Proud Member of the VRWC

Bush and Hitler Both Wore Socks!

2005-06-22T08:59:00.000-07:00

Chris' post on the Durbin remarks received some interesting comments, to which I've responded here. Moral idiocy abounds.

Letter From the Cal. State Bar

2005-06-07T20:21:00.000-07:00

"The Committee of Bar Examiners is pleased to advise you that you have been found to possess the good moral character required for certification to practice law in California."

Well move over Mother Theresa, I might just be sainted.

Multi-State Bar Exam Practice Question

2005-06-06T16:01:00.000-07:00

Concerned over the growing number of murders, robberies, and other violent crimes being committed with guns, Congress enacted the Federal Firearm Control Act, which, inter alia, levied a tax of 5% of the sales price on every long weapon (rifle or shotgun) sold in the Unite States. The proceeds of the tax were earmarked for use by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The Act provided for exceptions from its terms for police departments and the military. Ron, a shotgun collector and member of Americans for Freedom, a national gun owners' association, brings suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the 5% tax on long weapons is unconsitutional.

How will the court likely rule?

(A) The tax is unconstitutional, because it infringes on the constitutional right of every citizen to bear arms.

(B) The tax is unconstitutional, because its effect is not limited to long weapons sold in interstate commerce, and thus will be applied to weapons sold entirely intrastate.

(C) The tax is constitutional as an exercise of the federal power to raise revenue.

(D) The tax is constitutional, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution.

I'm sure you can guess which answer I wanted to choose. I would be wrong, but venture a guess as to the correct answer.

An Education on Mitt Romney

2005-05-29T22:41:00.000-07:00

The June 6 edition of The Weekly Standard is running a detailed piece on Mitt Romney, his religion (also mine), and his presidential possibilities. It's a long article and well worth the read. I didn't know a whole lot about the man, and I was duly impressed by what I read. Given this kind of praise, and Condi's recent statements on a presidential slot, maybe RYAR will change his blog's name to RomneyRice2008.

Little tidbits I did not know:

Harry Reid is LDS?!
Mormons went 95/5 for Bush in 2004.
...88/12 in 2000.
1999 polling data suggested "that 17 percent of Americans wouldn't vote for a Mormon for president under any circumstances."
Romney has taken a pro-choice approach as governor, but describes himself as pro-life.

Him sharing my faith completely aside, he sounds like an impressive candidate. Read the article.

You knew it was only a matter of time

2005-05-27T10:26:00.000-07:00

Linked by Drudge to this awkwardly headlined BBC report:

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

This article has really got some gems:

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

Given the reputation of British cuisine, the finding is perhaps understandable.

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

Wait, I thought they didn't have any practical value in the kitchen?! How will we cut our ripe melons?

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

Might as well say that the link between violent assault and weapons in general is long established. What a shocker.

French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.

Oh, well, there we go. That settles it for me. If it's good enough for the French...

Get a Real Job

2005-05-26T11:41:00.000-07:00

So I'm watching a news story last night about the debate on Bolton in the Senate. The news story stated that Republicans were hopeful there would be a vote today before the Senate breaks for the Memorial Day weekend. Am I to understand that the Senators take Friday off in addition to Monday? Give me a break.

Constitutional Duty Averted

2005-05-24T10:52:00.000-07:00

Phew! That was a close one! The senate almost made a rule that would require its members to do their constitutional duty. Good thing we averted that crisis.

What horse pucky.

I don't have a whole lot to say that hasn't been said by others. Just a few points:

I disagree with those conservative commentators (and apparently 7 Republican senators) who think the compromise is a good thing because the majority party will not have to face the public opinion backlash of a rule change. What public opinion backlash? The public at large understands that 1) the senate checks the executive by voting yes or no on his judicial appointments, and 2) majority rules. Those who believe there would have been backlash simply bought into the substance-free sophistry of the obstructionists, or at least believe that the American people have. I don't believe that's the case.

I could fisk some of that sophistry (particularly the senseless garbage coming from Harry Reid) here but it would be a waste of space. When the nominees are confirmed by overwhelming majorities, the public will see who really controls the Democratic party and how their objections (out of the mainstream, radical right wing, etc.) mean nothing.

The "extraordinary circumstances" clause: Maybe it's just that my bar prep software is currently stuck on the topic of contract law, but this provision of the agreement seems to render the Democrats' promise illusory. It's not defined, and there has already been comment from the left to the effect of "a Supreme Court nominee is, by definition, an extraordinary circumstance." The far left obstructionists will not have a hard time concocting some "extraordinary circumstances."

The preservation argument: Some were opposed to the "nuclear option" because it would mean that Republicans could not filibuster in the future if they found themselves in the minority with a Dem President. The only way that position is at all principled is if the holder is not opposed in any way to what the Democrats are doing. I don't think that's the case.

And let's not forget The Constitution: The President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges. . .." That consent comes in the form of a yay or nay vote on the nominee. In my mind, if the Senate fails to vote on a nominee after a reasonable amount of time, the Senate's tacit consent is implied in fact. That may just be the litigator in me - you raise your objection or you waive it.

This agreement is a temporary solution. This is a real fight we will have to face eventually. It's saddening that the GOP couldn't face it with some cajones the first time up... because it will never be easier.

Old Post, Fresh Action

2005-05-21T08:12:00.000-07:00

Getting some significant action on an old post. Follow it to read my debate with the liberal secularist. "Would Jesus be such a bastard?" I seriously doubt the poster believes one iota in Jesus as the Great Example of how to live, but liberal secularists love to throw that in our face along with the argument that if we're not living up to the perfect example established by the central figure of our faith then we are somehow hypocrites not worth listening to.

Movie Talk

2005-05-20T12:59:00.000-07:00

Can't remember what movie we rented the other day that showed a trailer for The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, but it looked stunning. Found the official site here, which has a good-sized trailer for viewing. Can't wait for that. The only problem I see - it's coming from Disney. They will do Lewis a great disservice if they water down the powerful metaphors of Christianity that the book contains.

Also saw a couple trailers for Batman Begins, which looks excellent. It's gonna be a good summer.

Runaway Jury

2005-05-18T23:03:00.000-07:00

My old lady rented Runaway Jury from the library the other day. I watched it tonight. What a load of anti-gun tripe. I expressed such sentiment and the wife said "the movie's not really about the guns." Well of course it's not. Like all good propaganda its principal message is (not so) subtly played out in the sub-text.

Rice Supports Second Amendment

2005-05-12T10:43:00.000-07:00

Wow, two posts in two days on the Second Amendment. This blog might actually live up to its URL.

Linked by Drudge to this report on Condoleezza's views on the Second Amendment as shared on Larry King Live. "The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment." How un-black of her.

Second Amendment Non-Incorporation

2005-05-10T10:46:00.000-07:00

Linked by Chris to this post by The Interocitor on the recent case out of the Second Circuit, Bach v. Pataki, which held that the Second Amendment is only enforcable against the federal government. Read the post. I'll be reading the opinion and possibly posting on it later.

Gotta Love The Trial Lawyers

2005-05-03T22:15:00.000-07:00

Nice. It takes final exam avoidance to get me to post.

Just opened our American Express bill and had to laugh. There was one item. It was a credit of 41 cents. The description read: "CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT/BOEHR". Times like this that I'm so grateful we have trial lawyers in our country who are ever dedicated to the pursuit of justice. How much you wanna bet the firm on the case got 40 mill? We need serious reform.

Taxes That Fit The... Drive

2005-02-15T14:13:00.000-08:00

California's legislature is considering taxing drivers for the number of miles they drive each year. It has a chance if it will replace the gasoline tax, but if it's in addition to, then there's no way. I've been in favor of this for years. I feel that ideally, any tax should be narrowly tailored so that those who use the services that the tax pays for, are the ones being taxed. This is just such a tax. They would, however, need to create a few different tiers because large trucks and buses really do the most damage to the roads; motorcycles very little.

The Same Thing We Do Every Night

2005-01-27T10:25:00.000-08:00

"Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy
***
...an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains."

Hacks. It's been done.

Thoughts on the "Religious Right"

2004-12-22T22:26:00.000-08:00

Since the election there has been much hysteria from commentators on the left about the "religious right" and how it wants to make America a theocracy and cram its values down everyone's throat through legislation. Many were referring to the ballot initiatives in eleven states asking whether gay marriage should be legal. Others may have been referring simply to our choosing a decidedly pro-life president. The role of religious faith in political life is an issue on which I've struggled to define my position. But recent events and commentary have caused me to evaluate it more vigorously.

The common gripe from the left is that the so-called "Christian Right" legislates its values, thereby imposing its religion on others. I have friends who are conservative and non-religious. Their response is typically that there are principles wholly apart from religion that shape their conservative position on tough issues. But I will confess that on particular issues my position is wholly shaped by my religious beliefs. My inner debate has revolved around an apparent contradiction in my personal policy. To illustrate the contradiction, consider my own religious creed which guides me to abstain entirely from the consumption of alcohol. And yet, if there were a ballot initiative in California to reinstate prohibition, I would vote against it. Contrast that with the clear position of my own sect opposing abortion. If I were a legislator, I would vote for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. So why the difference? Why, in one situation am I willing to allow my knowledge of right and wrong to shape my vote, and in the other I am not?

I turned to the LDS canon for some guidance. What follows are my thoughts on Doctrine & Covenants Section 134, "[a] declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835.":

1 WE believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

Okay, so right off the bat, government is a good thing. But this accountability is what you have to keep in mind for the rest of the section. Lefty secularists and atheists (LSA) have got to understand that if we happen to believe in a Supreme Being who will one day hold us accountable for all of our actions, including those in relation to government, then those principles that we believe to be handed down by the Supreme Being, are going to guide our actions (votes).

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

So the LSA might see verse 4 and argue that I should not allow my religious opinions to prompt me to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. But the response is that our rights and liberties are defined by the law through the democratic process; a process controlled by a majority that is Christian. The Christian feels the duty of verse 1 and allows that duty to prompt him in making and administering laws. Those laws define the rights and liberties of others. Use abortion as an example: The law of our land currently grants a right to women to have an abortion. If a Christian, especially one in a position of power and influence, guided by religious opinion, were to prevent a woman from getting an abortion she wants, that would be wrong. But Christians voting in ways designed to eradicate the right to an abortion is not a violation of verse 4, and is in line with the duty of verse 1. Now, skipping to verse 9:

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

This might be another verse that the LSA would grab a hold of, reading everything up to the first comma as his own argument that we are unjustly mixing religion and government. But the clause cannot be read without the modifying material that follows it. I think the word "influence" is key. We're clearly talking about a situation where one religion allows its influence to proscribe the spiritual privileges of another religious society. How do you proscribe the spiritual privileges of atheists? "Bah, you're squelching my nihilism!" Don't think so. Notice also the mention of rights (see last comment). We must also consider this in the larger context of the verse 1 duty.

Those were the high points of the section that I wanted to hit. The section and my analysis of it do not answer my internal contradiction. I think the answer lies more in policy distinctions from issue to issue and questions of degree. There's just a line I don't want to see society cross. The LSA's of America just have to understand that most Americans believe in God, believe that He is a heckuva lot smarter than we, and that He will hold us accountable for our actions on earth. The left would prefer that we just roll over and say, "yeah, forget all that god stuff. In the voting booth I'll just pretend he doesn't exist, just to keep you happy." They ridicule the "Christian Right"; lumping us in with those who have been abducted by aliens; claiming that our faith and testimony are nothing more than feelings. I would ask: what is liberalism? It's based on feeling and it's their religion. They would rather that we allow them to impose their religion on us. So what are they complaining about? Simply that we're in the majority.

Atheist/Secular Left "Resents" Charitable Giving

2004-12-16T10:39:00.000-08:00

Christmas Tree Controversy
December 15, 2004
By Molly Shen
BELLEVUE - You can't miss the Christmas tree in Bellevue City Hall.
"It's decorated with gold balls and gold ribbon," described a city worker.
They don't actually call it a Christmas tree.
"We call it the giving tree because it's meant as a season of giving and that's what it's for," explained Patrice Cole, who just made a donation.
The tree is adorned with requests for gifts from needy families.
It generates nearly $25,000 dollars worth of donations.
So, you might be surprised [no, not really] that Sidney Stock would look at this tree and say, "I resent it."
Sidney and Jennifer Stock are atheists.

Such an interesting choice of words "resent." I can almost, almost wrap my head around the notion that it makes them feel uncomfortable, or unwelcome, but their true colors come out when they say they resent it. What is it about religious principles - heck, not even religious principles - but just plain good principles (like charitable giving) that may be derived from a religious tradition, that these people resent so much?

They asked the city council to remove the tree because it represents Christmas which is a Christian holiday.
Stock says city hall should "Act as a place where everybody feels welcome. It is impossible for everybody's religious belief to be displayed and non-religious belief to be displayed, so therefore, no religious beliefs be displayed."

I agree there. It is impossible to display non-religious belief. Maybe you could do it in a modern art museum. Everyone could stare at an empty space and ooh and ahh over the beautiful symbol of atheism.

The courts already sided with the city on this one.
Barbara Ramey, spokesperson for the city explained. "Courts have ruled that Christmas trees are actually a secular symbol so given that, we are within the court precedents set on this issue," says Ramey.
The Stocks complained after a city worker told them the tree makes him feel out of place, and if he says so, he fears for his job.

If only you had a legal right to not feel out of place, or unwelcome, or uncomfortable, or offffennded. Why should we care so much about how you feel? That's something only you can control.

The couple's already gotten hate filled phone calls, but they speak out anyway, because they believe many people feel the way they do but stay silent.
"There are a lot of people who've come to this country, maybe have been here for years, who don't feel freedom to say anything," says Jennifer Stock. "So we feel we're saying it for those people. Not just for ourselves."

Again, they don't feel freedom to say anything, but they have that freedom nonetheless. But how they feel must be of some legal significance. Right?

The city doesn't plan to take the tree down and expects it will go up again next year.
They can also expect to hear from the Stocks.
Sidney Stock points out that to bring about change, you have to stir the pot.
"I try and be aware of injustice and inequality when it effects anybody or everybody," he says. "Certainly this is something that has been a problem for as long as I can remember."

How is this an injustice? How is this an inequality? How is it a problem? And how did the author of this article manage to miss the difference between "effect" and "affect?" The court precedents further point out that this kind of a public forum should be open to all viewpoints. So has Stock asked the city if he can post his own atheist display? If he has and they denied him, then there might be an inequality, but his naked feeling of resentment doesn't create a legal injustice or inequality. This malignant narcissism just drives me bonkers. I wish someone like this could just articulate for me what it is that's so wrong with this situation. (Note: see this post and the Rosen link.)

President’s daughter applies for job at D.C. public school

2004-12-15T13:19:00.000-08:00

Gee, do you think she'll get the job? And get a load of the schools name: Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom Public Charter School. That's a mouthful. I wonder if they just call it EWSCFPCS; ya know, like ooskuf-pics. Not funny I know.

Blue America: The land of the easily offended

2004-12-10T18:54:00.000-08:00

Dennis Prager's latest article is a good reflection on yet another difference between liberals and conservatives. One aspect which he failed to mention is that so many liberals are secularists or atheists, and so liberalism is their religion. It's easy to be offended when someone attacks your religion. For so many (religious) conservatives they are Christians/Jews/Other first, Americans second, and conservatives third. So if you insult their conservatism it kind of rolls off their backs. I was intrigued to see that my particular minority made his list.

Update: Mike Rosen's weekly piece provides a specific example of the phenomonen.

FDA Not Seeing the Big Picture

2004-12-02T13:08:00.000-08:00

I've always somewhat disliked the FDA for its tendency to block potentially life-saving drugs from the marketplace. But that tendency has never really hit close to home for me... until now.

P&G Female Sex-Drive Patch Stirs Safety Concerns

P&G studied about 1,000 women who said they were bothered by low sex drive and, on average, reported three satisfying sexual experiences per month. The number increased to five for women who were treated with Intrinsa, but also rose to four for women given a dummy patch.

"Is an increase in approximately one sexually satisfying encounter a month ... worth the possibility of an increase in breast cancer or coronary artery disease?" asked Dr. Sidney Wolfe, head of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. He urged the FDA panel to reject the drug.

Wolfe isn't seeing the big picture. How large an increase in sexually satisfying encounters did the man experience? And how did that improve the relationship? Huh? Tell me that! I think we all know why these male scientists are trying to develop this patch. They must have this data.

Look for the tongue in the cheek people.

Increase in Freedom Enrages Left

2004-11-24T23:34:00.000-08:00

A classmate who shall remain nameless just sent this Suzanne Goldenberg article to the student body. The student's preface read as follows:

It's starting already... Want to make a difference? Call your House Representative and Senators and tell them, as a constituent, that you disapprove of this bill. Tell them that this bill constitutes an _undue burden_ under the Planned Parenthood v. Casey test*, reminding them that, regardless of one's own personal beliefs, constitutional rights are just that, and cannot be overturned by acts of Congress (e.g., Congress is not allowed to permit segregation). Let them know you don't want to begin the holidays thinking about all of the women who are about to experience great bodily harm or even death because Congress has helped to prevent access to safe abortions.

My response (to the student body) read as follows:

Congress adds a clause to its spending bill allowing hospitals and insurance companies to refuse to perform abortions.

This sounds like an increase in freedom to me. Women are still free to seek abortions and have them performed, they've just gotta find someone willing to perform it. And those groups who find abortion morally repugnant are free to decline to perform the procedure. It's kind of the way the world works for countless goods and services. I have the constitutional right to bear arms, but the gun dealer can certainly refuse to sell to me. Forcing a doctor, under color of state law, to perform a procedure that he finds morally repugnant, itself violates constitutional freedoms of association and free exercise. Abortion may be a constitutional right under Roe v. Wade, but it's not an affirmative right. Somehow I don't think women are going to have a hard time finding someone willing to terminate their respective fetuses. Where's the beef?

They still don't get it . . . and that's good.

2004-11-24T23:07:00.000-08:00

Last night on campus the Democrat club sponsored an event entitled "Post-Election Panel: Why We Lost and What We Can Do." The panel consisted of four professors who ranged from leftist-but-reasonable to I-love-Michael-Moore leftist. As a Republican, I have to say that the event was very, very encouraging. When I got to ask my question the moderator made it clear that I am the President of the Republican club on campus. As a result, I was waylaid by a gentleman after the event who wanted to "ask me a question." He certainly took his time getting to the question. He had earlier said (in the event) that America is a terrorist nation, so I asked him to tell me which country in the world is the greatest moral force for good on earth. His answer: Cuba! Gosh they're fun.

New Reason to Like Bush

2004-11-20T22:26:00.000-08:00

Linked by Drudge to this AP piece on an odd little confrontation between Chilean security officials and Bush's Secret Service agents. This was either a highly embarassing but honest mistake, or an insulting and threatening stunt. All I know is if I were in Bush's position I would immediately suspect an ambush of sorts. It appears that he wasn't immediately aware of it though. But the fact that he goes back and gets a little mussed up for his boys... I love this guy. "The president, looking irritated...." Uh, yeah. Would have been hilarious to see the SS agents just drop the guys to the floor and walk in.

Liberal, or Limbaugh?

2004-11-17T13:34:00.000-08:00

Linked by Drudge to this report that Limbaugh's case is going to the Florida Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see whether the liberal court can look past the individual bringing the suit and hold that a constitutional right was violated here. I imagine that the liberal court would want to find such a right to privacy, but for Limbaugh...?

Move Them On

2004-11-17T10:48:00.000-08:00

Pointed by Republican Dan to this highly amusing site. A couple weeks ago I would have sent it to the student body here at school as many students were moaning about moving to Canada.

We have received so many e-mails from citizens of our selected partner countries (particularly Canada) offering to exchange places with U.S. citizens wishing to leave that we are now working on a Citizen Exchange Program.

Carter's Words on Arafat:

2004-11-11T22:43:00.000-08:00

"Yasser Arafat's death marks the end of an era and will no doubt be painfully felt by Palestinians throughout the Middle East and elsewhere in the world," Carter said.
"He was the father of the modern Palestinian nationalist movement. A powerful human symbol and forceful advocate, Palestinians united behind him in their pursuit of a homeland," he said in a statement distributed by his Atlanta, Georgia-based Carter Center.
He said that while Arafat provided "indispensable leadership to a revolutionary movement" and played a key role in forging a peace agreement with Israel in 1993, he was excluded from negotiations in recent years.
"My hope is that an emerging Palestinian leadership can benefit from Arafat's experiences, be welcomed to the peace process by (Israeli) Prime Minister (Ariel) Sharon and (US) President (George W.) Bush, and be successful in helping to forge a
Palestinian state living in harmony with their Israeli neighbors," Carter said.

Look at the moral clarity in those remarks. From a strictly textual standpoint, Carter has managed to take no moral stand on the "legacy" of Arafat. In the opening he refrains from saying that Arafat's death will be painfully felt by him. And he's a powerful human symbol, but of what? He was a forceful advocate for what? Is that what we call terrorism now, forceful advocacy? And yes, I'm sure his leadership was indispensable to those who followed him, and their movement was in some sick way "revolutionary." And perhaps by "experiences" Carter means that the new leadership can learn from Arafat's mistakes. Carter has managed to praise Arafat without actually taking a moral stand on his life. Carter is a moral imbecile.

Validation...

2004-11-10T10:07:00.000-08:00

...among computer geeks anyway. I was published on page 57 of the Nov. 30 issue of PC Magazine. Yay. Text follows:

It was ironic to find such an elitist piece of drivel as Dvorak's "The Zeros vs. the Ones" in a magazine dedicated to the PC, this generation's most powerful symbol of egalitarianism. Its offspring, the internet, is no less of an equalizer in an information marketplace dominated by individuals of the same political persuasion. The internet is not a passive medium. That Dvorak feels "confronted" by the opinions of people he believes to be disturbed or feeble-minded perhaps says more about Dvorak than it does about the Net.

Cuts Both Ways I Think

2004-11-07T21:49:00.000-08:00

Coulter's latest piece rants about the polls:

The exit polls were absurd: They showed Kerry winning Pennsylvania by 20 points and Bush tied with Kerry in Mississippi. Only monkey business can explain the wildly pro-Kerry exit polls – admittedly hard to believe with a party that has behaved so honorably throughout this campaign. Michael Barone speculates that the sites of exit polling were leaked to the Democrats, and Democrats sent large numbers of voters to those polls to take exit polls and throw the results.

She reasons that "[e]arly exit polls showing Kerry the clear winner could be expected to depress the vote for Bush." It would seem to cut both ways in my mind. It would have to be a huge margin for the fired-up Republican to just say, "aw screw it" and not vote. Polls showing Kerry well ahead could light a fire under Republicans to get out and vote, and could also motivate Democrats to say, "ah, he's got it in the bag, I don't need to go to the polls." Polls showing Bush ahead could have mirrored effects in my mind.

New State Added To The Union!

2004-11-01T15:03:00.000-08:00

Bush, Kerry Squeeze Every Hour to Campaign
Kerry, saying he felt "fabulous," headed for Milwaukee, too, a state Al Gore won in 2000 and the Democrats cannot afford to lose this year.

Congratulations to Milwaukee on becoming a state!

Why does it tickle my funny bone so much that Kerry said he felt "fabulous?"

Not a Bad Response

2004-10-27T09:25:00.000-07:00

Bush is finally making some response to Kerry's wild allegations on the weapons stashes, according to Drudge. It's not a bad one; I think it does what it needs to do (point out what this says about the candidate) at this stage in the game. It would be nice though if the Bush camp neutralized the media threat as well - if they got something out there to tell the uninformed that they can't believe what they read/hear in the main stream press over the next week.

Been a while since my last post. Everyone at home is sick. I'm exhausted. Sorry.

California Propositions

2004-10-16T21:21:00.000-07:00

Here's how I'll be voting on the 16 propositions being placed on the California General Election ballot on November 2:

Prop. 1A - YES - I'm all about moving control of taxpayer dollars closer to the people. The more local the control, the better.
Prop. 59 - YES - I'm always in favor of government processes being more open to public scrutiny. The only argument in opposition is that it doesn't go far enough. Well let's start somewhere.
Prop. 60 - YES - This proposition protects what is already in place as far as our primary elections. Since it doesn't change anything I was going to vote NO, but I want my YES vote to cancel out any YES that some idiot might cast for 62. (The State Constitution provides that if the provisions of two approved propositions are in conflict, only the provisions of the measure with the higher number of yes votes at the statewide election take effect.) Keep our primaries closed!
Prop. 61 - NO - Oh I'm sure someone will accuse me of hating the children, but I vote NO on all bond initiatives on principle. There is so much fat in our state budget that could be cut in order to pay these hospital projects. Not to mention the millions of illegal aliens that cause such a drain on our healthcare services.
Prop. 62 - NO!! - Keep our primaries closed. If this passes, Democrats will be able to monkey around with the Republican's primary and vice-a-versa. Not only that, but it would potentially place two Democrats on the general election ballot for any given state-wide office. I really hope this one goes down in flames.
Prop. 63 - NO - An increase in state income taxes (that it's only 1% and only on income over $1 million is irrelevant to me - see Prop. 61) to pay for mental health services? Forget it.
Prop. 64 - YES!! - The text on the ballot says it best: "Allows individual or class action 'unfair business' lawsuits only if actual loss suffered...." Duh! Stop shakedown lawsuits. If you've got a real claim, you won't be barred. Otherwise, let the Attorney General handle it.
Prop. 65 - YES - Prop. 1A better accomplishes what this proposition was meant to. So there's no argument in favor of 65 in the info guide, because its proponents are now asking you to vote YES on 1A instead. Given the parenthetical in my Prop. 60 explanation, I'll vote YES on this one anyway, so that if 1A goes down, 65 may still have a chance of applying. (Yeah, right, if I were the only one voting.)
Prop. 66 - NO! - "Limits 'Three Strikes' law to violent and/or serious felonies. Permits limited resentencing under new definitions." 'Nuff said. But of course I'll say more. I don't care if they're violent felonies or just felonies, put 'em in jail. Under the "limited" resentencing, we could see some really bad guys released if this thing passes.
Prop. 67 - NO!! - It's a cell phone tax to bail out the state's E.R.'s because illegal aliens aren't paying their E.R. bills. Its proponents pushed it as a big boost to the 911 system. Less than 1% of it goes to the 911 system. Just another tax to help a fiscally irresponsible legislature. Vote no.
Prop. 68 - NO - My Libertarian tendencies urge me to legalize gambling everywhere. But this is not that. It's unprecedented preferential treatment for some special interests.
Prop. 69 - NO - I'm all in favor of collecting a felon's DNA once he's been convicted in a court of law, but this would collect DNA samples from people who have merely been arrested or charged with particular felonies (and starting in 2009, any felony). The proponents argue that there is a way to have your sample expunged from the data bank once you're exonerated. I read the provisions on that, and frankly, they involve some pretty burdensome procedural steps. But the kicker was this: "The court has the discretion to grant or deny the request for expungement. The denial of a request for expungement is a nonappealable order and shall not be reviewed by petition for writ." Me no likey. Nope, sorry, don't trust that discretion on such an important matter as having your DNA side-by-side with convicted felons. As for the program as a whole, I believe that the more samples you have in the data bank, the greater the statistical probability of false positives. I accept a system that lets some guilty people go as the price of not putting any innocent people behind bars.
Prop. 70 - NO - See Prop. 68. I understand that part of the agreement would exempt the tribes from any audit to verify that they are paying what's due. Ridiculous.
Prop. 71 - NO - It's a bond initiative, so off the bat, NO. But it's also for stem cell research, an area that I find fraught with ethical dangers.
Prop. 72 - NO, NO, NO and a THOUSAND TIMES, NO!!! - It's a job killer! It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. People actually think they're helping someone by passing this kind of garbage. Tell me, if you employ 23 people and this thing passes, what are you going to do? You're going to have to fire three or four people! How have you helped anyone? Say you employ 40 people. You're still going to have to fire enough people to save enough to pay for the health insurance of the rest of your employees. Some may say that 30 odd people having health insurance and a handful being out of a job is better than 40 people not having any health insurance. But why should government mandate that decision?! Never mind that 20 of those employees might turn down health insurance, never wanted it in the first place. Leave personal choice and freedom of contract alone! People know what they're getting when they take a job. Don't force companies to fire people to obey this law. Don't force businesses out of the state. I really, really, really hope this thing goes down. If it doesn't, then California voters are stupid. They elected Arnold on the platform of making CA more employer friendly. A NO vote on this garbage is right in line with that platform. Let's hope they're consistent.
County Measure A - NO - "[S]hall the Countywide sales tax be increased by one-half cent...?" Uh, no.

Happy voting!

Liberal Bias at Blockbuster?

2004-10-15T15:50:00.000-07:00

So I go to blockbuster.com and look at the complete list of new releases, sorted by release date. The first 15 movies listed included such titles as:

Is there a possible liberal bias at Blockbuster? I don't know if any of the conservative documentaries screened at the Liberty Film Festival are out on DVD yet, but you can be sure I'll look out for them on Blockbuster's new release list.

New Kerry Ad

2004-10-12T13:21:00.000-07:00

The RNC has put out this new "attack" ad on Kerry. You know it's pretty bad when the opposing party's "attack" ad features nothing more than unaltered footage of your candidate. So why are they nearly tied in the polls? Because the half doesn't care that Kerry wears so many masks - they just hate Bush.

Rice Romney Off and Running

2004-10-11T14:03:00.000-07:00

RYAR hits the ground running with this display of Kerry's elitist tendencies. Number Two was my personal favorite. Kerry's phrasing was stunning:

And looking around here at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected....

Translation: "I can tell just by looking at you all that you're a bunch of vagrants they pulled off the streets. You all stink, you filthy low class pigs. Get some class. I'm so much better than you. (Oh, and I have a plan to save you.)"

Prosecutor Kerry

2004-10-10T22:46:00.000-07:00

Chris points out this recent Kerry quote:

"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply.
"As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

Sadly, Chris' blog won't let me post a comment more than 1,000 characters. In all fairness, Kerry's first statement can be construed to say that we have to get back to when they were just a nuisance. But the follow up does reinforce my own belief that Kerry would treat the war on terror as an international law enforcement action. I found this response by Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer to be interesting: "John Kerry has always said that terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the U.S." Uh, that's not really true. Consider what Kerry said in the first debate. What's the number one threat to U.S. security? "Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear Proliferation." See my post on that (scroll to #3). He took his sweet time to add the qualifier: "oh yeah, especially in light of those terrorist guys."

Now be fair Chris. John Kerry said he would hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are. Don't you believe him? The scary thing to me is, the American public doesn't have access to the intelligence that the President has. How would we know whether John Kerry was living up to that promise or not?

Can Any Kerry Supporter Defend Him?

2004-10-05T22:52:00.000-07:00

Dennis Prager's latest article documents the contradiction which is John Kerry. These are issues which Kerry supporters must face and answer for themselves before voting for the man. Sadly, I think many Kerry supporters recognize the phenomenon all too well, accept it, and will vote for him because they are just as liberal and dovish as they know him truly to be.

Dems, Reps, and Southern Reps

2004-10-05T13:18:00.000-07:00

I don't plan to post every amusing email that I receive (this one from RiceRomney), but this one is certainly in keeping with the URL of this blog, so here goes.

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?
Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican? What with elections coming up, we should all decide. Question: How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans and Southern Republicans? The answer can be found by posing the following question:You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Doesthe man look poor or Oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why amI carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this sendto society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican's Answer:
BANG!

Southern Republican's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click....(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click... Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?

Oh, That Global Test

2004-10-04T13:18:00.000-07:00

Linked by RiceRomney to this hilarious and interactive depiction of John Kerry's global test. Enjoy. I'm always amazed at how quickly someone puts something like this online.

Lunacy of the Left

2004-10-04T09:09:00.000-07:00

Linked by Drudge to story of Shiba

Veteran English teacher Shiba Pillai-Diaz says she was shocked when three parents confronted her. The three, insisting the teacher either add John Kerry's photo to the montage of presidents or remove the Bush photo.

Emphasis mine. Counting their chickens before they hatch? The article doesn't say whether Clinton's picture was included.

Debate Thoughts

2004-10-01T23:15:00.000-07:00

The pundits are all over the map today. Many say that John Kerry won because he looked more "presidential" and sounded more authoritative. Sycophants like Hugh Hewitt say that Bush killed Kerry. Most commentators from the right feel that Bush really missed some opportunities, but that he did well overall. That's about where I am. Bush did fail to take advantage of some great opportunities, but in the end I think it was a positive thing for Bush, and I'll tell you why.

We all know that John Kerry is a far left, beatnik, appeasing, anti-war liberal. But he's got to convince Americans that he can fight tough in the war on terror and in Iraq. He tried to do that last night, but there were some golden moments in the debate where the true John Kerry reared his giant head:

(1) Statements like, "I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden" or "The president moved the troops so he's got ten times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was ten times more important than . . . Osama bin Laden? I don't think so." These and similar statements tended to show Kerry's would-be approach to the war on terrorism - that is, treating it like a global law enforcement action. OBL is one man. Sure, he's significant, but no American seriously believes that we need even ten thousand troops hunting for him. President Bush put this away nicely by saying that we can do both. This didn't show Kerry's ultra-liberal side, but it was a major point where John Q. Public probably felt Kerry was out of touch.

(2) On preemptive strike: "But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." With the phrase "your countrymen, your people" sandwhiched between the words "global" and "world" I really think your average American was scratching his head in bewilderment. John Kerry's countrymen, John Kerry's people, seem to include unelected leaders of foreign states and corrupt U.N. officials. Bush nailed this one too. Global test?! You gotta be kidding me. Kerry painted a picture here of a president that seeks international approval before protecting America. Not what Americans want right now.

(3) Kerry's biggest screwup, and it's huge. Lehrer asked what he sees as "the single-most serious threat to the national security of the United States." His response: "Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation." And then he goes on for some 67 words before making any reference to terrorists whatsoever, and even then it was a squishy reference to an "international criminal network." Finally, in the next sentence he says, "there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today." Now they didn't have the questions in advance, so there are two possibilities: (A) They anticipated this question and made the dumbest decision imaginable in how to answer; or (B) the true Kerry jumped out of the box without thinking first. When your average citizen hears "nuclear proliferation" without any qualifier whatsoever he recalls the 80's and the anti-proliferation nuts like John Kerry who turned out to be wrong. Your average citizen asks, "how is nuclear proliferation the biggest threat if it's Britain, or the U.S., or Australia, etc. that's getting them?" I literally jumped out of my chair when I didn't immediately hear the root "terror" in his immediate answer. Before Lehrer finished getting the question out, America was expecting the right answer - nuclear devices in the hands of Al Qaeda or their sympathisizers. Bush agreed, but gave it that qualifier. The true anti-weapon Kerry really came out here.

(4) My favorite. It's a beauty:

Right now, the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense. You talk about mixed messages, we're telling other people, you can't have nuclear weapons, but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using. Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down....

Positively amazing. We're telling other people, like Syria, Iran, Libya, and North Korea, that they can't have nuclear weapons, so we shouldn't have any either?! Your average undecided voter heard John Kerry place the U.S. on the same moral plane as these countries! We're pursuing a weapon that we might even contemplate using?! Yeah, idiot, we're not creating them to look pretty. Average Joe hears that we're developing a bomb that will be able to hit Osama even deep in his cave, or hit a Saddam even deep in his bunker, and then hears Kerry say, "I'm going to shut that program down." Couple that with the memories of Zell Miller's speech and you can't have confidence that this man is seriously the stronger candidate to fight terrorism.

Kerry might as well have lit up a joint, donned his tie-dye, held up his two fingers and said, "make love, not nukes."

But my absolute favorite part of the debate, at the very end, which I rewound three times and laughed every time, was the look on Bush's face right after John Kerry said, "[n]ow we have this incredible mess in Iraq, $200 billion. It's not what the American people thought they were getting when they voted." The look on Bush's face said it all - "You idiot, they didn't think they were getting 9/11 when they voted."

These were golden moments that I believe hurt Kerry - that is if anyone was paying attention to the substance. Sadly I think it's style for so many undecideds. Dennis Prager's wish that everyone read the debate, is indeed a good one. I've begun a fisking of the entire text, but who knows if I'll ever finish it.

Tough To Be a Californian

2004-09-30T23:37:00.000-07:00

I received my Voter Information Guide in the mail today. It's 165 pages long! There are 15 propositions on the ballot this election. The Guide doesn't even have anything about the candidates, and one of the propositions will show up later in a supplemental guide. Good grief.

Kerry's Failing, or GOP Rising?

2004-09-29T14:47:00.000-07:00

Linked by Drudge to report that Kerry's numbers are slipping among black voters. "[L]atest poll showed 73 percent of blacks supporting Kerry compared to 12 percent supporting President Bush. In 2000, Al Gore won 90 percent of the black vote." Is this John Kerry's failing, or is the black community waking up to the possibility that the Democratic Party at large does not have its best interests at heart? Time will tell.

Why We're In Iraq

2004-09-29T10:50:00.000-07:00

Two excellent articles at The Weekly Standard by Blair and Hayes make compelling cases for our going into and staying the course in Iraq.

Not Meant To Be

2004-09-29T01:25:00.000-07:00

I spent over an hour on a masterful fisking of Streisand's idiotic rant, only to lose it all when I clicked the Publish Post button. Just read it and recognize the idiocy for yourself.

Run With It Rather

2004-09-26T21:21:00.000-07:00

Received the following picture from Microsoft Widow via email:

Now I don't know if soldiers have a quirky tradition where they wear the American flag with the stars on the right, but regardless, the photo is almost certainly a fake. But I do feel that it portrays an accurate sentiment held by a majority of U.S. soldiers. So I guess if I were Dan Rather I could air it on 60 Minutes.

Just Good, Old-Fashioned Tough Love

2004-09-26T21:05:00.000-07:00

Teacher sends feces home with 6-year-old

A teacher is on paid administrative leave after sending a first-grader home with feces in his backpack because the boy went to the bathroom on the classroom floor.

The teacher apparently was frustrated with the 6-year-old student's actions so wrapped up the waste and sent it home with the boy Tuesday along with a note....

Just trying to teach him to clean up after himself. What's wrong with that? Maybe she's a serious backpacker who packs her own feces out of the wild when she goes... backpacking that is.

Food For Thought: James 1:8

2004-09-24T16:16:00.000-07:00

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Damage Control?

2004-09-24T15:54:00.000-07:00

The CEO of CBS's parent company endorses President Bush.

Damage control? I can't say. I know nothing of Redstone.

Let's hear more from Theresa!

2004-09-24T15:41:00.000-07:00

My kingdom for an online TheresaCam! This woman is Bush's biggest asset in this race. She was in Arizona yesterday. The linked article doesn't seem to contain the quote, but when asked about Kerry's slipping poll numbers in Arizona she said, "so what!? A single state is not a whole state..." I heard the audio myself this morning on Ingraham's show. She says she's embarassed to receive tax cuts advocated by Bush. Well, guess what Mrs. Kerry? You're entirely free to just give the extra money to the federal government. You don't have to take the cut, hypocrite. Of course we know Kerry has taken every possible deduction himself. I also like how the article characterizes a particular Theresa quote:

In regard to the hunt for terror leader Osama Bin Laden, Heinz Kerry said she could see the al-Qaida chief being caught before the November election.

"I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month," said Heinz Kerry, alluding to a possible capture by United States and allied forces before election day.

Yes, "alluding." I don't think her use of the passive verb "appeared" was an allusion to his capture so much as an allusion to the Bush administration rolling him out from wherever they've been hiding him. Crackpot.

Tired Rhetoric

2004-09-24T01:30:00.000-07:00

Got this recently in an email exchange with a classmate:

...the whole free lunch thing too. Nobody is asking for a free lunch. There is a thing called a shared burden or whatever. There is a thing called community. Repubicans don't understand this. There is a thing called helping one's neighbor. there is common courtesy. there is a thing called sacrafice. republicans don't understand any of this. They only understand the greenback and thats all they care about.

I love exposing the mind of the left.

Who Deserves to be Here?

2004-09-22T09:05:00.000-07:00

Yesterday evening our campus chapter of The Federalist Society held a debate on affirmative action. Peter Kirsanow argued against and Professor Manheim from Loyola argued for. It was an excellent event and very well attended. Click here to watch a RealVideo stream of the event. Judge for yourself, but I think Kirsanow kicked Manheim's trash all over the room.

General Thoughts on RatherGate

2004-09-18T21:53:00.000-07:00

Let's just suspend reality for a moment and pretend that Rather's memos are 100% authentic and speak the truth. I then ask, so what?

Did Pres. Bush receive preferential treatment while in the National Guard? Duh! Of course he did. Does that necessarily mean that he abused that treatment and didn't do his duty? No. He's got an honorable discharge, racked up hundreds of hours of flight training, and nearly two years of full-time service. (See this excellent recitation (thanks to RiceRomney for the link) of what Bush did do, as opposed to what he allegedly did not do.)

Now, still assuming the memos are legit, let's discuss the disparity in media treatment.

Kerry: has made his service in Vietnam a centerpiece of his campaign and the core argument for his fitness to serve as Commander In Chief; has seen a large group of veterans that served with and around him put their names on the line by claiming that he lied about his service and campained for his medals; applied for several deferments before serving his three or four months in Vietnam; called Vietnam Veterans war criminals, murderers, etc.; has refused to release all records relevant to his service in Vietnam; and has declined to condemn the attacks on Bush's National Guard service.

Bush: has hardly made his National Guard service a centerpiece (or even a cornerstone) of his campaign, or a core argument for his fitness to serve as Commander in Chief (but displayed that fitness admirably in his first term); has seen a couple memos surface from a now dead commanding officer claiming that he skipped an exam and received preferential treatment (see Duh!); served nearly six years before getting an honorable discharge; has made a full release of all records pertinent to his National Guard service; and has stated that his administration does not question Kerry's service in Vietnam - that Kerry ought to be proud of his service.

And how many times has Dan Rather demanded that Kerry answer the questions that have been raised? Uh,... can someone cite me? And yet (back to reality) he'll demand answers from Bush to questions raised by fake memos, and make such demands after the memos have been revealed as frauds.

Anyone who wants to claim that Dan Rather is an objective news reporter I will put in the same camp as those who love Michael Moore's "documentaries." Time for Rather to step down as Queen of the Space Unicorns.

Employment!!

2004-09-18T13:48:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I received an offer in the mail from Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O'Keefe & Nichols to join them next year as a clerk-awaiting-bar ("Call me a CAB!"). Insurance defense is meager pay, but it will be more than I've ever made. It's a real load off to have that offer under my belt. Good friend of mine from school also got an offer from them and will likely be accepting. We plan an LLS takeover of the firm (strong Southwestern contingent there right now).

Kerry's Kids

2004-09-17T15:49:00.000-07:00

TeHeHe...

Love the Baby Boomers, but...

2004-09-14T23:55:00.000-07:00

As much as I'm enjoying Ra^therGate, I look forward to the day that all those running for public offices are much too young to have served (or not served) in Vietnam.

What Kerry Learned From 9/11

2004-09-12T22:56:00.000-07:00

"In the years ahead, we will share its lessons with our children and grandchildren," he said. "We will tell them that on Sept. 11, ordinary men and women became heroes at a moment's notice - and so can you. We will tell them that we were strong because we took care of each other - and so can you."

One would hope that's not all he learned from 9/11 - that we can all be heroes, and that we can all take care of each other. Most of us learned that Islamic Terrorists are the most evil and dangerous enemy that we have ever faced and that they must be destroyed. I'm not sure Kerry learned that, and that's what I think Cheney was getting at last week with his comments. One can easily imagine Kerry's drawl: "Find them, prosecute them, and lock them up." Not enough.

Outrageous

2004-09-12T22:28:00.000-07:00

Kerry Hints GOP May Suppress Black Votes:

We are not going to stand by and allow another million African American votes to go uncounted in this election.

Independent study after independent study has refuted the charge that "a million" black votes went uncounted in 2000. It's a ridiculous and unsubstantiated charge.

We are not going to stand by and allow acts of voter suppression, and we're hearing those things again in this election.

We've got another vague and baseless accusation by Kerry. Can this man never talk in specifics? What are you hearing? Who are you hearing it from?

Kerry has a team of lawyers to examine possible voting problems to try to prevent a repeat of the 2000 election disputes. He also has said he has thousands of lawyers around the country prepared to monitor the polls on election day.

Ya know, for a lot of voters, all he would have to say is, "I have thousands of lawyers..." and that would be enough to lose their vote. Way to look really desperate and frightened.

"What they did in Florida in 2000, some say they may be planning to do this year in battleground states all across this country," Kerry said. "Well, we are here to let them know that we will fight tooth and nail to make sure that this time, every vote is counted and every vote counts."

The Bush campaign was right to call this baseless, and divisive. They were more right to refuse to respond to it yesterday on the anniversary of 9/11. I think Kerry realizes that he's gained traction with the Bush-hating crowd and is now grasping at every possible divisive issue that might get a few more panties wadded up and in his camp. So far, this man appears to have no policies, no plans, no ideas, no character; just a lot of rhetoric. This is a good sign that Kerry is desperately reaching out to anyone and everyone that may possibly hate Republicans for any reason, real or imagined. But he's shooting himself in the foot again. I think he'll turn off more people than he turns on, and he's also managed to set up a nice picture of his goon-squad deployed across the country, just waiting to take legal action - and now America will expect it.

The Massachusetts senator also criticized the president for . . . what he said was a failure to meet the Biblical standard set by the Good Samaritan to help others in need.

Huh?

Boxer with a Foot in Her...

2004-09-10T13:09:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, at our opening meeting of the Young Republicans here on campus, one student claimed that Barbara Boxer said that "a baby is a baby when you take it home from the hospital." I wanted to verify that, so I found the exchange through Google. It's not quite like the student characterized it, but damning nonetheless. Read it. I think Bill Jones has a fighting chance.

Supreme Court Term in Review

2004-09-09T23:31:00.000-07:00

Our student chapter of The Federalist Society on campus, of which I'm a member, just held a Supreme Court Term in Review Seminar. If you'd like to hear an hour and forty five minutes of various law professors talking about the major cases coming out of this last term of the Supreme Court (I know... zzzzzzzzzzzzz), just click here. I was disappointed that Prof. Ides didn't talk about the free speech implications of McConnell v. FEC. I will confess that I have not read the full opinion - it's hundreds of pages long. It takes a lot of words to circumvent the Constitution.

If that's straight shooting...

2004-09-07T23:32:00.000-07:00

...then I'm a world-class bullseye marksman. Drudge reporting that John Kerry's West Virginia Communications Director Amy Goodwin had this to say:

Let's do some straight shooting on the gun issue. John Kerry's opponents are worried because he's the first Democratic candidate to support Second Amendment gun rights and to be an avid hunter. The facts are clear. John Kerry opposes banning this gun and always will. John Kerry was proud to receive this union-made gun at the United Mine Workers Labor Day picnic in Racine, West Virginia. The Republican Party and George Bush's campaign will stop at nothing to mislead voters about John Kerry's record. We challenge Bush to engage in honest debates--West Virginians deserve to hear the truth.

The first Democratic candidate to support Second Amendment gun rights?! Who does she think she's kidding? They all claim to support Second Amendment gun rights (not necessarily redundant) when they're running. If they didn't they'd lose their blue-collar union vote. John Kerry's record stands for itself as the most anti-gun Senator in Washington, third only to Feinstein and Boxer. So he hunts - big stinkin' deal. No Democrat ever talks about why we really have the Second Amendment. Amy Goodwin thinks we all have memories that go back an hour.

"How Conveeeeenient."

2004-09-04T16:31:00.000-07:00

U.S. Near Seizing bin Laden, Official Says:
Of course, this will give all the Bush-haters cause to cry conspiracy. "We knew all along that they would roll out Bin Laden a month or so before the election. Eeeevil Bush, Hiiitler Bush."

Random Thoughts

2004-09-03T10:48:00.000-07:00

Jenna Bush claps like a weirdo.

I give President Bush's speech an 'A'. It really built to a nice crescendo and brought a good laugh and a tear toward the end.

John Kerry still wants to make his campaign about his Vietnam service. It's gonna kill him. But who can blame him, it's not like he's got anything else to run on, as Zel Miller so clearly pointed out.

I have heard and read dozens of news updates on the school hostage situation in Russia and only learned a second ago that the hostage-takers are Islamic terrorists. The main-stream media refuse to recognize that Islam has a major problem to deal with, and do not want to acknowledge that Islamic terror is the single greatest threat to peace and security in our world today. These ruthless killers know no boundaries and will certainly burn in hell (Matthew 18:14; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2). But no, in the mainstream media they're "Chechen rebels," or "separatistis," or "insurgents."

Free Market is Cruel but Fair

2004-09-01T00:17:00.000-07:00

My wireless LAN adapter sold for $15.50. Ultimately I guess that makes sense. Another user was selling an identical adapter. He had zero bids, but his opening bid was $25. I guess the market decided that $25 was too high of an opening bid. I also have to take into account that I have zero history on eBay from which buyers could determine my reliability as a seller. I was also offering zero shipping insurance, and my posting made it pretty clear that this was not a brand new or barely used adapter.

Serious Faith in the Free Market

2004-08-31T15:52:00.000-07:00

So I decided to sell a wireless LAN adapter that was given to me by my older brother. I decided to go the ebay route even though my only other attempt to sell something on ebay was a dismal failure. [What, people don't want six VHS cassettes of Monty Python sketches?!] You want to know what something is really worth, put it on ebay. The free market is truly remarkable. To show my faith in the free market I started the bidding at $1.00 and declared FREE SHIPPING, theorizing that the free market would take that into account. Yesterday it was at $1.25 so I was panicking. I was about to be seriously soured on the whole eBay phenomenon, but it's now at $12.50. It closes tonight. I'll let you know how it goes. [You gotta come through for me Free Market. I believe in you.]

THE NEW SOLDIER by John Kerry

2004-08-31T10:57:00.000-07:00

I think the more we know about John Kerry and his record, the better. Thanks go to the people at this site, for making John Kerry's book available - ya know, the book that he does NOT want to release to the public. Enjoy.

Do These People Have Jobs?

2004-08-31T10:36:00.000-07:00

If only they could channel all that energy and creativity into something productive... that didn't impact the environment... or harm any trees or animals.... or offend any Europeans.... or that didn't support any big corporations... or... ah never mind. "Political Correctness is always having to say you're sorry." It must be really hard to be a principled liberal. I feel for them.

Is McGreevey Going to Back Out?

2004-08-24T10:15:00.000-07:00

Well of course he hasn't submitted his letter of resignation yet. The man actually saw his ratings GO UP after his little announcement. It will not at all surprise me to see him decide that he's going to have a go at it.

Presidential Advisor Chris

2004-08-23T22:04:00.000-07:00

Looks like President Bush is following Chris's advice at LegalXXX. Shame ya didn't anticipate the "too little too late" rebuttal Chris. There's just no pleasing a desperate democrat. The administration's retort should be that the allegations against Kerry are only now getting mainstream media coverage. A "denouncement" before the issue even had the attention of the nation would have been meaningless.

Reagan, Clinton, and The Bible

2004-08-21T14:09:00.000-07:00

Just beginning my reading for my 'Income Taxation I' class this semester. Enjoyed this bit from page 7 of the supplement:

Which is correct as a matter of social policy, a progressive rate structure or a proportional rate-structure? President Reagan made his own view very clear on one occasion when, citing Biblical precedent, he asserted that "There can be no moral justification [for] the progressive tax".
[FN5] "Proportionate taxation we would gladly accept on the theory that those better able to pay should remove some of the burden from those least able to pay. The Bible explains this in its instruction on tithing. We are told that we should give the Lord one tenth and if the Lord prospers us ten times as much, we should give the Lord ten times as much. But, under our progressive income tax, computing Caesar's share is a little different. . ." [internal citation omitted]
President Clinton, on the other hand, though a Bible reader himself. . .

Hah! Yeah, had to stop right there.

How much Bush is Bush?

2004-08-18T22:30:00.000-07:00

LegalXXX muses on the Anyone-But-Bush crowd and thinks that "even the fiscal conservatives that are unhappy with Bush's spending will eventually come back into the fold and will find a good deal of red meat. . ." I often wonder if more fiscal conservatives suspect, as I do, that his loose spending is nothing more than a political tool to emasculate the democrats' complaints on domestic issues; that we may see a much less "compa$$ionate con$ervati$m" from him in his second term. The very point LegalXXX makes (that Bush is sincere and consistent in the beliefs he espouses) would indicate that I'm wrong, but Christopher's point seems to apply much more to his foreign policy, so I continue to hope. How strange is it that I continue to hope that my President is being just a bit phony?

Sloppy Conservative Petitions

2004-08-18T21:23:00.000-07:00

Linked by RiceRomney2008 (by email) to this petition to censure the 13 U.S. Representatives who asked for U.N. oversight of our Presidential election this year. Never let it be said that I'm not also critical of conservatives when they craft sloppy propaganda. Here are some snippets:

For their grandstanding end-run around the Constitution. . . . Don't let them get away with their unconstitutional ploy!

The petition repeatedly calls the Representatives' actions unconstitutional, but makes a pretty weak (i.e. not textual) constitutional case. Their best constitutional argument seems to be...

Are not these 13 Congressmen sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States that protects America's foundation of independence, of sovereignty from foreign powers and influences, of self-government? To do otherwise is sedition -- conduct and language inciting rebellion against the authority of the U.S. Government.

Pretty weak sauce. To give them the benefit of the doubt, I've come up with these possible textual arguments:

Article I Section 4: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations...

So maybe you could nail them for trying to monkey around with a matter that is up to the states. But wait, Congress can regulate time and manner of the elections at any time by law.
Article I Section 7: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary . . . shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or. . .
So maybe they're violating the presentment clause? Problem is it hasn't even gone to a vote.
Article II Section 2: [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties. . .
This one sounds a little better. Maybe they're trying to usurp the Executive treaty power, or at least stepping on the Senate's toes in its advisory role.
Article IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . .
This is my favorite one. Not only are the 13 Reps not protecting us against invasion, they're trying to start one! Flee the U.N. invasion, aaaaaa!

So no, I don't think that conservativepetitions.com has any great constitutional argument. But all that said, these 13 Congressmen should be ashamed of themselves. What a shameful slap in the face to every institution put in place to protect our electoral process; an insult to our laws and democracy to suggest that we would need a corrupt and unelected global body to tell us how to have a fair and free democratic election. What an insult to the ACLU and Jesse Jackson (God bless 'em), the crusaders for the millions, no wait wait, the billions of "disenfranchised" Americans. Who needs the U.N. when you've got them?

And yes, I know that this is, like, so yesterday's news.

Gay Word Play

2004-08-18T20:28:00.000-07:00

Linked from Drudge to this report on the Bush twins' gay hair dresser (Gomez) and his upcoming "nuptials." There's some interesting language in the report. On Bush's opposition to gay marriage Gomez has this to say:

"I think it's wrong - he has no right to touch that," he said. "He's trying to change the freedom of America. ... History is repeating itself, just like blacks and Jews were discriminated against."

He has no right to touch that? And you do? What does that mean anyway? Aren't you the one trying to "touch that" by (radically) changing the status quo? He's trying to change the freedom of America? At the very worst (for Gomez's side) he's trying to maintain the freedoms of America as they are currently defined. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe marriage is an affirmative right; meaning that states could get out of the marriage business altogether if they so chose. Like blacks and Jews were discriminated against?! That's right, gays are systematically being filed into the gas chambers or being lynched by hooded mobs. What an insult to their memory. But author Grove is just as bad:

[T]he legality of such unions has been in question since the California Supreme Court last week declared that Newsome exceeded his authority in sanctioning gay marriages.

Has been in question?! No, there wasn't much room for question in the Cal. Sup. Ct.'s opinion. The state of the law is currently that homosexual marriages are illegal in California. The losers may seek a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, but until such a ruling, that's the law - no question. One may argue that the Cal. Sup. Ct. didn't decide the constitutionality of the Cal. law against gay marriage, but that doesn't change the legality of gay marriage in California. Unbelievable.

"There are no 'manizers.'"

2004-08-17T22:51:00.000-07:00

One of my heroes, Dennis Prager hits the nail on the head with his analysis of the McGreevey situation. My favorite line is the title of this post. What angers me more than the double standard itself is how you are viewed for rejecting the double standard. What does homophobe mean anyway?

Good Luck to the Looters

2004-08-16T23:21:00.000-07:00

Well, good luck to the looters in Florida, one of the first states to pass shall-issue, right-to-carry concealed weapon legislation. Looters better hope they can run faster than grandma's .357.

Fruits of Citizenship

2004-08-16T12:32:00.000-07:00

Well, this morning I received a Jury Summons in the mail. I've been putting off getting a CA drivers' license because I feared that would put me on their radar. Turns out voting did. Service will not be until late September so I have some time to work on my biases and prejudices and practice my racial epithets. Seriously, I'll be curious to see if my theory on intelligence and jury service holds true. That theory is that at least one of the parties doesn't want an intelligent guy on the jury. If I can clearly show myself to be an intelligent guy, then at least one of the parties is going to be thinking, "I don't want this guy on the jury because he's smart enough to see through the load of crap that I'm going to throw against the wall." I just hope I get a civil case.

Realities of the Two-Party System

2004-08-15T23:42:00.000-07:00

From talk-radio personality Mike Rosen (a local favorite from back home) comes this excellent reminder of the realities of the two-party system. I actually have a friend at school who calls herself a Republican but says she hates Bush and will, therefore, not be voting for him this year. I think she's gone so far as to say that she'll be voting for Kerry. Rosen's piece may give second thought to anyone thinking of "voting their conscience." The more I understand the two-party phenomenon, the more I realize that the term "swing voter" may just be synonymous with "ill-informed", "mildly apathetic", "confused", "naive", "idealistic".... I could go on. Anyway, here's a sample:

The Democratic coalition is an alliance of collectivists, labor unions (especially the teachers' unions), government workers, academics, plaintiffs-lawyers, lower- and middle-income net tax-receivers, most minorities, feminists, gays, enviros, and activists for various anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-military, anti-gun, one-world causes.

I say party trumps person because regardless of the individual occupying the White House, the coalition will be served.

Liberal Media Bias Posts

2004-08-15T22:34:00.000-07:00

Recent posts here and here from "Oh, That Liberal Media!" do an excellent job of deconstructing the word games and spin of the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post. Follow some of the links for great tips on how to read the Los Angeles Times.

Flat Tax Good, Abolition Better

2004-08-11T23:22:00.000-07:00

As a general rule Republicans are in favor of cutting taxes and Democrats are in favor of increasing them, or at least of not cutting them. You'd think this would be a sure strength in the GOP's column, but I'm constantly amazed by the Democrats' ability to play on the ignorance of the public by demonizing Republican tax cuts as breaks for "the wealthy." So you'd think that a flat tax would play well with the public - a perfectly equitable system where everyone pays the same proportion of their income. But of course, because our current tax system is the way it is, the Democrats would be able to demonize it as a huge tax break for the top earners (which it would be), and a significant increase for the "poor." One way to make it less vulnerable to such an attack, and I believe most any flat tax proposal would build this in, would be to establish a flat rate on all households earning over $X; the poorest pay nothing (but don't get their socialist dividend either).

But why go through making that sale? Abolish the income tax altogether! Can anyone point out a way that such a position would be a political loser in any way? You may hear some cries about the poor seeing a drastic increase in their expenses because of a national sales tax, but that would be easily solved by exempting the staples of life from a sales tax.

This is the stuff that really makes conservatarians all tingly. I hope to see Bush run with it.

Later: Oh, and don't try telling me that households earning below $X/year simply could not afford to pay a flat 10% in income tax, because I know there are thousands of families that skim 10% off the top.

Seductive Rhetoric

2004-08-06T09:47:00.000-07:00

From Thomas Sowell's latest piece comes this great little snippet. I think I'll memorize it to throw in the face of anyone who challenges my non-PC speech:

The words (sic) games of the left -- from the mantra of "diversity" to the pieties of "compassion" -- are not just games. They are ways of imposing power by evading issues of substance through the use of seductive rhetoric.

Back On My Digital Feet ... Soon

2004-08-03T12:02:00.000-07:00

Well, it's been over 40 days since my laptop stopped functioning. Today, the people I bought an extended warranty from are shipping a replacement computer, but only after I really raised hell. Any less assertive consumer would still be computerless. Let it be known that the City Advantage "protection" plan from Circuit City may be fine for VCR's, cameras, and other such small time crap. Go another route when purchasing your second brain (laptop).

Headline Embellishment

2004-08-02T08:36:00.000-07:00

I mainly get my news from talk-radio and internet, so someone who actually picks up a paper will have to tell me if this is a print phenomenon as well: I find it annoying how a lot of internet headlines really overstate the truth when it comes to what "newsmakers" are saying. The two favorite adjectives seem to be "slams" and "blasts." I suppose it works the way they want it to, because my first thought is always, "ooooh, I gotta read this - such and such person/group needed some blasting." And then the "blasting" turns out to be really quite tame. Here's one such example from today. Just do a Drudge search for the word "slams" and you'll get plenty more examples. I dunno, maybe sometimes the adjectives are warranted, but really, is "criticizes" just too long a word? It's not like you'll run out of room on the web page.

And by the way, do ya think Halle would have the same opinion if she'd been severely beaten with the ugly stick? Gotta say though, I'm impressed that "transitory" is in her vocabulary.

First Post

2004-07-30T10:17:00.000-07:00

This is the first post to my newly created blog. The plan right now is to use the blog to share my thoughts on just about anything (mostly news, politics, current events, etc.) with whoever out there may want to peruse them.