Until Monday: Happy Thanksgiving!
Until Monday: Happy Thanksgiving!
Simply Irrelevant: The United Nations slaps Iran on the wrist with a censure for trying to build nuclear weapons. I guess now we know how the esteemed body of nations would have reacted if we had irrefutable evidence that Iraq had WMD.
Drug Bust: Liberals and conservatives have finally agreed on something -- this Medicare bill stinks. And you can add the moderate view to that consensus.
I've argued that budget deficits are not entirely a bad thing. They tend to boost the economy, which in turn adds tax revenue to the government coffers.
But this Medicare bill is ridiculous. It's a $400-billion payoff for Bush's re-election. In fact the only people who tend to like this bill are Republican partisans. For a party that used to preach small government, the GOP is becoming reckless with its overspending.
Democrats are sounding alarms that this will lead the way to privatization of Medicare. That's more of a scare tactic than a criticism. The bill only will test some aspects of privatization, and nobody should oppose testing an idea. But Democrats are so desperate now that even the AARP has endorsed the bill that they have to play the line that Bush is evil and wants to kill seniors by buying them prescription drugs.
Democrats can't be taken seriously if they cry wolf like that. If they want a solid argument, here's one: We're fighting a war, and we're pulling out of a recession. We need fiscal responsibility.
oops: During a KKK initiation ceremony, a member of the group was firing a 9mm pistol into the air. One of the bullets came down and struck the new guy in the head, almost killing him, according to the Associated Press. The recruit was blindfolded with his neck in a noose as other members fired paintballs at him. The 9mm was just for dramatic effect.
Sigh of Relief: Washington sniper sentenced to die.
Growing Popularity: Legislators in Massachusetts who want to keep gays from getting married may have hit another stumbling block -- the state's voters.
Two polls conducted by The Boston Globe and The Boston Herald have found that half of the state population believes gays should be able to get married.
The polls were conducted after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that homosexual couples should get the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples receive. The court is giving the legislature six months to legalize same-sex marriage.
Some conservatives have proposed passing an amendment to the state constitution to nullify the court's ruling. But the polls found that 53 to 54 percent of the state's population would oppose that.
Hopefully Massachusetts legislators will come to terms with legal and political reality and will fix the discrimination that's now in the law.
This blog message contains 3.5 posts: The FDA may start requiring companies to include the nutritional content for an entire package of food instead of just for the bite-size servings they get away with now, according to The Wall Street Journal. We've all seen this problem on a 20-ounce bottle of Coke with its label saying it contains 100 calories per serving, only to find out one bottle equals 2.5 servings. Of course, we just chug the entire bottle and its 250 calories.
The most ridiculous example I've heard is the Pam cooking spray, which flashes a label "Fat Free Cooking" even though it's pretty much an entire can of fat. Checking the back on the nutrition label shows no fat, no calories, no nothing. That's because one serving is equal to spraying the can for one-third of a second, or 0.266 grams. Federal rules allow any food product with less than half a gram of fat per serving to be advertised as "fat free". Most of us, however, coat a skillet for several seconds.
At the same time, it's sad that we're relying on the federal government to compute elementary-school math for us. The nutrition labels are helpful for those people who need to watch their diet, for health or medical reasons. But the government can only do so much to cure the obesity problem in this country. Eat what you like, but get some exercise, too.
Drugs are Deadly: Looks like I was wrong about marijuana. Apparently it can kill you (Man Chokes to Death on Pot). Maybe we can still decriminalize marijuana, but we'll have to include government warnings to "Remove from bag before consuming."
Sad: It's inevitable that the U.S. will fall victim to another terrorist attack. As tragic as that will be, it breaks my heart to realize that so many people will blame Bush.
Say what you want about him, but he did not cause any of this mess. Yet some Democrats are blaming him for the latest bombing in Turkey. Both Republicans and Democrats are full of mindless sheep who utter complete nonsense. But it amazes me how liberals can be so hateful.
They're supposed to be the ones full of compassion. However, they blindly ignore the multiple terrorist attacks against the U.S. (WTC-bombing in 1993, USS Cole), and unleash their anger against our president instead of our enemy.
If you don't believe me, check out the comment section of Calpundit about the latest Al Qaeda bombings in Turkey. Kevin Drum provides many thoughtful, intelligent posts -- many with which I agree, others with which I don't. But his online entourage is embarrassing:
We wanted a war, so we got one, actually two. Who are we to dictate how the enemies will fight back?And another:
Starting an incredibly stupid, inflammatory, illegal war in Iraq for no good reason that we had to lie to convince others had nothing to do with it!Somebody named Al posted this response:
This is good news, Kevin. We even asked for it.
Judging by the glee of the anti-war people here, I'd say that they already had a bad name.So this is the retort:
Yep, "bring em on" were code words for "blow up innocent Turkish civilians"! It's Bush's fault!
And, hey, this is all obviously due to Iraq! After all, al Qaeda would NEVER hurt innocent civilians in an office building if it weren't for the war in Iraq!
Hey AL, you're a spineless dick.There were some other posts that included more thoughtful responses. But far too many were just angry blather and contradictions. People accused Bush of pulling out of Afghanistan too fast then said the war in Iraq is taking too long. They claimed that we're losing because of a few terrorist attacks.
Now take your cheap name calling and personal insults elsewhere. They are neither appropriate nor welcome here.
So Bush-haters reading this list, pay attention to this next guy's response:
Are these comments typical? If so, and if they represent mainstream Democratic feelings, then it doesn't really matter who gets the nomination because Bush is going to win in a landslide. If you don't have a credible response to the worldwide threat of Islamic fanaticism (and appeasement doesn't count as a credible response), and if you merely take delight in the murder of Americans and America's friends, then I don't think the American people are going to trust you with the keys to the White House.I would very much like to see constructive debate on how to win the war against terrorism. Unfortunately I only see one side fighting the war and the other side throwing insults.
God's Law: It's strange -- Europeans often criticize U.S. politicians for invoking the name of God in speeches and whatnot. They generally prefer their politicians to be more secular.
But now a number of countries want the European Union's Constitution to make a reference to God in the preamble. Many Europeans hope to acknowledge the continent's Christian roots in its new body of law.
Ireland has come out in support of mentioning a deity, joining Poland, Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria, Portugal, Slovakia, and the Netherlands, according to The Scotsman. France is opposing the idea, and I imagine that others will as well.
The U.S. Constitution makes no reference to God, and its Bill of Rights specifically prohibits the government from establishing a religion. Considering Europe is filled with people from diverse religious backgrounds (Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists), I would hope that the EU would do the same.
On a completely irrelevant note, I know that I'm an ignorant American, but European newspapers need to explain the acronyms that they use in the stories. When looking for an online article about this subject, I ran across this story about the ratification of the EU Constitution. Although it is written in English, I could barely understand any of it. The paper should at least include a handy reference guide to explain what "NOS", "WD", and "PvdA" actually mean.
Match Made in Heaven: Andrew Sullivan links to a list that quotes present-day arguments against homosexual marriage and decades-old arguments against inter-racial marriage. They are essentially identical. Hopefully homosexual marriage will come to be accepted down the road as well.
Just Say No: The Democratic presidential candidates are angry -- with the AARP. The senior-citizens group has endorsed a Republican legislative package that would add prescription-drug coverage to Medicare. The group will also spend $7-million over three days in advertisements to persuade others to support the bill.
The Democrats, who normally can count on the AARP's support, are feeling a bit betrayed. According to the Associated Press, the candidates criticized certain aspects of the bill, but saved most of their criticism for the AARP supporting a Republican proposal a year before the election. "I wish AARP had chosen to oppose this bill," said Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. "I wish AARP was spending its $7 million telling Americans what is wrong with this bill."
Marriage and Mass: The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the state must allow same-sex marriages. Similar to what happened in Vermont, the court has given the state legislature 180 days to make a new law.
I've argued before that preventing gays from getting married is unconstitutional because it violates the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. And it's inherently unfair to deny couples the legal protections that come from marriage just because they are the same sex.
The tradition of a marriage being between a man and a woman is irrelevant. Tradition used to dictate that a married couple had to be the same race and the same religion. Now such discrimination sounds archaic.
I know conservatives are going to try to fight this. There's even talk about a constitutional amendment. This homophobia actually weakens the institution of marriage instead of protecting it.
Heads or Tails: In case you didn't know what the state of Texas looks like, you're about to find out. The Texas quarter is set to roll out of banks, and the 25-cent piece looks pathetic.
As you can see in the link here, it's basically the outline of the state, a big star, and the phrase "The Lone Star State".
I grew up in Texas, and I saw the other proposed designs. This one was the worst of them. Others included images of the state's rich history and culture: the Alamo, the Old West, cowboys, etc. There was even a joke going around that the Texas quarter would be bigger than the rest. But we ended up with a map and a star.
It's disappointing to see that so many of the states have wasted their attempt to liven up the tails-side of the quarter. I guess we'll all enjoy the return of the U.S. eagle when the states are done.
Thank God: Washington sniper found guilty. One more to go.
Let me know when it's safe: Arnold Schwarzenegger is scheduled to be sworn in as governor of California today. While his election has prompted much controversy and parody, some people are opening up to the idea of his running the state. Unexpectedly, some environmental groups say they are pleasantly surprised by the movie star's commitment to the greenery, according to The Boston Globe.
Now, this may be some simple sucking up that usually occurs when a new political power takes office. The trick is to say you're open to working with the new officeholder -- whether it's true or not -- then within a couple months complain that he or she is practicing politics and refusing to play nice. It's fun when two sides pull that trick on each other.
But for now it looks like Californians are getting used to having the bodybuilder as their new governor. In the mean time, I'm glad I live on the opposite coast.
Light 'em Up: City and countywide smoking bans are hurting businesses. In Bethesda, Maryland, bars are losing customers to neighboring Washington, DC -- where you can't vote for a member of Congress, but at least you have the freedom to light up.
I'm not a smoker (save for the occasional cigar at barbecues), but the trend of trampling on people's rights to smoke in public is getting out of hand. Hell, Montgomery County, Maryland -- which includes Bethesda -- tried to ban smoking in your own home if a neighbor objected.
If people don't like smoke, they should not patronize the bars and restaurants that allow smoking. Let the marketplace sort it out. If a business wants to attract nonsmokers, then it should decide to outlaw smoking at its location. But the drop in customers at the bars means that these nonsmokers aren't going out any more often when lawmakers forbid smoking.
For help on this issue, the last place I'd consider a bastion of freedom is the United Nations. But sure enough, New York lawmakers are in a tizzy because they can't stop U.N. diplomats from smoking at the organization's coffee shops and the like. I wonder if we can count on them to liberate us from such oppression.
Tireless: As the Senate extends its marathon filibuster of filibusters, a clear winner is emerging: the Democrats.
Before the pointless talkathon started, Republicans seemed to have a legitimate gripe that the Democrats were using stall tactics to block Bush's judicial nominees. But now that the Republicans have staged this media event, the news spotlight is shining and revealing the details.
Now everyone knows that the Democrats have helped confirm 168 of Bush's nominees, blocking only four. Had the Republicans stuck with the vague notion that the Democrats were cheating, they could have easily used this to their advantage in the next election. But since the public knows what's really going on, the Republicans just look like whiners who are wasting the government's time by bottling up the Senate with pointless yakking.
Here we go again: I was wondering when this was going to come up. The Ten Commandments are posted at courthouses in Texas and many other states. Many of these monuments have been in place for decades -- not snuck in at midnight like in Alabama. But it's still inappropriate. Now a federal circuit court has ruled that Texas can keep its monument in place. Maybe the Supreme Court will take a gander at this issue after all.
Fight's Not Done: Yes, people are still getting killed in Iraq. That's a shame, but that's also a war. Bush-haters point to the "Mission Accomplished" sign and our declaration of victory and call them premature. Perhaps, but we have accomplished a lot in a short time. Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Terrorists are no longer receiving government protection in Iraq. Now we are building a democracy in the Middle East.
The terrorist attacks within the country are a problem and must be stopped. That's phase two of the battle in Iraq. That doesn't mean the victory of the first part is meaningless. It means we have more work to do. Demanding that we run away scared will only make our country appear weaker, and thereby making it more vulnerable to terrorist attack.
It will be a "long, hard slog". But we are making progress, even though the work is not done yet.
Good riddance: The Alabama Chief Justice who didn't believe judges had to obey the law is now the ex-Alabama Chief Justice. A nine-member state judiciary panel unanimously voted to remove Roy Moore from office after he defied a federal court order to remove a 5,000-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state Supreme Court building. He had argued that he was not beholden to federal laws -- and this guy went to law school.
Although he hasn't said he will run for governor -- yet -- he has promised to continue annoying people, according to the Associated Press. "I will announce something in a few weeks that will alter the course of the country," he said. God help us.
Dumb Bold Words: Here's a humorous criticism about how newspapers tend to put subheads in all their stories, especially online.
The pressure's on: Some men are taking their wives' last names when getting married. When my girlfriend discovers this, I may not be able to talk my way out of it ...
Those silly communists: A Berkeley student provides a hilarious transcript of his encounter with the campus communist group. From what I can read in the exchange, nothing has changed since I graduated from college. The name of the blog is Ne Quid Nimis, which is Latin for "Moderation in All Things" -- ah, someone I can relate to.
'ta hell? United Airlines is starting a discount airline service. The name of the service is -- Ted. Yes, Ted, just like Bill's friend in that Excellent Adventure. Thanks, but I'll stick with ValuJet.
Disappointing: The worth of the United Nations is falling further and further in decline. After adopting a resolution last year calling for the protection of Palestinian children, the U.N. is balking at supporting a similarly worded resolution calling for the protection of Israeli children. European countries are refusing to vote for the measure.
Israel uses its military to defend against aggressors. Palestinians use terrorism attack Israeli civilians. Yet, the United Nations sides with the Palestinians.
Striking a Chord: Bush's speech outlining his vision for a free and democratic Middle East is being hailed around the world as the right course of action to take. Now that his goals are front and center, they can't be pushed off to the side.
The one criticism I hear is that Bush hasn't said how he's going to accomplish his goals. I say he doesn't need to explain how, because he's already showing us. The liberation of Iraq is the first step toward realizing that vision. It won't be the last.
While the U.S. won't invade and liberate all countries in the region, pressure should be applied nonetheless for Middle Eastern nations to stop supporting terrorism and to adopt democratic reforms. And Iraq is an example of what happens if a country doesn't cooperate. Nobody can say the U.S. isn't to be taken seriously.
We aren't attacking the Middle Eastern people or the religion of Islam. But we need to do much more than arrest some individuals who plan terrorist attacks. The Middle Eastern culture needs to change so it does not act as a haven for terrorists. We need to make sure the wealth of the region is shared so its people don't look to suicide attacks and militant jihad as promising endeavors.
The only way to do that is to get rid of the dictatorships, install democracy, and promote prosperity in the region. Terrorism lurks in all the dark corners of the Middle East. It's that terrorism with which we are at war.
War is hell, but war is not, in and of itself, the worst of all evils. It was used to win the U.S. its freedom. It was used to end slavery. It was used to defeat the Nazis. War is a tool. You can use it for good or for evil. But aggression can only be defeated with force.
Critics may try to attack the way Bush executes his plan. But none of Bush's opponents are offering an alternative plan that's viable. None of them have expressed their own vision. That's why they appear weak.
While they don't come up with any coherent plan for making this country safer, critics are constantly sounding the alarm that not enough is being done to protect the homeland. They criticize the Patriot Act, but then they call for more police protection to stop terrorists even though it is impossible to guard against every conceivable attack here at home. That's why the U.S. is taking the fight to the terrorists in the Middle East.
Critics object to everything that is being done while saying we're not doing enough. This doesn't contribute to the debate, but instead it allows Bush's opponents to benefit politically when the next terrorist strike inevitably occurs. Such political manipulation is despicable.
The idea of freedom and democracy in the Middle East and surrounding regions is spreading. Iraq's dictator has been expunged, and a constitution will be formed. Afghanistan has shaken off the Taliban and has liberated its people, especially the women, from oppressive rule. Now some Iranians have been calling for the U.S. Marine Corps to topple their theocratic regime and install democracy.
It seems many critics are concerned that Bush is going on a trigger-happy spree and will invade Syria and Iran (these same people often ask why we aren't invading Saudi Arabia and North Korea). But Bush isn't being reckless. Liberating Iraq is akin to tipping that first domino. Granted, the rest won't topple overnight. But it's possible we could eventually see profound change in the Middle East.
I remember on the day of September 11, 2001, many of my liberal friends were saying that they were happy someone like Bush is in office while this is happening. They were confident that he would be strong and decisive and would fight our enemy head on.
Now that Bush is doing what they wanted him to do, they are getting scared and having second thoughts. I think we should tell Bush to keep fighting the good fight.
Even if Bush is re-elected, he won't be in office long enough to see his vision come to fruition. But that's not important. He's planting the seed, he's providing the leadership, and he's taking the initiative. And we'll all be safer in the long run.
Nobody Asked, Nobody Told: A group of 32 former midshipmen came out of the closet on Veterans Day in an effort to get the Naval Academy to establish a gay and lesbian chapter of the alumni association. The group is showing that being gay didn't interfere with their service to their country, and now they deserve to be recognized. I suspect that the Navy will find a reason to deny the group's request. But this is yet another step toward equal rights for gays and lesbians in this country.
Oh, Really? The BBC reports that spending some time at work playing video games increases productivity and job satisfaction. I wonder if the same is true for running a blog at work ...
Private Acts: The "allegations" raised in British "news stories" about "Prince Charles" has caused a bit of a "ruckus" -- even though people still aren't sure what the hubbub is about. British libel laws prevent newspapers from reporting on the unsubstantiated accusations about Prince Charles. But from what I could gather from The Daily Show on Comedy Central last night, somebody caught his Royal Highness in some homosexual act with a servant.
The titillating yet suppressed story has peaked the public's curiosity. But it bothers me that people pay so much attention to these things.
In America, too, we ravenously consume media reports that scour through politicians' sex lives. Yet, we also claim that we hold personal privacy in the highest regard.
We get upset if our government thumbs through the list of library books we checked out. We surely wouldn't want them peeking into our sex lives. But we beckon our media to routinely expose the sexual acts of government officials.
So here's a question: How can we expect politicians to respect our privacy when we never respect theirs?
Gonna find me a good book: Reality TV is now going all the way. A pay-per-view event will feature young women vying to get into the adult-film industry in a contest called "Can You Be A Pornstar?". Former California gubernatorial candidate Marey Carrey (who has done a few porn films herself) will be one of the hosts. A group of 28 women will compete for a yearlong contract with a porn producer and $100,000 cash. People who choose to watch will see "Real people having real sex."
Rolling Back Wages: Some of the illegal immigrants who were arrested while working at Wal-Mart are suing the company for discrimination. They say the company offered them lower wages and fewer benefits because they were nonresidents.
This suit will involve some tricky legal play considering that the immigrants unlawfully entered this country and weren't legally allowed to work for Wal-Mart. But I support them on their lawsuit. Many companies, organizations, farms, etc. actively discriminate against illegal immigrants because the workers usually cannot publicly complain, or risk being deported.
Now, I know that many immigrants follow the rules and come into this country legally, but that doesn't excuse mistreatment of any workers here. Most of the people risking their lives to cross the border don't want to live on welfare or engage in terrorist plots. Whenever I ask an immigrant why he or she came to the U.S., I always get the same answer: "work".
Those immigrants are the hardest workers, living in the poorest conditions, taking the most menial jobs -- and they usually send most of their wages to their families at home. These people aren't taking jobs away from anybody. They fill the jobs nobody else wants -- working as migrant farmers and the like.
Now if Wal-Mart exploited these people and then watched them get arrested, the company should be held legally responsible.
My McBlog says: McDonald's restaurant has got its McNuggets in a bundle after Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary added the word "McJob" to its listings, defining it as, "low-paying and dead-end work". According to BBC, McDonald's CEO Jim Cantalupo wrote a letter to Merriam-Webster arguing that the definition is "a slap in the face" to the fast-food restaurant's 12-million workers, many of whom go on to run their very own McDonald's franchises.
Vision: I'll just leave Bush's words up here without further comment:
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.Have a good weekend.
Political Uprise: At last, people are paying attention to the important problems our nation faces. Apparently Americans are having "below-average quantity of sex". Thanks to Outside the Beltway for finding this.
Depressing Politics: With strong economic gains at his back, President Bush is going to North Carolina for a fundraiser and to talk about the economy. Of course, wherever he goes, Bush will be followed by protesters.
That in itself is no problem. But the creative kids plan to mock Bush's handling of the economy by staging a Depression-era bread-and-soup line. This is to show that unemployment has increased since Bush took office.
Nevermind that unemployment is now falling and that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has predicted that more jobs will be created as the economy grows. The truth is, economic conditions under Bush haven't even come close to anything similar to the Great Depression (over 20 percent unemployment, massive under-employment).
These protesters have a right to say whatever they want. But they can't expect to be taken seriously when they compare cyclical fluctuations in the economy to the worst economic disaster in American history.
Unfortunately, the Democratic presidential candidates say the same things. I just received a press release from Sen. John Edwards, a North Carolina Democrat, that piddles on the news of job growth. "Today’s news cannot change the fact that, under this president, we will lose jobs for the first time since Herbert Hoover," the release says.
What? This is hardly the first time unemployment has gone up since Herbert Hoover, who was president at the start of the Great Depression. Many smaller recessions and job losses have taken place since then.
Democrats and protesters should find something intelligent to say in this campaign, or expect to be ignored.
The only thing really left to worry about are the budget deficits. While I believe we should cut government spending, we do have a war to fight. And the rising economy will help generate more tax revenue for the government to help get rid of the red ink. Overall, it looks like things are going to be all right.
Drawing a Blank: I'm used to politicians playing games when it comes to, well, politics. But I never understand why they play around with serious matters.
Stem cell research is continuing to get caught up in the game. Bush and other conservatives had indicated that they were laying off their hard-line stance against stem cell research, but it appears that they're allowing little of the actual research to take place. Researchers are complaining that they don't have access to the number of stem cells Bush had promised them.
The conservative position on stem cell research is that all life is precious and people shouldn't be playing God. This is a growth from the pro-life stance.
I'm strongly pro-choice, but I can grasp the argument against abortion. A pregnancy that is not terminated will eventually bear a newborn child. Stem cells, on the other hand, aren't going to grow into anything else. There's no logic of "preserving life" if there is no life there at all.
However, researching stem cells can eventually lead to discoveries that may help people who are alive and suffering from a number of diseases (here and here for example). Right now the potential benefits are mostly speculation. But we'll never know what we can get until the research is allowed to continue. Conservatives need to stop politicizing medicine.
Bring on the hate mail: Howard Dean has been getting hammered for his comment that he wants to "be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." Rival Democrats wondered how Dean could be so insensitive that he would pander to racists.
I guess I missed the day that being a Southerner became a hate crime. Truth is, people who fly Confederate flags aren't necessarily racists.
Now, I don't fly or display the Confederate flag. But to me, the Confederate flag is a symbol of Southern pride. It conjures up images of the "Dukes of Hazzard", with the General Lee racing away from Rosco P. Coltrane, and of Lynyrd Skynyrd singing "Sweet Home Alabama" (even though the band was from Florida).
Having grown up in Texas, I would see the Confederate Battle flag from time to time. Some people, including African Americans and other minorities, would wear the flag as headbands and the like. It conveyed a message of "Whoo Hoo! I'm a Southerner, and I'm a rebel."
Then, one day, the Confederate flag suddenly was perceived to mean that the person displaying it deeply wanted to own slaves.
Unfortunately, some racists and white supremacists do use the Confederate flag as a symbol of their hatred. But they also use Christian crosses and say the Bible condones slavery.
People need to understand that the people who do fly the Confederate flag aren't automatically racist. There are many Southerners who see the Confederate flag as a way of expressing a separate identity -- similar to hippies. It's a "To Hell with the Establishment" attitude.
If the Confederate flag is evil because it comes from an era when slavery was legal, then you could say the same about the Texas flag, any other Southern or Eastern U.S. state flag, or even the American flag.
Before you dismiss such conjecture, some people already hate the American flag. In Tennessee, a state legislator refused to join her colleagues for the daily Pledge of Allegiance because she felt the American flag represented slavery and racism.
You have to remember the history of the United States. At one point, states in both the North and South allowed slavery, including Massachusetts and New York. When our nation was formed under the Constitution, state governments were given the most power, except for certain restrictions that were expressly forbidden to them under Article I Section 10. The national Congress was supposed to have limited power, being able to do only what was expressly granted to it under Article I Section 8. The 10th Amendment was meant to further ensure that states retained most of the power. But as the nation matured, the federal government ended up with the most power, leaving the states with less. This proved more beneficial to the North, whose industry benefited from a strong national government, than the South, whose agrarian economy depended on local control.
The Civil War was a fight for states' rights. Now, slavery was a huge part of the issue. States wanted the right to, for one, allow its citizens to own other human beings. But Southern states also wanted the right to set its own tariffs and to nullify federal law. In fact, the Southern states originally tried to secede in 1832 after the federal government enacted tariffs to protect Northern industry. South Carolina tried to nullify that law and threatened to leave the Union. Congress passed the Force Act, which allowed the use of federal troops to stop South Carolina. Andrew Jackson finally approved a compromise that prevented a civil war from breaking out -- a civil war that had nothing to do with slavery.
Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860 under a platform to stop slavery from spreading to other territories in the United States. Although he would have liked to stamp out all slavery, he had no plans to do so. But the South saw its power declining in the national arena, so it decided to secede and retain its power as a unit. Lincoln waged war in an effort to save the Union, not to free slaves. He reluctantly decided to pass the Emancipation Proclamation as a public relations move to make sure foreign nations, who already banned slavery, wouldn't come to the South's aid. And the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in areas that the Northern armies were set to invade. Slavery continued in Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri -- states that allowed slavery but fought for the North.
The people fighting the war didn't care about slavery. Most Southerners were poor, and slaves were expensive. Very, very few Southerners owned slaves. And the Northerners weren't about to risk their lives to free people that were a different skin color from them. Yes, racism lived in the North, too.
After the war, Radical Republicans sought to punish the South, so Congress passed the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. Congress also passed the 14th Amendment, which weakened states' ability to oppress their own people by ensuring that the Bill of Rights applied state governments as well as the federal government.
Thankfully the North won the war. Besides ending the sick practice of slavery, the North's victory also ensured that the nation acted as one. Had the South won, the states would have retained power to dismiss anything the federal government did. The United States would have ended up like Europe is today. Instead, America has grown to become a super power instead of a weak, squabbling collection of states.
Racial problems persisted in the United States after the Civil War. While racism was prevalent in the North, too, the South was especially harsh on minorities, especially blacks. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, John F. Kennedy from Massachusetts, and Lyndon B. Johnson from Texas pushed for sweeping changes to end the Jim Crow laws and dragged the South into the enlightened era.
The Confederacy has influenced many parts of our culture. In fact, nobody seems to notice, but Texas still flies the another version of the Confederate flag, the Stars and Bars, on the University of Texas at Austin campus, along with the French flag, Spanish flag, Mexican flag, United States flag, and Republic of Texas flag. These are the Six Flags of Texas, which represent the six sovereign nations that at one time or another controlled at least a part of the state of Texas.
The concept of the Six Flags of Texas was later turned into a theme park in Arlington (near Dallas). Different sections of the park were meant to represent the different cultures of the six nations, including the Confederacy. The park did very well, and the company opened more parks around the country. So should all the Six Flags parks change their names to avoid some concocted connection to slavery?
That's not to say that the Confederate Battle flag is not divisive. The Nazi Swastika was originally an old German-pride symbol that Hitler borrowed. Germans who were alive before Hitler came to power have argued that Hitler shouldn't be allowed to tarnish a symbol of German nationalism. Truth is, he did. And you can't separate the hate from the Swastika.
But on the other hand, Native Americans and other cultures have been displaying the Swastika for thousands of years. Take a look at old Native American art, and you'll find the simple symbol prominently displayed.
Obviously, the Native American use of that symbol predates Hitler and in no way condones the Nazi atrocities. But it also shows that some of these issues are not black and white.
The Confederate flag offends many, many people. Out of respect to those people who see the Confederate flag as a racist, divisive symbol, I will never display it. But I think we should remain open minded enough to realize that displaying the Confederate flag is not intended for hate. Sometimes people are just trying to express themselves. We shouldn't rush to judge them -- because that's just a form of prejudice and racism.
What! One of the new designs for the nickel includes a handshake -- one hand representing the U.S. government and the other hand representing Native Americans -- under the year 1803. It's supposed to symbolize the peace and friendship fostered between the American government and the Native Americans back in the 19th Century.
Now, from what I remember from my history courses, the 1800s were not particularly good times in terms of the relationship between the U.S. government and Native Americans. I seem to remember learning about broken treaties, domination, and eventual genocide.
If the designers of the new nickel wanted to honor Native Americans, that would be fine. But to imply that things were all swell between them and the U.S. is historically inaccurate and is just going to offend people today.
2004: It's not just an election year, it's going to be an adventure. Although it may seem like a lot of bickering is going back and forth between Republicans and Democrats now, the real show isn't going to start for several months, when the parties bring out the real ammunition.
There has already been talk of Bush saving Iraq/terrorism information for the re-election year. Some people suspect that he's saving WMD evidence so the good news won't peter out before next November. While that's unsubstantiated, the administration has already announced that it will work to reduce the number of troops in Iraq in 2004, just in time for the election.
And it looks like Democrats are implementing the same strategy. A leaked memo from the minority party's staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence shows Democrats may be planning to hold off on calls for a Bush investigation until Election Day draws nearer.
We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:Ah, politics. Say what you want about it, but it's always entertaining.
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report - thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.
Heat: An 80-year-old man was mugged, beaten, and robbed of his social security money. To add insult to injury, he has been arrested for using an unlicensed gun to protect his life and his property, according to a New York television station. The mugger got away.
This is just another episode of how overly stringent gun laws don't do anything to stop crime but inhibit a person's right to protect him or herself.
I'm back from a short trip: Was CBS censored? Were they forced to can the Reagan movie? Conspiracy theorists say so. Republicans apparently gave CBS the evil eye for its plans to show a controversial film about the conservative icon. And Republicans are deciding what to do about rules concerning media ownership. Hmmmmmm.
But let's look at the larger picture. I've never seen the movie. I've never even read the script. But the portions that got leaked seemed preposterous.
My favorite part is when a dejected Ronald Reagan declares himself to be the anti-Christ. According to Drudge, Reagan crumbles from the pressure and realizes what evil things he has done.
I'm all for skewering politicians. But this movie was supposed to be a documentary. It appears to be some left-wing wet dream.
People are free to show such movies. But I have no desire to watch. I hear enough lies and distortions about politicians on the news to want to see such trash in a made-for-TV movie. I guess I won't bother ordering Showtime.
In the top 33 percent! When surfing, watch for deadwood. According to the Associated Press, most blogs are being neglected, languishing in cyberspace without updates.
One study of 3,634 blogs found that two-thirds had not been updated for at least two months and a quarter not since Day One.I don't know if I should feel better or worse about my dedication to this blog ...