The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Mountain Lions & Big Dogs Here's a link to an interesting article about the increasing conflicts between mountain lions and people in the West, and one interesting solution: a dog known as the Anatolian shepherd that is more than a match for the big cat. What Happens When You Can't Tell The Onion Parody From Real Life? I am referring to this item, titled, "Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years."The fact of the matter is that while this article is parody, it describes an actual situation: the gay community screeches a lot about being just like everyone else, but gay pride parades and other gay community events, at least for those of us who have had to live in gay-dominated places like the Bay Area, are a lot closer to this paragraph out of this parody: The Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, Thorne noted, is part of a decades-old gay-rights tradition. But, for mainstream heterosexuals unfamiliar with irony and the reclamation of stereotypes for the purpose of exploding them, the parade resembled an invasion of grotesque outer-space mutants, bent on the destruction of the human race. Illegal Immigration I've long wondered why cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles could get away with ordering their police officers not to inform INS about illegal immigrants. Perhaps it is time for Congress to use the liberal's favorite weapon of governmental coercion--federal funding--to get their attention. Perhaps Congress should tell cities that don't believe in immigration laws that Washington no longer believes in San Francisco. Enforce the existing laws, or lose your federal funding. Sen. Kerry Says He Could Support a Federal Marriage Amendment Sen. Kerry, I think, can see which way things are swinging in America: Leading Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry is not necessarily opposed to a constitutional amendment to permanently ban same-sex marriage, he told National Public Radio's All Things Considered Feb. 9.Now, he did say that he wanted some provision for "civil unions," but he is definitely trying to get on the winning side of this: opposition to gay marriage. And remember: he was one of only 14 Senators to vote against the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. The federal DOMA was far less of a straight-jacket than a Federal Marriage Amendment. In Maryland, a Democrat has introduced a Defense of Marriage Act bill: Del. Emmett C. Burns, Jr. (D-Baltimore County) has introduced HB 728, which would prohibit Maryland from recognizing a same-sex marriage performed in another state or foreign country and would declare that marriage between individuals of the same-sex is “against the public policy of this State.”Of course, the homosexual need to show off in San Francisco--with hundreds of marriages contrary to California law--is having the effect I predicted: (Richmond Virginia) In the wake of hundreds of same-sex weddings in San Francisco, and a Massachusetts ruling that will let gays marry in May, the Virginia House of Delegates Friday passed legislation affirming the state's law that defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman.There will be a lot more activity in the state legislatures this coming week, as the full impact of San Francisco's lawlessness hits home. What Prejudices are Acceptable in Law? Your first reaction is perhaps, "none." After all, the Lawrence decision hinged on the question of whether Texas's homosexual sodomy law constituted a rational form of discrimination, or was mere prejudice. But I can quickly give you some examples that demonstrate that there a number of prejudices that are completely acceptable to the mainstream of Americans. Indeed, liberals would foam at the mouth if the Supreme Court struck down these forms of prejudice using the reasoning of the Lawrence decision. First of all, what is prejudice, in the sense that the Lawrence decision means it? It refers to discrimination against members of a class, simply because they are members of that class, and because there is some presumption that members of that class are more likely to engage in certain socially undesirable actions because of that membership. Prejudicial presumptions exist because some behaviors are either actually or perceived by legislators as being more common in a particular class. The prejudice against male homosexuals as a class has traditionally been built around the assumption that they are disproportionately child molesters. Pretty clearly, most homosexuals aren't child molesters--but when I hear someone say that the majority of child molesters aren't homosexuals, this doesn't tell me much. There are a number of studies that would imply that about 20-30% of child molesters are homosexual (in their explicit identification of themselves, or their exclusive focus on molesting members of the same sex)--or roughly 7x-10x their percentage in the general population. Of course, NAMBLA's active participation in gay pride parades (for many years, with no apparent negative reaction) also contributes this assumption. A Midwestern gay reader of my blog (and presumably a pretty conservative sort) asked me a while back, "Why should I be responsible for what gays in San Francisco do?" By this, he meant that he wasn't standing on top of a float on Market Street, naked, whipping another naked man, or simulating? sex with another naked man. He wasn't walking through the streets naked in the gay pride parade, like Totally Nude Toronto Men does. He wasn't one of those guys who goes into a bathhouse and has unprotected sex with dozens of complete strangers. He isn't a member or defender of the North American Man-Boy Love Association. He asks a fair question. The same question can be asked about any number of other legally enforced prejudices, however. For example, we have a law that prohibits driving a vehicle while intoxicated. The rationale is that drunk drivers represent a threat to the safety of others. Yet while many would concede that drunk driving is certainly less safe than sober driving, this is only a statistical statement. It is entirely possible for a drunk driver to get home without having an accident, and many do. Were this not the case, we would not need a law prohibiting drunk driving by itself; we would simply criminalize having an accident while intoxicated. Clearly, drunk driving laws are a form of prejudice; they assume that because drunk drivers are more likely to cause injury than sober drivers, the state may criminalize drunk driving. Yet few people would argue that drunk driving laws should be struck down by the courts as a form of prejudice. Here's another example of prejudice written into our laws. Convicted felons may not possess a firearm--ever again. Why? Because governments fear that convicted felons are more likely to commit another felony than non-felons--and if that felony involves a gun, the crime will be a serious crime. Pretty obviously, this is another of those statistical basis decisions. Not every convicted felon will reoffend, and to assume that a felon who commited a crime such as embezzlement or income tax fraud is more likely to commit a violent crime with a gun. Even if you limit the disabling felonies to violent felonies, the law still engages in a prejudiced assumption, because we know that not every violent felon will commit another violent felony. If you are a member of that class of persons under 18 years of age, there are a whole bunch of prejudicial laws aimed at you. You may not purchase a firearm--again, like the convicted felon, on the assumption that are more likely than an adult to misuse that firearm. Depending on the state, you are obligated to obey most orders from your parents (with a few exceptions for emancipated minors). Depending on the state, you may not marry below a certain age without parental consent. Below 16 in most states, you may not drive an automobile. Every single one of these is an example of prejudice, based on the behavior of your class. Below 18, you may not vote. There are many very mature 17 year olds who I would trust with a gun, and there are even some 12 year olds that show enough maturity that letting them drive might be perfectly safe. Overall, however, our society has decided, based on long experience--and not usually bothering to gather any statistical evidence to back up this experience--that minors are on average lacking in judgment. This decision is simply a prejudice, no different from state legislatures deciding that homoseuxals, on average, engage in sufficiently disproportionate improprieties that it is appropriate to treat them as a class in the same way that we treat minors. If you want to argue that the prejudice against homosexuals is irrational, that could be a valid argument, depending on the data. But this puts the burden of proof on homosexuals to prove their case, unlike what happened in Lawrence, where the Supreme Court decided to put the burden of proof on Texas to justify their homosexual sodomy law. If you want to argue that all laws that are based on prejudice are unconstitutional, there are a lot of laws that are going to have to go away--and it would be honest of homosexuals to admit that this is their intention. The Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause really doesn't solve the problem here. If equal protection really means that everyone gets treated equally, with no invidious distinctions based on membership in a particular group or class, then all of the class distinctions that I mentioned above are unconstitutional. Every individual must be treated equally. Pretty clearly, our courts aren't going to do that. We are back to the problem that the Supreme Court has decided that sexual orientation is an unfair class distinction, because it is based on prejudice--but has not required the state or federal governments to prove that other class distinctions must be clearly proven to be valid and based on public health and safety. So what is the argument for these forms of prejudice by a legislature are acceptable, while other forms are not? Or is just a matter of homosexuals have the sympathetic ear of the judiciary, while drunk drivers and minors do not? 665 Gay Marriages in San Francisco There comes a certain moment where you find yourself wondering if there is any notion of rule of law left in a place like San Francisco. This isn't a question of a dispute between legislature and judiciary, as happened in Massachusetts; this is just wanton violation of California law, without even a pretense that there is a legal basis for it. Yet the same bunch would be absolutely furious if a city ordered its police to arrest people who openly identified themselves as homosexuals, with the same lack of unconcern about following the law. The homosexuals have probably decided the election this fall. The Democratic Party has no choice but to either waffle about the issue--and look stupid--or continue down a path that 59-60% of Americans explicitly reject: gay marriage. The serious commitment of homosexuals to durable monogamous relationships? Sorry, I don't believe it (at least for men). Promiscuity is so much a fundamental part of homosexual life that I am used to seeing gay men talk about their "husband," and then talk about what strangers they had sex with while their "husband" was out of town. Bush has been careful to avoid directly endorsing the FMA. I don't what exactly his motivations are on this. I have some concerns as well about FMA, especially because it can be honestly read as prohibiting the state legislatures from recognizing gay marriage. I am not thrilled about that prospect, but in a federal government, that is the right of the states. At this point, however, homosexuals are trying to force America's hand on this, through their control of the judiciary and most of the newstertainment media, and they are likely to find out what happens when 3% (even a very powerful and rich 3%) try to force 60%--they get their noses whacked with a rolled up newspaper. This combination of out of control judicial activism (in Massachusetts) and simple lawlessness (in San Francisco), is going to sink the Democratic candidate in November--and makes passage of FMA far more likely. What next? I expect the U.S. Supreme Court to decide that the states do not have authority to amend the Constitution, when it interferes with the judiciary's pets. The analogy to miscegenation laws keeps getting made, but it's a bogus analogy. Laws prohibiting interracial marriage (and interracial sex), were actually quite recent. Maryland and Virginia were probably the first governments that are part of Western civilization to prohbit interracial marriage, at the close of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century. Perhaps there are European nations besides Nazi Germany and its allies that passed such laws, but I can't think of any. By comparison, the notion of gay marriage seems to be unprecedented throughout Western civilization. Even the pre-Christian pagan societies of Europe, while somewhat tolerant of homosexuality, to my knowledge didn't recognize homosexual marriage. If homosexuality were not such an obvious sickness (as evidenced by the high rates of alcoholism and drug addiction, the obsession of so many gay men with the pursuit of young boys, the bizarrely childish exhibitionism that you can describe with the single word "fabulous," the insulting cariactures of masculinity and femininity, a hypersexuality that, sadly, is now spreading into straight culture because of gay dominance over the newstertainment industry), I would be scratching my head and saying, "Wow, this is startling." I do not believe that a society can long survive where the weirdest and sickest 3% of the society has essentially dictatorial authority over the other 97%. Homosexuals, because of their damaged psyches, are intent on "proving" that everyone loves them, and everyone approves of what they do. If the argument is "privacy," do what you want in private, instead of insisting on making a public spectacle of everything. I would have preferred a solution that involved governments repealing laws that criminalized private acts involving consenting adults. I could even see an argument for perhaps building a standard package of protections and privileges that would apply to unmarried couples, straight or gay, on matters of adoption, rights of survivorship, tax treatment, and so on. This insistence by homosexuals that they are "just like everyone else" when they clearly are not, however, is likely to wake up that vast majority of Americans who haven't much cared about this issue, but now are being given no choice in the matter. I've drawn the comparison of homosexuals to the slave owners of antebellum America. In both cases, a very small percentage of the population, but rich and therefore powerful. Slave owners in 1800 generally knew that they were doing something wrong; by 1850, they had constructed an entire ideology to justify that what they were doing wasn't just weird, it was downright good, and indeed, morally superior to the free labor system of the North. There were prominent intellectuals (lots of them) prepared to defend the institution of slavery, both as a good in itself, and as an opportunity for Americans to be tolerant of a different way of living. Similarly, homosexuals in 1965 were generally just looking to end police harrassment. Most knew that what they did was repulsive to the general population, and had the good sense to be relatively discrete about it. By the 1980s, everything had changed. At least one loud part of the homosexual movement was intent not on just being allowed to do what they wanted, but were insisting on full social acceptance. I can still recall reading, in the late 1970s, a shocked article about the gay bathhouses of San Francisco, and what went on there. So? This article was in Playboy, the vanguard of the "if it feels good, do it" movement. Fetishism involving bodily waste products has been, as near as I can tell, a significant fraction of the homosexual male culture since the early 1970s. This is no surprise; people who are emotionally frozen at a very young age (as most homosexuals I have met clearly are) unsurprisingly are still focused on elimination issues. Like the slave owners, homosexuals can't tolerate any criticism of any sort. Hence the widespread attempts to suppress free speech in Britain and Canada that I have previously mentioned on this blog: prison sentences for publicly expressing disapproval of homosexuality; public school teachers suspended for writing a letter to a newspaper; threats of suit against a Catholic clergyman in Belgium for expressing disapproval; attempts to force judges to disengage from the Boy Scouts of America as a condition of being a judge. These are so reminiscient of how slave owners criminalized distribution of antislavery literature, and prohibited the receipt of antislavery petitions by Congress. This is no surprise; like the slave owners, homosexuals largely know that they are doing something that is repugnant to decency, and must therefore stamp out all criticism. Homosexuals better enjoy this brief moment in the sunlight. I suspect it is going to be pretty short, relative to the larger movement of history. UPDATE: A reader points out that the Dred Scott decision of 1857, by guaranteeing the right of masters to take slaves into free states, effectively made all states into slave states--if masters chose to move there. This, of course, made the Civil War unavoidable. We have not yet reached that point--but I do expect the current Supreme Court, if given half a chance, to strike down all state laws and state constitutional provisions that refuse to recognize homosexual marriages committed in other states. At that point, the parallel to Dred Scott will be obvious. Friday, February 13, 2004
How to Find WMDs in Iraq: Advertise on the Web! My first reaction was to laugh--but hey, it didn't cost the CIA anything to put up this reward announcement online (or here, in Arabic), and maybe it will work: If you have information relating to Iraq which you believe might be of interest to the U.S. Government, please contact us through our secure online form. We will carefully protect all information you provide, including your identity.Oh yes, for those of you looking for a job as a spy, this is the "Clandestine Service" job openings page. And the CIA online museum is pretty cool, too. Your Tax Dollars At Waste I can't even begin to describe the insanity of the school this essay describes. The author was a school psychologist at an "alternative" public school (the place where you send the kids that either can't be in a regular school, or that scare the teachers too much at a regular school). On one occasion, last October, while timing a student completing mathematics problems, the young man suddenly threw his pencil down and rose from his chair, in response to an “all call” from the PA. He walked towards the door after announcing, “I’m going to the tug-o-war.”I saw someone comment on the school described in this essay as, "The soft racism of low expectations." Low expectations doesn't even begin to describe this. Repealing Dead Sections of Law I see that there is an effort underway here in Idaho to repeal sections of our code related to the state's Prune Commission. As the purpose of the bill explains: Repeal Chapter 30, Title 22, Idaho Code, relating to Prunes Promotion of the Industry. This code established a Prune Commission. The Commission has not functioned for almost two decades and Idaho no longer has a commercial prune industry.Some libertarians are of the view that every law should have a sunset provision, requiring the legislature to repass every law every few years. One advantage of this is that laws that no longer serve any useful purpose would go away without any special effort (such as this bill). Another advantage is that it would force discussion and debate on laws on a regular basis. It is possible that some of the morals laws might have gone away a bit earlier, rather than requiring the U.S. Supreme Court to run roughshod over history and the Constitution to scrap sodomy laws. The big advantage, however, is that it would keep legislators so busy that they would have to only pass new laws that were really obviously necessary, because they would be so busy debating repassage of old statutes. Idahoans: Time to Contact Your State Senators House Joint Resolution #9, amending the Idaho Constitution to define marriage as one man, one woman (not two men, or one man, five women, two dogs, and a goose) has passed the Idaho House of Representatives 53-17. It now is in the State Senate. After that, it goes to the voters in November. Let your state senator know how you feel. Remember Victoria Plame? Remember the big scandal about naming a CIA employee, and the claim that this was all some conspiracy by the Bush Administration? Well, I'm pleased to see that the The American Prospect--a dreadly Democratic magazine--is now reporting that it appears that Robert Novak was directly told by government officials not to name Victoria Plame, because it would endanger her ability to continue her intelligence work: Two government officials have told the FBI that conservative columnist Robert Novak was asked specifically not to publish the name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in his now-famous July 14 newspaper column. The two officials told investigators they warned Novak that by naming Plame he might potentially jeopardize her ability to engage in covert work, stymie ongoing intelligence operations, and jeopardize sensitive overseas sources.Now, if you wonder how seriously we should take such a claim--the same magazine carries an article that claims that if Bush wins in November we will be close to a tipping point of fundamental change in the political system itself. The United States could become a nation in which the dominant party rules for a prolonged period, marginalizes a token opposition and is extremely difficult to dislodge because democracy itself is rigged.Excuse me? One party state? In California, the city government is ignoring state law by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples; where I used to live, in Sonoma County, the Republican Party was, for practical purposes, a minor party; nearly all popular entertainment stars who express a political opinion are ferociously anti-Republican; and leftists still dominate the federal bench. One party state? Yeah, right. The article is full of reasons why the era in which I grew up--with Democrats in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, really wasn't a one party state. I am not impressed. Liberalism At Work The musician Moby explains how he intends to help remove Bush from the White House this fall: "No one's talking about how to keep the other side home on Election Day," Moby tells us. "It's a lot easier than you think and it doesn't cost that much. This election can be won by 200,000 votes."Remember this, when you start getting emails from "upset conservatives" trying to make sure that you don't vote for Bush. They want to make sure that the Democrat ends up in the White House. Labels: abortion Definitely A Mistake By The Bush Administration Their hearts might be in the right place, but this is a mistake: WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work.The story, of course, is spun to make it appear that the abstinence-only program is an obviously stupid idea. I happen to think that abstinence-only programs are probably a mistake for the same reason that programs excluding discussion of abstinence (as some sex educators would prefer) are a mistake: there's a wide range of kids out there, and what works for some may not work for others. I have talked to adults who recall that discussions of contraception in junior high actually increased sexual activity among their peers, because the fear of pregnancy had restrained the girls. I also have no doubt that there are going to be teenagers who are going to be sexually active, regardless of the consequences: pregnancy, STDs, and emotional damage from being manipulated into sex. To my surprise, in spite of the low moral average of the population of Sonoma County, the schools there used a sex education program that emphasized abstinence-best. they taught about contraception, and STDs, and they also emphasized that the only 100% safe method of avoiding pregnancy and STDs was to wait, ideally until adulthood. (Obviously, you could never suggest waiting until marriage--at that point the depraved people that simulate parents out there would probably storm the schools and demand an end to this moralizing.) Now, the liberals out there may want to stop reading at this point, but especially for kids of 12, 13, 14,15, 16, there is absolutely no question that abstinence is the best choice--even if you don't care about moral questions at all. These are ages with severe emotional turmoil. Many kids at this age are easily manipulated by peer pressure, the hypersexualized images of the popular gutter culture, as well as older kids and adults trying to take advantge of naivete for their own sexual pleasure. These are also ages when, for the most part, we don't trust kids behind the wheel of a car--and you expect them to make good decisions involving activities that can leave them with STDs for life? Apply the marginal rule to this: there are kids that are going to be sexually active regardless of what you teach them. If you can't get them to wait until at least adulthood, you can try to reduce the pregnancy and STD problems by teaching them the dangers and the methods for reducing those dangers. There are kids that are going to wait until they are 17 or 18 (some even waiting until marriage), regardless of what you teach them. It is the kids in the middle that we have to concentrate on with any form of sex education. Some of these kids, with some encouragement, will decide to wait. But if you don't even try to encourage them to wait, the popular gutter culture wins. Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Marketing Plan Roger Friedman's column at Fox News complains that the opening week theater schedule seems to be targeting communities where it is most likely to get a large number of ticket sales: Newmarket Films, which is distributing the movie, seems to have picked a pattern that concentrates heavily on the south and the Midwest, focusing on the Bible Belt and locations where "The Passion of the Christ" will meet with the least resistance. West Virginia will have about three times as many theaters as Rhode Island, for example. Vermonters have three theatres while their more conservative next-door neighbors in New Hampshire, a state equal in size, will have twelve.And this is surprising for what reason? It makes absolutely no sense to run the film in places where the audience is going to be small. I suppose that if Gibson were running it in theaters in Beverly Hills, he would be accused of being unnecessarily provocative. Calls to Newmarket and to its public relations firm were not returned to this column yesterday. But in the positioning of "The Passion of the Christ," Gibson has consciously created a divisive atmosphere for the presentation of his film. For example, he has screened the movie widely for groups on the religious right while avoiding all mainstream groups, as well as film critics for fear of poor advance word.Again, what's the surprise? Gibson has invested $25 million of his own money into this film. I can't imagine him arranging a screening for the ACLU, knowing full well that regardless of content, they are going to pan it, and probably revise their support for free speech to exclude religiously offensive material. Meacham writes: "To take the film's account of the 'Passion' literally will give most audiences a misleading picture of what probably happened in those epochal hours so long ago. The Jewish priests and their followers are the villains, demanding the death of Jesus again and again; Pilate is a malleable governor forced into handing down the death sentence."Let me emphasize that the Gospels do not promote any notion of collective guilt for this. Indeed, it is a fundamental tenent of Christianity that Jesus's sacrifice on the cross was a necessary part of providing salvation for sinners. Anyone who sees Jesus's trial and execution as something to be guilty about needs to spend some time reading the New Testament. Even then, the claim that Gibson is giving a misleading picture by portraying the Roman governor as weak is misleading. The only accounts we have of the events in question are in the New Testament, and Gibson is following the Gospel accounts on this score. The Gospel of Luke, chapter 23: 1Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king."The level of attack on Gibson's integrity is beginning to work. I will definitely go see it in the theaters. Thursday, February 12, 2004
The Kerry Adultery Frenzy 1. So far, all we have is indirect stories: Big Journalism is investigating. We really don't know anything. 2. Adultery by an elected official? I am reminded of the scene in Casablanca, where the police inspector exclaims that he is "shocked, shocked" to discover that there is gambling go on in Rick's joint. It's pretty clear that Kerry is the male equivalent of a golddigger. Even under the best of conditions, being away from your wife for months on end, under the emotional stress of a political campaign, perhaps working closely with an attractive young lady, would make an affair not at all surprising. This doesn't make it okay, but I guess I am not surprised that John Kerry is human, and has fallen into a common human failing. 3. Unlike Bill Clinton, Kerry hasn't perjured himself about this supposed affair (unless you know something that I don't). Contrary to what a lot of liberals were screeching about several years ago, Clinton's problems weren't about sex. They were about Clinton perjuring himself about sex. If you can't be good, at least be honest. Bill Clinton couldn't be either. 4. Will this affect the campaign? I don't know. If it all turns out to be a bunch of smoke and nonsense, not at all. If Kerry bites his lower lip and admits that he did wrong, everyone in Big Journalism will pat him on the back for being honest about it. It was pretty clear that one of the reasons that Clinton's sexual misbehavior helped him in much of America is because there are a lot of women in America who are either sleeping with a cad like Clinton, or wish that they were, and a lot of men in America who are creeps like Clinton, or wish they were. 5. Certainly within the Democratic Party, adultery is going to mark Kerry as a hopeless square. I mean, with a member of the same sex or another species, then he would be one of the truly liberated sorts, and big chunks of the Democratic Party who fancy themselves open-minded would be singing his praises. But with a woman? How cliche! How boring! Funny One By Meryl Yourish She's complaining about Tom Friedman's article in the New York Times : Then again, she pointed out to me this passage from Friedman's column of last week, which is as offensive as any article I've read in the Arab News. Nice to know you're on the home team, Friedman. Here's your foreskin back, too. Was This Kid Too Smart? Or The Dealer Too Stupid? From CNN, an account of a teenager satisfying every teenaged boy's wildest dreams: NEWARK, New Jersey (AP) -- A teenage boy posing as a banker duped an Ohio car dealership into delivering a $123,000 BMW to him at his high school, police said Thursday. Odd Piece of Email From a Dean Supporter > I have a great deal of respect for you and most of the opinions you offer > the world. Your blog is book marked as part of my Mozilla startup group, > and I enjoy going through your musings every morning. You are a true > intellect and a rare, informed champion of 2nd Amendment rights. > > Since I generally hold your views with such high regard, I am in a bit of a > quandary over our apparent differences. I have been a life long Republican > until we attacked Iraq. I discovered Howard Dean like several other > hundreds of thousands of folks, I was part of his "grass roots" campaign > efforts. He is the only person to come to such prominence with over 85% of > his funding coming from little people like me. > > What pulled me to Dean was his NRA endorsement as governor and my > conversations with other Dean supporters on the forums at > www.ForumsForAmerica.com. I wished I had a viable, alternate Republican > candidate but I do not and this is not such a big issue since I agree with > Dean on most all of the issues he describes on his web site > (www.DeanForAmerica.com). > > While Kerry appears to be getting the nod from the DNC, your political > commentary seems to be narrowly focused on the eccentricities of Dean. I am > innately curious as to the rational or mechanism by which Dean has captured > your derogatory attention. For those that might be seeking an alternative > to our current one party situation and/or for those that can't support a > man that will go to war without a shred of tangible evidence of clear and > eminent danger, I am curious as to who you would recommend. Actually, the decision to go to war was based on a combination of pretty persuasive evidence of current intentions and clear evidence of past actions. It now appears that Saddam Hussein believed that he had chemical WMDs, because he was giving lots of money to people in his government to make them. Some of the captured generals insisted that while their forces didn't have chemical weapons, the units on either side of them did--but apparently, this was a widely held belief by the generals commanding those other units. It is very likely that Hussein spent a lot of money on WMDs--and that money ended up in Swiss bank accounts of the people that were supposed to producing this stuff. This is the reason that most of the world's intelligence services believed, as did the CIA, that we would be confronting serious chemical warfare. Part of what made this intelligence mistake so easy is that Hussein had made extensive use of chemical weapons in the past, and at least as late as 1995, had extensive WMD development programs under way. A friend of mine recently read Saddam's Bombmaker, by the guy who headed up Hussein's nuclear program in the 1990s--and it was a serious effort. Hussein's efforts to prevent the UN's monitoring program from completing their job in the late 1990s, and the 2001 efforts, suggested that Hussein was indeed hiding such weapons--even though we now know that what Hussein was hiding was that he had no idea what was actually going on in his own government. As mistakes go, this one seems to have been completely understandable. Hussein was clearly involved in funding terrorist organizations (payments to Palestinian suicide bombers), and gave refuge to known terrorists, such as Abu Nidal (who committed "suicide" with two head shots just before the war). The question of ties to al-Qaeda are a bit more murky. In practice, the net effect of the Coalition invasion of Iraq has been very good. We've known for a long time that Hussein was like a cut-rate Hitler, with roughly an order of magnitude less victims (perhaps a milion civilians murdered, and perhaps two million soldiers killed in combat). I feel absolutely no discomfort about destroying this torturocracy. While I would not have predicted it, the recent demands for democracy in Syria (and the willingness of the government to tolerate it as much as it has) and Libya's sudden willingness to drop WMD programs are both indications that the message got through pretty well. Of course, at least some of why France has suddenly come around on this is perhaps the awareness that the records of Hussein's bribes high into the French government were now available. I am not completely happy with Bush's "triangulation" strategy of giving just enough liberalism to appease the center, but the alternatives are people like Howard Dean, who purports to be a Christian, and then says that God wouldn't have made homosexuals if homosexuality were a sin. This shows someone who doesn't even understand Christianity well enough to phrase a sophistic argument well. ("God wouldn't have made adulterers if adultery were a sin.") There might be an argument that Dean could make to defend his position, but this was one of the sillier ones. Even on the subject of gun rights, where Dean sounds more Republican than Democrat, remember that a Democratic president would be subject to the full set of pressures of the Democratic machine for gun control, and Dean made it clear that he supported the assault weapons ban. Yeah, That's It! Conservatives Are Too Stupid to Teach! Over at Instapundit there is a nice discussion about the gross disproportion of Democrats to Republicans on the faculty at Duke. The Philosophy Department chair, Professor Robert Brandon, explains that there is no surprise to this: conservatves are stupid, and therefore you can't expect them to be college professors. What is really funny about this is that Brandon misquotes Jon Stuart Mill to defend his position. Even more amusing to me, having studied 19th century British politics a bit, is that what Mill insults as Conservatives (the Conservative Party of that time) held values quite a bit closer to modern liberals (such as opposition to free trade, and support for the welfare state). What called itself the Liberal Party back then was a lot closer to conservative and libertarian ideas (free markets, low tariffs, minimal government regulation). Of course, the pressing issues of modern liberalism--such as gay marriage, partial-birth abortion, and the importance of public nudity before an audience of millions--would have been regarded with shock and disgust by both Liberal and Conservative back then. Instapundit quotes a long piece by Professor James Lindgren about how the data from the General Social Surveys for many years show that Republicans are not only better educated than Democrats, bu tthat conservative Republicans show the highest level of intelligence, based on vocabulary and analog reasoning questions. Professor Volokh quotes Gerge Mason University law professor Ilya Somin concerning a survey that show those who identify themselves as "Strong Republicans" are dramatically more knowledgeable about politics than those who identify themselves as "Strong Democrats." I find this stereotyping of conservatives as stupid to be offensive, but what is especially interesting to me is how the group with no particularly strong claim to being elite looks down their nose at a group that really can claim to be more elite with respect to education and knowledge. (Obviously, you can find plenty of counterexamples among both liberals and conservatives.) It smells like projection to me. My Former Misrepresentative Shows Her True Feminist Nature From the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat: Woolsey's is commonly referred to as "Congresswoman for Life" because she represents the values of the millionaire liberals of Marin and Sonoma Counties so well. And on this, she is again in turn with her constitutents, who blather on about feminism, but ignore the savage misogny of the young men they are raising. Woolsey is the essence of liberalism. Back in 1992, before she was elected to her first term in Congress, she told me that if she had her way, private ownership of all firearms would be illegal in the Untied States. I guess she's afraid that too many of her potential voters might get shot by their victims. City of San Francisco Demonstrates That It Out Of Control First of all: city and county governments are subsidiary entities of the state governments. They have no independent authority except that granted by the state constitution or the state legislature. Second: California voters (amazingly enough), defined marriage as one man, one woman by initiative in the 2000 elections. Now the City of San Francisco has decided that it has authority above and beyond the California Constitution, and the voters of the state: SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In a bold political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of a lesbian couple Thursday and said they will issue more gay marriage licenses.There is nothing quite as amazing as the arrogance of liberals, who think that they can ignore state law whenever they feel like it. I wonder how San Francisco government would feel if say, Weaverville decided to ignore state law, declare each and every one of its citizens (regardless of age, criminal history, mental health history) a police oficer, issue them automatic weapons, and encourage them to visit San Francisco? The liberals would be screeching and hollering about lawless city officials, you can be sure. Ads Like This Make Me Wish I Were Obscenely Rich From Astromart.com: Coming up for sale in 2004 is the Swanson 15-inch refractor. The telescope can be seen at the Pettinger-Guiley Observatory in Washington state about 35 miles S.E. of Seattle. Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Not A Very Reputable Source... But it's a news story about not a very reputable figure, so I guess it's a wash: MICHAEL Jackson's former maid said the singer used to have baths and showers with young boys. I Won't Be Asking Governor Dean For a Drink Of Water From the Washington Post: Making the point that good scientists must "never take anything for granted," Dean observed that water from a flushed toilet actually would be cleaner for drinking than water untreated from the nearby Mississippi River. A Political Hack's Excuses For the War in Iraq Two Years Ago From the New York Post: "in the four years since UNSCOM inspectors were forced out [of Iraq], Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction."Yup. John Kerry's speech two years ago--when he wasn't running for the White House. I respect Kerry for recognizing that the evidence of danger was real back then (even though it now appears that Hussein's people were building Potemkin village WMDs). I disrespect him now for trying to play to the hard left of the Democratic Party to get the nomination. I have many differences with Sen. Lieberman, but Sen. Lieberman at least knows that playing politics with national security is not acceptable. Lieberman wasn't prepared to pander to the hard left of the party, with unsurprising consequences. Humor Three former presidents watched the Superbowl. After the game, Bush, Sr. called the Patriots to congratulate them on their win. Jimmy Carter called the Panthers to congratulate them on their brilliant performance. Bill Clinton called Janet Jackson. If You Have a Sound Card... You might find this strange...production, interesting. I don't know what genre to classify this as, but it combines Dean's famous Iowa non-concession speech with Incredible Hulk and some pictures of Dean in a way that is very disturbing. Six Months From Now, Dean Will Be Praising Kerry's Ethical Standards But right now, Dean is saying things that Bush's campaign will be quoting in September: "What we now see is John Kerry is part of the corrupt political culture in Washington," Dean told The Associated Press in an interview. Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Bush And Guns The blog whose name I will not utter (because I was raised not to use words like that, except to refer to female dogs) is upset that Bush hasn't done more for gun owners: Even though I know a special man in my life won't be happy with this statement, let's face the fact that Bush hasn't done a damn thing to help gun owners and can't be counted on. This doesn't mean I'm saying not to vote for him, but I'm just telling you his record. There are thousands of politicians like him out there. You need to get them out of office. Don't be a wimp.Let me recommend reading both "The Justice Department Discovers the 2nd Amendment," Shotgun News, July 15, 2002, 18-20, and "Extremism in Defense of Liberty--Does Not Win in Court," Shotgun News, December 1, 2003, 22-23. Politics is a lot like mud wrestling with pigs. There's no way to stay clean when you do it. You won't look dignified afterwards. There is some danger that you will be mistaken for the pig, if you spend too long at it. But there are times that this is the only way to get the ham hanging in the smoke house. The Federal Marriage Amendment Interesting comments by Siflay Hraka, pointing out that many of the criticisms of the Federal Marriage Amendment are similar to the criticisms that almost sank the Thirteenth Amendment (the one that abolished slavery) at the end of the Civil War. I would point out one little error, which explains part of why this was a struggle: The Thirteenth Amendment, the constitutional amendment outlawing slavery, was defeated upon first consideration in the House of Representatives. And this was done by representatives of supposedly free and loyal states, most of whom opposed slavery.Actually, a number of states loyal to the Union were slave, not free, at the start of the Civil War, including at least Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland. (Delaware, I think, abolished slavery in 1864--not sure about the others.) Siflay's mentions Andrew Sullivan's repeated effort to stop the FMA. Pretty obviously, in light of Sullivan's history of seeking random unprotected sex--and Sullivan's HIV+ status--it doesn't sound Sullivan is planning a stable home life with a white picket fence and two dogs in the yard. The Cell Phone Gun I've seen news reports from Europe that criminals are beginning to get caught with "cell phones" that fire .22 LR. Donald Sensing has a report, including video from a friend in law enforcement firing one. This Post Is Just To Annoy Meryl Yourish From Jeff Jacoby's Boston Globe article appropriately titled, "An Auschwitz in Korea": It is not exactly news that the communist regime of Kim Jong Il has sent millions of North Koreans to early graves. Estimates back in 1998 were that as many as 800,000 people were dying in North Korea each year from starvation and malnutrition caused by Kim's ruthless and irrational policies. World Vision, a Christian relief organization, calculated that 1 million to 2 million North Koreans had been killed by "a full-scale famine" largely of Pyongyang's creation.Ooooh! According to Meryl Yourish's definition, Jacoby is a Holocaust denier, because he is clearly asserting that the Holocaust isn't unique. Obviously, the U.S. can't do anything about this evil. If it does, the left will get all self-righteous, and start chanting, "No blood for kim-chee" or whatever nonsense they have imagined today legitimizes mass murder and torture in the Third World. Iraq As Flypaper A number of bloggers (myself included) have been saying for some months that Iraq is flypaper for al-Qaeda--they flock to Iraq to attack coalition forces. Better in Iraq than North America. This news report from Down Under seems to confirm that the candle flame is attracting moths from very long distances: LARGELY seen until recently as a logistical base for Islamic terrorists, Italy has become a departure point for suicide attackers linked to al-Qaeda and active against US-led forces in Iraq, according to an Italian intelligence report released today.Coalition forces are fighting these thugs half a world away--and probably depleting the supply of dangerous Islamic extremists in Europe. This can only be a good thing for the future peace of Europe. More Evidence of Brutal Abuse By U.S. Forces at Gitmo From the British Telegraph: An Afghan boy whose 14-month detention by US authorities as a terrorist suspect in Cuba prompted an outcry from human rights campaigners said yesterday that he enjoyed his time in the camp.I rather suspect it wasn't quite summer camp for the adults there, but still, you would think after all the ferocious--and ferociously wrong--predictions and misguesses by the professional American haters that they would learn to shut up more, so as not to look so foolish. I wonder if the problem is that the left knows how it would treat its enemies--in the style of their heroes Stalin, Mao, and Castro--and just assumes that the U.S. must be every bit as evil. Gay Marriage: An Interesting Divide This AP wire service story reports on a recent poll (Feb. 5-8) about gay marriage: In polling conducted by the National Annenberg Election Survey, people said by a 2-1 margin - 60 percent to 31 percent - that they oppose any similar law legalizing same-sex marriage in their states.There are several ways to read this. It would appear that about 18% of Americans do not want gay marriages to be legally recognized--but also don't want a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage. I find myself wondering which is the case: 1. This 18% wants the states to have the authority to legalize gay marriage in the future. 2. This 18% was rejecting either the particular text of this amendment that was presented to them, or the polling question's description of that amendment. Keep in mind that there are those who argue that the current Federal Marriage Amendment would prohibit state legislatures from recognizing gay marriage or civil unions; others who argue the text would prohibit state legislatures from recognizing gay marriages; other who argue that the text would only prohibit judges from imposing gay marriage on the states. The language of the proposed FMA is not as clear as I would like. What we may be seeing is that 18% of the population doesn't want judges imposing gay marriage, and their objection to an amendment banning gay marriage may be because they perceive that the FMA would preclude legislatures from adopting gay marriage or civil union laws. UPDATE: Don Quixote says that there might be a third reason: people whose objection is to judicial tyranny on this matter. Judges shouldn't be imposing their wishes on the people. That's the legislature's job. Mel Gibson's Film: Surprise Hit? From that well-known anti-Semitic and evangelical Christian publication, Variety (that's a joke, son): (Variety) The movie that couldn't find a distributor a year ago is now poised to become this year's first surprise hit.All those who spent months ranting and raving about Gibson's movie being anti-Semitic without having seen it? Mel should send them flowers. I am once again somewhat torn by this. On the one hand, it tells me that large numbers of Americans--enough to create a groundswell of excitement for a movie--identify themselves as Christians. On the other hand, someone is watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and thinks it is cute or funny. |
