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.

The First Draft of History

This is why I'm a conspiracy theorist:

On September 11, 2003 I was working inside of a factory in Alabama. I had no access to news either on TV or radio until my shift was over late in the afternoon. I became aware of the terrorist attack on our nation via a phone call from my wife around 9:30 am or so from my panicked wife who said something on the order of:

"We're under attack. Planes have crashed into the World Trade Center and both towers have collapsed. The Air Force has shot down a plane in Pennsylvania and I think they've bombed the Pentagon too."

That's what I call the first draft of history. Everything after that is edited. Sanitized for your protection. Very quickly after a tragedy like 9-11, especially one involving terrorism, you stop seeing the raw footage. You stop seeing footage on TV of the bodies jumping out of the doomed buildings, because someone has decided that you don't need to see that anymore. In other words, you stop seeing the truth.

Being an Air Force veteran, I clued in on the part about shooting down a plane. It was all a monstrous tragedy, but the shootdown of an American airliner by the military would be unique and historic. That would be a truly important part of the story. Was the Air Force really given an order to shoot down a commercial airliner? My wife didn't make up that bit of information in the middle of that recounting of the morning's events. She was relaying to me actual news stories which indicated that the plane was shot down based on eyewitness accounts. Was it true?

Over time, the shootdown story was dismissed in favor of the now well-known story of the "Let's Roll" passengers forcing down the jet. That's the version that the 9-11 Commission tells in minute-by-minute detail in their Report. The shootdown story was just incorrect. The witnesses were wrong. Anyone who wants to keep exploring the shootdown theory is just a kook, (or Keeper Of Odd Knowledge, as Rush calls them!). Case closed.

Until this week, when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld opened it again. Speaking to American troops in Iraq, Rummy made a statement about the terrorists "attacking the United States in New York and shooting down the plane in Pennslyvania". Oops! Slip of the tongue. Nothing to see here. Move along please.

Don't you remember? The witnesses were wrong. Just like they were in Oklahoma City where they saw Middle Eastern companions with McVeigh. Just like they were on Long Island when they saw a missle take down TWA Flight 800. Just like they were when they saw an explosion take down a jet leaving New York in the week after 9/11. They were all wrong.

The govenment told us so. It must be true.

"It's about physics"?

By now everyone has probably seen the video of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answering questions yesterday from the troops in Kuwait, troops about to be sent into Iraq. Internet watchers have probably also tuned into the controversial discovery that the most contentious questions from the soldiers were not spontaneous, but were staged by embedded reporters.

I'll focus only on the most serious aspect of the story: Rumsfeld's answers.

Now I'm a fan of Sec. Rumsfeld and I think he did a stellar job in reforming the Cold War structured military to fight and win two terrorist based wars, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. I'm a fan. And I'm glad he's staying on in the administration.

But this particular press conference is very troubling. I do applaud the Secretary for stepping up to the mike and taking questions unscripted. And, granted, I'll have to assume that we did not see the whole story on the MSM reports. I heard expanded coverage which indicated that he was well received and even had a standing ovation from one group. I'll assume that the whole conversation was taken out of context in the soundbites, as it invariably is.

Having said that, I would have to say that his answers yesterday to the troops were beyond pitiful. Three answers in particular were deplorable:

1. The answer to the question of why the army didn't have enough armored vehicles: "It's not about the army's desire, it's about physics, it's about production."

Not good enough, by far. You're the Sec. of Defense. Break through all of that. Find out if they have enough armor. If they don't, get it to them. Period. You owe it to the troops.

2. General answer to some bitching: "You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want to have."

True, but not good enough. You're the guy who's supposed to deliver the army that you want to have. Deliver it already.

3. Further answer on the question of armor: something to the effect of "you can have a fully armored vehicle and still get blown up"

Are you kidding me? You would say that to a gathering of troops heading into battle? Are you a heartless robot?

Howard Fineman of MSNBC and Newsweek had it right tonight when he said that the last statement showed a hopelessly "cavalier" attitude toward soldier's lives. Absolutely right.

John Stewart, of "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central skewered these answers in a devastating and hilarious montage.

President Bush stepped out today and rightly corrected these ridiculous comments. And hopefully he gave Rumsfeld a thorough dressing down. We need Rumsfeld's leadership to finish the job there. But he needs to learn a lesson here. His answers were plainly not acceptable.

Awful-izers

My pastor stepped on my toes this weekend, but good. If you are a regular church goer and have a good pastor you know that he's going to hit you where you live every now and again and put you under "conviction".

In my case, it was his description of what he calls "awful-izers". They are the folks around the church and elsewhere that he encounters that take any piece of news and put the worst possible take on it. The example he gave was of a prayer chain that started with the news that a member was going in for heart tests, and by the time it got around the chain the member was dead and the funeral was on Wednesday! Someone in the chain was an awful-izer.

Okay, he got me. I'm a partisan. And a news junkie. And an occupational hazard for a partisan newsjunkie is to be an awful-izer. I've known for a long time that I'm prone to this particular malady and every so often I get reminded of it. It takes a lot of effort to take a balanced look at issues and both not exaggerate the severity of an issue and to see the positive elements of the other point of view. I try to achieve that, but it's hard and I often fall in the trap of being an awful-izer.

Now, I have to list two caveats with the concept of awful-izing in general:

- it doesn't mean that there is never "awful" news or issues that need to be confronted, or exposed, or opposed. And I will take those issues on fearlessly.

- both sides are susceptible to this phenomenon. I feel comfortable saying that it's typically the party out of power that exhibits this the most, as I believe the Democrats did during this election.

Ok. I've fessed up. Anyone else want to examine themselves? You should think about some self-examination if you've any of the following positions in the last year:

- George W. Bush is Hitler
- John Ashcroft is a facist who uses the Constitution for toilet paper
- America is worse than al Qaeda
- Haliburton is the single most corrupt entity in the world (U.N. oil-for-food, pick up the red phone)
- The fundamentalist Christian right is taking over America and shoving it's views down everyone's throats

Come on in. Stick your toes out and get them stepped on. It does a soul good.

Methodists Hold Line on Clergy

The news last week included an item about a United Methodist "trial" of a clergy member living a lesbian lifestyle. The "jury" of clergy convicted her in a vote of 11-1 and has removed her from the clergy. Members of her home church have stated publicly that the would want her to continue her duties as a layman, minus the sacraments that are reserved for clergy.

I don't particularly have a comment on the specific case or the woman who was on trial. She makes her own choices about her lifestyle and I'm sure that she is a fine and caring person who wants to minister to people in a sacrificial manner. Admirable. I have no desire, and certainly no standing not being a member of that church, to judge her.

I do think, however, it was inevitable and necessary that the hierarchy of her church, to whom she is completely accountable, to judge her by the standards of the church doctrine as they have articulated it through decades of working that question out against scripture and their consciences. I applaud the church for standing on their doctrine and not retreating. And, I don't have much doubt about how John Wesley - founder of the Methodist denomination - might have decided on the question.

My only comment on the case revolves around a statement made by her lawyer who argued that the important issue was whether or not all members of the Methodist Church, regardless of status, had equal rights.

This statement cuts right to the heart of the divide between liberals and conservatives. One of the definitions that I've heard and applied on the question is that liberals emphasize group and rights/entitlements where conservatives emphasize individuals and responsibilities. In that light, liberals have made enormous inroads in the last 40 years in focusing public debate related to issues in the news on solely on "rights".

This focus on "rights" over responsibilities is evident in this case and in this lawyer's statement. Let me make the following points:

- Not every member of a church has a "right" to be a member of the clergy. Clearly the clergy is a set-apart subset within the body that is charged with the responsiblity moral leadership. In short, there is on purpose a difference between the clergy and the laymen (and laywomen) of a church. The responsibility-based concept of being "worthy" of being a member of this select group has been lost in our generation to a legion of lawyers litigating "rights".

- Any church has the authority to define qualifications for its clergy. Most do so in published doctinal manuals.

- It is the obligation of the church authorities to test candidates for clergy and to choose only the worthy. This is what is due to the flock, that they are led by worthy leaders.

- It is also the obligation of the church authorities to uphold those standards and to discipline and/or expel clergy members who fail in their duties. Again, no one is ever "entitled" to be a clergy member. There is no tenure in the church. Churches who fail to uphold their standards relating to doctrine, and who pander excessively to the "rights" of individuals as did the Catholic Church with their epidemic of pedophile priests, fail the membership of the church to the harm of the church.

In this case, the United Methodist church had a traditional doctrinal stance that an open homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with excercising the select sacrificial leadership responsibility of the clergy. Not everyone will agree with that stance, but then again membership in the church is a voluntary association. If you don't agree then join a different church.

And, unexpectedly I might add, they upheld their own doctrine in the face of withering publicity about the "rights" of one person to violate the standards and still maintain the role of leadership. They were resisting political correctness in its purest form. I applaud the Methodists for resisting it. And I wish the woman in question well in her life as a member of the church and in her service as a layman.

Clinton's Presidential Lie-brary

President George W. Bush gave an impressive speech today at the Little Rock, AR opening of the Presidential library for former President William Jefferson Clinton. Bush's speech was reverential and respectful, as it should be. We have traditions in this country and civility in the highest political office in the land is one of them. We don't need presidents sniping at their predecessors.

However, the rest of us can - and should - be real about the situation.

A presidential library is the ultimate in spin. All of them, including presidents from both parties, are glass and marble monuments to spin. The president in question gets to set the agenda for the library. He selects the exhibits and the display and context of his presidential papers. He, in short, tells the story of his presidency his way and with the power and eloquence that millions of dollars can buy in marketing prowess. In this case, Bill Clinton personally directed and approved each detail present in the library.

We can debate how the library presents "the record" on important issues of the day like the budget, welfare reform, the Middle East peace process, NAFTA, etc. President Clinton will present them all as historic triumphs. Us partisans will quibble. Historians (mostly liberal) will judge. The end.

Clearly, however, the most interesting part of the library will get the most spin. That would be the "Lewinsky wing", or the part covering the first impeachement and trial of an elected president. Will Ms. Lewinsky's tapes be there? Or the blue stained dress that ultimately brought him to trial? I'm guessing not.

From the early indications, I'm correct in calling it the Lie-brary. Clinton has cast this section as his version of those historic events. You know the story: the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy set out on an unconstitutional coup by means of an illegitimate impeachment. Please - I may gag.

An honest portrayal of the impeachment would address the fact that Bill Clinton lied to the American public when he wagged his finger in our face and said "I did not have sex with that woman...", and it got worse from there. He lied to a federal judge and to a grand jury. He tampered with witnesses and obstructed justice. And he threw all of his trusted aides under the bus to go out an perpetuate his lies. But those lies are probably not represented in the lie-brary. Only the lie that he wasn't guilty and that it was a illegitimate partisan witchhunt.

And for that I blame not only President Clinton, but the U.S. Senate for failing to do their duty after listening to the evidence and for acquitting him. They left him standing. And now he gets to gloat and tell it his way in his lie-brary.

Ashcroft and Arafat: History's Judgement

This week has seen the departure from the political scene of two historic men: John Ashcroft and Yasser Arafat.

The media coverage of these two men by the MSM and the "conventional wisdom" on them held by the American left demonstrates clearly why the left cannot be trusted with the responsibility of providing for our national security.

The left in America and across secular Europe loves Arafat and despises John Ashcroft. This cannot possibly be a more upside down view of reality.

First Arafat, who the MSM elevates to a co-equal among statemen. A champion of his oppressed people. The reality is the polar opposite. Arafat was a thug and a terrorist who, at the end of the day, left his people in refugee status and deep oppressive poverty for 40 years while he pilfered billions from them for his Swiss bank account. He deserved to die in ignominy instead of being welcomed by the terrorist-coddling French.

Second, John Aschroft - who the liberal elite and the MSM despise and caricature as a prudish religious fanactic facist who ran roughshod over the constitution and our civil liberties. Again, the polar opposite of the truth. I could recount his record as our Attorney General, but that has already been done here by Terence Jeffrey better than I could do it.

I will note a ridiculous observation by a celebrated pundit who said this week that clearly, in hindsight, the fear of a terrorist attack during our election cycle was overblown and hyped. Why? Because an attack didn't occur, of course. It doesn't occur to this man that the opposite is true - that the threat was very real and that the reason that we weren't attacked was the courageous and effective work of our Attorney General in thwarting the attacks. Our national security will be set back tremendously if we allow this misunderstanding of Ashcroft's role to go unchallenged in the MSM. I say thank you, John Ashcroft, for you hard work in the face of withering fire from the left. Thank you for keeping us safe.

Ashcroft and Arafat. I trust that history will judge them more wisely than the talking heads of our time have done.

Scott Peterson's Lesson for America

Fortunately, I avoided immersion in the OJ-like celebrity obsession with the Scott Peterson murder trial. I tuned in briefly at critical moments and passed on the non-stop cable coverage of every witness and trial development.

I know four things about the Peterson trial:

1. I had no doubt that he was guilty based on his behavior during her disappearance and his run for the border with the bleached hair and the bags of cash.

2. I did have doubts about a jury's ability to arrive at that conclusion. I think the OJ jury lowered everyone's expectations for the forseeable future. This jury went a long way toward restoring our trust in the system.

3. I have no problem with the death penalty for Peterson, should the jury that heard the evidence vote for that. The man is a psychopathic monster who killed a vivacious young woman and her unborn child just to get out of parenthood.

4. There is a broader lesson for America in this case, and unfortunately it is not about Laci Peterson. There are way too many murders of innocent spouses in this country for there to be a lesson here.

The lesson is with the "death" of the unborn baby, Conner. The 2nd degree murder conviction for the murder of Conner exposes an untenable dichotomy on the issue of abortion.

Someone explain to me how it's rational to hold these two positions simultaneously:

1. If the "unborn baby" is wanted (as Conner was), and a person violates it's rights by causing it's "death", then a legal crime of "murder" has taken place that can be adjudicated by a jury with a penalty attached.

but....

2. If the "fetus" is unwanted (as 1.5 million per year are not), then it has no rights, and a doctor can be paid to "terminate" it with no penalty and the "right" to do this is celebrated by enlightened elite in this country.

The answer is that it is not rational to hold these two views. The biological and legal fact of whether or not it is an "unborn baby" with rights or a "fetus" without rights cannot be determined by whether or not it is "wanted".

Sadly, America will continue a divided partisan struggle on this question until we come to grips with that. And Scott Peterson inadvertently advanced the discussion.

Advice to the Left: Ratchet back the Rhetoric

I'd like to comment on the outrageous observations made by Maureen Dowd last week. Writing from "Murderer's Row" at the nation's leading liberal newspaper, The New York Times, Ms. Dowd flailed out in her post election despair:

The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.

W. ran a jihad in America (emphasis mine) so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Before I comment on what specifically I find so offensive in that writing, let me offer some advice to my friends on the left of the political spectrum: (And, believe it or not, I have some friends on the left.) I've been where you are. I understand the feelings that come after a defeat in a presidential election that you care about. I understand the anger, despair, confusion, and general disbelief that so many of your fellow countrymen could be so foolish or deceived. Welcome to my world during two elections of Bubba Clinton.

My advice, free of charge and hard won by experience, is to do three things:

First, take a deep breath and realize that you will survive. I survived eight years of Clinton and you will survive eight years of Bush. You might not like it. It may grate on you. But you will survive. America as a whole survives even our worst Presidents. (Jimmy Carter, pick up the red phone). I was confident of a Bush win and was deeply opposed to John Kerry, but I had already resolved to myself that I would survive a Kerry Presidency if that unimaginable scenario had materialized.

Second, seriously re-evaluate your thinking. You can go through the next four years believing that an evil administration conspired to steal another election by duping a huge majority of "sheep" in the heartland that are ignorant, religious fanatic, bigots who are bent on oppressing minorities and turning back progress and science due to inbreeding. Or you can allow yourself to consider that there is a sizable portion of America, at least 59 million strong, who have rational, informed, deeply held core principle beliefs that are in opposition to yours. You can read my posts on this blog about topics that Ms. Dowd mentions like stem cell research or gay marriage and agree that they are thoughtful and resonable contrary positions, or you can continue to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a porch-sitting banjo-picker straight out of "Deliverance". I gaurantee you that you'll live a healthier life if you give up the sterotypes.

And finally, you can ratchet back the over-the-top Michael Moore-ish hyperbole that passed for campaign rhetoric for the last two years. Think back over the positions your side took in the heat of battle. "Bush lied, kids died". Cheney is Hitler. Ashcroft is a facist. The Patriot Act set up a police state. Tax cuts for the rich. It was too much. It was all inaccurate, it didn't help you win, and it was harmful to the political discourse in America.

Back in the Clinton days we were called Clinton-Haters. The irony is that we didn't really hate Clinton. We despised him for his personal corruption. And we strongly felt that he should be removed from office for perjury, tampering with witnesses, obstruction of justice and the like. But we didn't hate him. The difference is that the left really hates Bush. I have no doubt that Moore and Garofolo and Franken really deeply hate George Bush. And it comes out in the rhetoric.

Which brings me back to Ms. Dowd. I find her observation that "W. ran a jihad in America" to be deeply offensive and the overwrought rhetoric of hate.

Jihad? Is she insane? Jihad? Talk about de-valuing a word.

After 9/11 don't we recognize what a jihad is?

Flying planes loaded with fuel and people as bombs to kill thousands more to the glory of Allah is jihad. Do you see anything in the Bush campaign that resembles that?

Slaughtering hostages with a long knife in grisly and barbaric beheadings is jihad. Is Ms. Dowd confused between those events and a Bush campaign rally?

Slaughtering 50 Iraqi police officers on their way to an R&R simply for cooperating with America is jihad. Slaughtering moms and kids in a school in Beslan is jihad. Sending armed warriors to blow up airliners in Moscow is Jihad. Suicide bombers in grocery stores in Jerusalem is jihad.

Are you really that confused, Ms. Dowd, that you relate a gay marriage referendum in Ohio to these atrocities? Do you compare 250 honorable decorated Swift Boat veterans signing an affadavit to the unfitness of Sen. Kerry to the insane ravings of Osama bin Laden who echoed the Democratic talking points in his last video.

And how was Ms. Dowd's ridiculous screed treated by the MSM. Was she rebuked? Reigned in? Did anyone object to her equating the Bush campaign with jihad - an intentional murderous plan by our nation's enemy to destroy us by violent and barbaric means? No. On the contrary, she was feted this morning with a fawning segment on "Meet the Press".

Let me just say the obvious to Ms. Dowd, Sen Kerry, and the partisans on the left: not being able to distinguish between the President of the United States and our mortal enemy with whom we are at war in a substantive and rational way is what lead 59 million of your countrymen to conclude that your candidate could not be trusted with our national defense. Period.

This over-the-top rhetoric needs to stop. It is inaccurate and completely unhealthy for us as a nation. And it has consequences.

Fox News carried a tragic story today of a 25 year old man who committed suicide at Ground Zero in New York this week. He was "upset about the result of the presidential election". He was a student and was due to be married, but he ended it all in despair. I don't know anything about this young man or his mental state, but this story made me very sad. What a tragic and senseless waste. I won't lay his death specifically at anyone's feet, although I'm tempted to. (Michael Moore, call on line one) But I will urge my friends on the left to spend the time until the inauguration re-examining the rhetoric. Ratchet it back, please.

I'm trying to help you. Really.

Senatorial Smackdown in Progress

Personally, I don't have much use for the United States Senate and, consequentially, the 100 U.S. Senators. The White House, I like. The House of Representatives, I like. The Senate, I could do without it.

The main function of the Senate is to act as a patrician brake on the rabble rousing will of the people. We can't have mob rule breaking out. So the job of the Senate is to be obstructionists. Stick in the muds. Can't get alongs. Activity which doesn't win many points with me, me being a radical get-something-done activist type. The only reason that conservatives would like the function of the Senate is that they contribute to gridlock in Washington D.C. And, for small government conservatives, gridlock is a good thing.

While I merely dislike the Senate, I usually hold Senators in contempt. They are to a man, and occasionally a woman, pampered elites. Millionaire Ivy Leaguers. If America had royalty, it would be the U.S. Senators. The 100 princes and princesses of American government. They are bloated with power wielded over decades with Presidents coming and going while they sit on their thrones. As I recall from my history, Americans don't nuture an overfondness of royalty. Somehow the Senate survived our purging of the royals.

And now, post election, the Senate has come back into focus. With one Senator failing in his bid for the presidency and fading from the stage, another has emerged to engage the formidable focused energy of the blogosphere.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has stepped his pampered, pedicured, toe in the mud on the day after the election and is now front and center in the direct line of ire from the same conservative forces that swept President Bush to a convincing re-election.

Senator Specter has been here before. He routinely angers conservative Republican with his RINO (Republican in name only) stances. Most notably, he disgraced himself during the Senate's darkest hour by voting "not proved under Scottish Law" in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. We don't forget such disgraceful behavior..

Senator Specter survived a fierce primary challenge this year from a principled conservative rival who was clearly the superior candidate. How did he survive? President Bush dropped into Pennsylvania and campaigned for him. And how does Specter pay him back. He stabs him right in the back. Ted Kennedy couldn't have done it any better (although he tried on the education bill.) On the day after Bush's election victory, Specter held a press conference to announce that he would obstruct Bush's judicial nominees, from his pending position as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, if they were "out of the mainstream". That' liberal speak for conservatives, especially conservatives who are pro-life.

Imagine: A Republican, and a Republican who owes his seat directly to President Bush, steps to the microphone on the day after 59 million people spoke in support of the President to say essentially "not so fast, you've got to get past me".

Bottom line: Senator Arlen Specter must be denied the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee when the Senate meets next month to choose its leadership. Tradition be damned. Seniority be damned. You cannot reward this blatant disloyalty with power. Especially on the committee where possible Supreme Court nominees will be vetted. It's not going to happen.

The blogosphere is available, postelection, to be fully engaged in this fight. And if Sen. Arlen Specter thought he had a tough fight in his primary - he hasn't seen anything yet. We will bring him down. It's on now.

More Red than Blue

I have 3 thoughts about the election results this week.

1. I am, of course, mind-bogglingly happy that my guy won. But I was not at all surprised. Friends will attest that I've been very confident all year that the election would turn out with a Bush re-election and strong gains in the House and Senate. Confident enough that I went to bed at 8:30 pm on election night with only a cursory glance at the returns on the networks.

What made me that confident? The candidate? The conventions? The debates?

No. All of those reinforced my confidence. But the clincher that made me confident came much earlier in the year. It was the phenomenal success of the Mel Gibson movie "The Passion of the Christ". I had been telling people that the movie would open big, stay strong, and rake in millions. Nobody outside of my church believed me. Even my favorite radio drive time talk jock dismissed it the day before opening and guessed that it may break $30 million. Last time I heard it was heading toward $1 billion foreign and domestic box office and DVD sales. Watching the MSM (mainstream media) be totally clueless about that phenomenon was a giant lesson. I knew that the same majority that turned out for that movie to vote at the box office would turn out to support a President who was a genuine man of faith. I was right. The MSM was completely shell shocked, again.

2. There's even more red areas (republican) than blue areas (democrat) if you look at the county - by - county map than there is if you look at the electoral college map. Take a look:

Electoral College map:

and county-by-county:




Check out, for example, Michigan and California which went blue in the winner-take-all electoral map but have sizeable areas of red.

Clearly the divide, if it exists geographically, is between large cities and rural areas.

3. The big loser in the election is the credibility of old MSM journalism, which was so far in the tank for Kerry that they risked blantantly unethical get-Bush "gotcha" pieces and sold their credibility in the process.

- Dan Rather, the "Memogate" fraudulent attack on the President is not forgiven. Your days are numbered.
- Ted Koppel, that hit piece where you went to Vietnam to find Vietcong soldiers to rebut decorated U.S. veterans on Nightline was unexcusable. God bless John O'Neill and the Swiftboat veterans for their service, then and now.
- 60 Minutes, your attempt to explode the bogus "missing ammo" story 30 hours before the election was not unnoticed.

The new media is watching and will hold you accountable. Viva bloggers!

My Election Day Hopes

It's all over now but the voting. And then the cheering or booing. All I know for sure is that half of the country is going to need Prozac for a while whichever way the vote goes. I'm envisioning people curled up in the fetal position for a week.

So, as I finish work today and head home tonight to watch the returns, here are my simple election day hopes:

1. that people vote. All people who are at least moderately informed, vote. Don't hide behind a confusion because you don't like either candidate. Take a stand, make a choice, and vote. We need to have a strongly voiced referendum this year, either way it turns out. Don't stay on the sidelines.

2. that the vote isn't close, either way. Please, campaigns, spare us the litigation wars. It's not healthy for America to have so many people distrust the process. I can't take another 4 year debate on who "stole the election".

3. that we have a gracious concession, either way. Please candidates, don't drag this out for personal power.

4. that there's no violence. Let's demonstrate to the watching world how peacefully democracy works. And if Kerry wins, how a peaceful transition of power looks.

5. that there's no gloating, either way.

6. that we wake up tomorrow and move on with our lives, either way this comes out.

Happy Election Day! Viva America!