gain.

Leaving Dan Standing

A lot of commentary has been written this week regarding the release of the CBS report on Dan Rather / 60 minutes "memogate" forged document debacle. The report finds plenty at fault with the reporting of the story, and four CBS executives were fired or resigned in it's wake. The report also refuses to adequately address the main issues of the story (press bias, the authenticity of the forged documents,etc., and is therefore flawed. The main outcome is that it leaves Dan Rather damaged but still standing.

The most insightful editorials on the topic come from Tony Blankley, who points out that the "independent panel" is on the payroll of CBS and is certainly not independent (my thoughts exactly) and from Jay Bryant, who picks up on the angle of leaving Rather standing in his excellent piece "Not finding bias, or ducks" on towhhall.com. Bryant says:

Dick Thornburgh thereby joins the growing fraternity of establishment Republican report writers who have proven themselves unwilling to rake any real muck, call a spade a spade, a liberal a liberal or a bucket of hogwash a bucket of hogwash.

Other notables in this group include Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission and John Danforth, author of the official report on the Branch Dravidian disaster. Frankly, Ken Starr belongs in the wimp club, too, and I don't care what it says in Bill Clinton's library.

Bryant is right on the money, and he's hit on one of my pet peeves as a Republican over the years. Our Republican leadership has two traits that you can always count on:

- they fall on their swords and resign when they've misbehaved. Examples include Nixon, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, etc. They don't have to be forced out of office.

- they always let Democrats off the hook. Examples, including those cited by Bryant above, abound. Republicans, especially U.S. Senators, are too civil to pull the trigger when they have the evidence. They simply let it fade away. In other words, they fail to do justice.

The downside of this second tendency is that they leave the Democrat misbehavors (Clinton, Reno, etc) still standing to claim innocence and victimhood. We all saw it in spades with Bill Clinton's autobiography. It's clear that he has no shame or remorse for his misdeeds and considers himself a persecuted man vindicated by history. As I've said before, I blame the Republicans in the U.S. Senate for leaving him standing to make that ridiculous claim.

And now, it's happened again. Dan Rather, who in my opinion misused the resources of a national network news organization to broadcast a one-sided smear piece using forged documents in a blatant attempt to affect a United States Presidential election and to defeat a sitting President for political reasons, will be left standing. His underlings took the hit and were fired. Rather, who is still on the air every evening, will be allowed to retire gracefully.

Wait a minute. That would be the result if we relied only on the MSM and their trumped up "independent report", and another Republican who couldn't pull the trigger. However, it's a new game now and the bloggers are not done yet. This story is not dead yet.

A Great and Generous Nation

A tragedy reveals character. And I'm proud, once again, of the character of the United States in response to the unimaginable scope of the earthquake / tsunami disaster in Asia.

America, clearly, has the capacity and the will to bring to bear enormous resources of aid in that region to people who are not only strangers but are often hostile to the United States. It's not the first time we've stepped up to the plate and it's the reason that the world looks first to the United States, and not the United Nations, when disaster strikes.

Whether it's our government and it's offices with official aid, or private giving by individuals or through relief organizations we're there. With the military, flying in aid or purifying water, we're there. With our churches and their global reach, we're there. With today's announcement by President Bush of the work of ex-President's Bush and Clinton to raise disaster aid, we're there.

Despite the carping of petty minds or hostile bureaucrats, the United States is a great and generous nation and I'm proud to be a citizen. God bless those affected.

Happy New Year

Happy New Year from Partisan. Thank you if you've been reading my little blog.

I'm pondering some changes for the new year. Less top-of-my-head takes on current events, and the sometimes negative tone that that engenders. More topical analysis of specific issues.

See you all in the New Year.

And God Bless the people in Asia affected by the devastation of the earthquake and Tsunami. It's really unimaginable.