Judicious Search
Asinine Stats
Total entries: 3146
Comments: 1692 Most Popular Entries
Another problem with Islam in the modern world (9216)
Kerry picks Edwards (7750)
With Friends Like These (7540)
Kerry's big speech on National Security (7517)
2003 Weblog Awards (5961)
North Korean's Defect (5307)
Archives
May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Syndicate RSS
News Links
ABC News
American
Daily
American
Enterprise Institute
boortz.com
Capitalism Magazine
Chicago Tribune
Chicago Sun-Times
CNEWS - Canada
CNSNews.com
Commentators
City Journal
CNN
Canadian TV
Daily News
DEBKAfile
Drudge Report
FOXnews
Google News
Insight Mag
Jerusalem Post
Journal News
LA Times
Lucianne.com
MarkSteynOnline
Mercury News
Miami Herald
MSN Slate Magazine
National Review Online
Media Research
MEMRI
Middle
East Newsline
Moreover
MSNBC
Muslim News
NATIONAL POST Canada
The Nation
New York Times
NY Daily News
NYPOST.COM
Newsday
NewsMax
NRO
Opinion Journal
Reductio
ad Absurdum
Pakistan Daily Times
RealClear Politics
Reuters
Roll Call
Saudi-Online
Sky News
Slate
Sydney Morning Herald
The Observer
The Scotsman
The Union Leader
TIME
Times of India
Town Hall
UPI
U.S. Politics Today
US News and World
Report
USA Today
Washington Times
Weekly Standard
Worldnetdaily
Yahoo! News
Contact Form
|
This is the Archive Page.
Click Here for Main Page
Sun Feb 29, 2004
Chuck Muth on Gay Marriage
Worth reading so I'm just going to copy it verbatim
From his latest newletter (subscribe by emailing newsandviews@chuckmuth.com).
When it comes to gay marriage, it's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
On the one hand, social conservatives who for years have been lamenting the federalization of the abortion debate, maintaining the hot social issue should have been left to the states, are now all for federalizing marriage in order to establish a national prohibition against same-sex nuptials - in much the same way their ancestors amended the Constitution to prohibit alcohol.
And we all know how THAT turned out.
On the other hand - the left one, that is - we're finding born-again states' righters in the personages of John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, et. al. Would that their politically convenient new-found support for states' rights extend beyond the issue of marriage. Fat chance.
But it's the right that's driving this debate, so any reasonable compromise solution is going to have to come out of the right. In order to do that, though, one first needs to recognize that there are two polar opposite ends within the conservative movement, as well.
On one end you'll find conservatives such as columnist Andrew Sullivan who outright favor gay marriage and nothing less than gay marriage. On the other end you have folks such as Gary Bauer who oppose even the ability of states to recognize civil unions, let alone gay marriages.
Let's stipulate that those two extremes aren't likely to find any common ground any time soon. So what's needed is a common-ground position which the rational center-right coalition - that is, the rest of us - can embrace. And that will mean focusing not so much on defining marriage as addressing judicial activism as a whole and preserving the core conservative
principle of states' rights.
Which brings me to The Federalist. The Federalist is an online publication which is decidedly social conservative in nature, but with a strong bias toward the Constitution. They are unabashedly opposed to gay marriage and have actively opposed the "homosexual agenda" in their publication for a long time. Their social conservative bona fides are genuine, well-established and unimpeachable.
So when THEY say the Musgrave federal marriage amendment is the WRONG way to go, conservatives who support it ought to sit up and take note.
"In the end, this proposed marriage amendment does little more than bandage a lesion on a body consumed with cancer," editorialized The Federalist recently. "In addition, it lends a false sense of security. If the issue -- as President Bush presented in no uncertain terms -- is the imminent threat of judicial activism (and indeed it is), then the only constitutional amendment we should be considering is one that addresses JUDICIAL ACTIVISM."
Hoo-hah! Praise the Lord and pass the peas!
But the Federalist is far from alone in seeing the bigger picture in this debate.
"The key flaw is that Mr. Bush's (marriage) amendment - like the failed prayer amendment of two decades ago - doesn't address the core problem, which is that an unelected judiciary is running roughshod over the plain meaning of the Constitution, substituting its views on socio-political issues for those of the framers and the majority of the American people," writes conservative columnist Jack Kelly. "In the unlikely event that the marriage amendment were successful, judicial overreach would be blocked in this one area. But the fundamental problem would persist."
Now, if you're on a religious jihad and just want to stick it gays...then stick with the anti-gay Musgrave amendment. But if you're a true constitutional conservative who recognizes that the problem isn't just judicial activism in the marriage debate, but judicial activism PERIOD,
then stick with the Federalist and Kelly.
Of course, some conservatives are intent on specifically addressing the marriage issue. If so, they might at least consider the Taranto Amendment, offered by "Best of the Web's" James Taranto, as a compromise:
"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require any state or the federal government to recognize any marriage except between a man and a woman." In other words, protect states' rights without establishing a national one-size-fits-all ban on same-sex marriage.
Of course, even Taranto's marriage-specific language won't please the Sullivans or the Bauers at the far edges of the conservative movement, but it's certainly reasonable common ground for the rest of us in the rational middle.
Aristide Takes a Trip
Vacation in the South of Africa Long Overdue
Once again, Haiti finds itself with a new leader, however temporary it might be. Meanwhile, international forces are being gathered to help 'restore order':
The U.S. ambassador to Haiti said on Sunday that international military forces "will rapidly be in Haiti" and urged the rebels who forced out President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to lay down their arms.
U.S. Ambassador James Foley spoke at a ceremony at the home of Haitian Prime Minister Yvon Neptune, where Supreme Court Justice Boniface Alexandre was sworn in as president shortly after Aristide left the country.
This is all dandy and good but it will do nothing to solve the underlying problems with Haiti. Where has the United Nations and other 'humanitarian' organizations been for the past century or so? Haiti needs more than a 'new' government, they need some serious help:
Read more »
There is an ironic Haitian expression, "as pretty as a truck", for Haitian trucks are painted with scenes of a verdant paradise, while the country itself, once almost entirely forested, is now virtually a desert.
Most of the trees have been cut down for charcoal; the soil erosion is almost complete. As you fly over the island, you can see the border with the Dominican Republic: green on one side, brown on the other. To the east of the border, the life expectancy is 15 years longer than to the west of it.
Why is Haiti a permanent festival of political pathology? No doubt the roots extend far back into history.
Two countries on the same island, one a total failure, the other highly successfully by comparison. There are some lessons to be learned here somewhere, the first may be that Haitians need something other than a new leader. From the sounds of things the first order of business might be to provide some means of cooking that doesn't require firewood. After that, a massive ecological recovery team composed of the world's green organizations just might be a good idea. Of course, all this would have to be in conjunction with some form of government that doesn't rely on gangs, thugs, and violence to impose its way on other gangs and thugs. Perhaps France can convince the people that it is in their best interest to be under their divine guidance. Failing that, the U.N. might just need to take matters into its capable hands and impose some semblance of civilization on the unfortunate people of that devastated land. It would appear, after 200 years of one disaster after another, after complete destruction of the very resources that provide the means to survive, and after repeated failed attempts to find a government that actually works for the best interest of all the people, the enlightened ones would finally understand that Haiti needs to be completely rebuilt. No other solution will do and this current example of the never ending cycle will simply be repeated into eternity. So how about it United Nations? Send in the bulldozers and level the place, send in the farmers and ecologists to rebuild the environment, send in the teachers to fight the ignorance, send in the police to restore the law, and send in somebody with enough sense to oversee the rebuilding of one half of the Emerald Isle. Nothing less will do to break the never ending cycle. The people have to be provided with the means to remedy their own misery.
What better place to illustrate your prowess at humanitarian and ecological projects than half an island? Stop talking and get to doing. Otherwise, just shut up.
« Collapse
Protect African's Sexual Rights?
Fine Ideas from Outstanding Minds
Here's a fine idea:
African governments have been told they must recognize sexual rights as urgent priorities, to allow people to exercise them in their everyday lives.
Delegates at the First African Conference on Sexual Health and Rights, in Johannesburg in South Africa, have spent the past three days discussing a range of issues, including child abuse and HIV-AIDS.
The conference president, Dr Ezio Baraldi, has called on governments to adopt the World Health Organisation's declaration of sexual rights.
He says this will give people basic powers.
"Essentially they are just basic human rights, the right of an individual to have adequate sexual eduction, they are the right of an individual to choose when and how they wish to exercise their sex life," he said.
"People have the right to enjoy their sex life, they have to the right to practise sex without coercion of any kind.
"They have the right to say no when they want to, they have the right to say yes when they want to and how they want to."
Yeah, uh huh. That ought to solve all the problems, especially that part about when and how they wish to exercise their sex life. But, speaking of 'urgent rights', they might want to add a few more ideas too. Like....people have a right to live and murder is wrong. Or....cannabalism violates the rights of the dinee. Throw in 'no means no' and all problems will be solved and peace and harmony will reign supreme.
Kerry Draws Veterans
Not Exactly an Endorsement
Kerry's record, he served in Viet Nam, has its supporters, and it has its protestors:
With only three days to go before Tuesday's Democratic primary, Vietnam veterans rallied Saturday outside Sen. John Kerry's campaign headquarters in Manhattan — but a Band of Brothers they were not.
Side by side with a coalition of Vietnamese-Americans from across the country, members of the Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry chanted "Commander-in-Chief Kerry? No Way!" under banners and signs decrying the Democratic front-runner as a traitor.
"He betrayed us. He stabbed us in the back," Jerry Kiley, 57, co-founder of the ad hoc group, screamed to the crowd of about 400 people packed on Park Avenue South. "We will never allow him to be our commander-in-chief. Ever!"
Them's some strong words. Whatever could have caused these people to question the senator's patriotism?
Sat Feb 28, 2004
Priest Abuse Study Released
Possible Discrimination Lawsuit in the Making
Here's something to wonder about. A study of the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal has some interesting findings:
More than 80 percent of minors under the age of 18 who were sexually abused by Roman Catholic priests in the United States since 1950 were male, a report released yesterday found, raising questions about what role homosexuality played in the crisis and whether the Catholic Church will try to limit or prevent gay men from joining the priesthood.
If the Catholic church tried to 'limit or prevent gay men from joining the priesthood', would that be discrimination? Go read the rest.
You might also take a look at this from Michael Williams and this from Clayton Cramer. Warning: You might not like it.
Saddam's Bribes, Kickbacks, and Scams
U.N. Oil for Food Programs Raises Many Questions
The New York Times takes a look at the billions of dollars Saddam scammed with the assistance of the U.N. oil for food program:
In its final years in power, Saddam Hussein's government systematically extracted billions of dollars in kickbacks from companies doing business with Iraq, funneling most of the illicit funds through a network of foreign bank accounts in violation of United Nations sanctions.
Head on over and read the entire sordid story. There is, however, one aspect that the NYT doesn't do justice to. What part in all this did the U.N. play?
United Nations overseers say they were unaware of the systematic skimming of oil-for-food revenues. They were focused on running aid programs and assuring food deliveries, they add.
Surely they are not so dumb as to have failed to see what it going on. That only leaves one other likely alternative. Instapundit wonders the same thing:
Those guys are either lying, or dumb as rocks. The story barely touches on the most interesting aspect of this -- Saddam's use of this money to purchase opposition to American war efforts from politicians and governments. For that matter, the UN has a lot of explaining to do.
Then there is this from the article:
Read more »
In the high-flying days after Iraq was allowed to sell its oil after 10 years of United Nations sanctions, the lobby of the Rashid Hotel in Baghdad was the place to be to get a piece of the action.
That was where the oil traders would gather whenever a journalist, actor or political figure would arrive in Iraq and openly praise Mr. Hussein. Experience taught them that the visitor usually returned to the hotel with a gift voucher, courtesy of the Iraqi president or one of his aides, representing the right to buy one million barrels or more of Iraqi crude.
Actors, you say? Politicians? Jounalists? On Saddam's payroll.
There is a prime opportunity for some intrepid journalist to take a close look at the U.N.'s role in this. As a matter of fact, there is a prime opportunity for some world governments to take a real close look at this matter. Will it pass and be wasted?
« Collapse
Kerry slams Bush on terror
Democrat says he'd send 40,000 additional troops overseas
John Kerry, you know the one, the one who said Bush 'exaggerated' the threat we face from terrorism, finally weighs in with some hints at his lack of a position:
"President Bush says we can't afford to fund the war on terror. I say we can't afford not to,'' he said.
The result, Kerry added, was that "by virtually every measure, we still have a homeland security that falls far short of the vulnerabilities we have and the threats we face.''
Based on Kerry's plan to add 100,000 cops, 100,000 firefighters, and 40,000 new troops one might conclude that, if anything, Bush underexaggerated the terror threat. Then again, with Kerry voting against needed appropriations to fund the war his claim that 'we can't afford not to' afford the war is somewhat confusing. But that is nothing new for Kerry. Looking at this 'plan' it seems to have taken a number of ideas from the current Bush administration plan and contradicts Kerry's previous positions. Head on over and see what you think.
Krauthammer Weighs in On Marriage
Judicial Fiat Short Circuits Democracy
Here's some thoughts from Charles Krauthammer on the marriage issue:
Not again. We are the only Western country to have legalized abortion by judicial fiat rather than by democratic approval of the people or the legislature. Are we going to do it again with gay marriage? We know what short-circuiting democracy does. Thirty years after Roe v. Wade, abortion still brings masses of demonstrators into the streets.
Roe v. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, "halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue."
A similar "reform direction" on homosexuality has been under way for years. There is no doubt that increasing tolerance of homosexuality, reappraisal of marriage and common sympathy for fellow citizens would have led inexorably to the spread of civil unions (which I favor) and, as they became customary and were evaluated in the light of experience, perhaps ultimately to broad acceptance of gay marriage as well.
Instead, the courts have once again been commandeered to impose a revolution from on high.
Has anyone wondered why gay activists are attacking this issue at the state level?
It could be because they don't like their chances with 'equal protection' and 'due process' grounds in the USSC. The Lawrence decision seems to indicate that the USSC might not be willing to go any further than protecting sodomy from prosecution. With that doubt it could well be that the litigants prefer the the back door route, pardon the pun, to the USSC. Given that the state's highest court is the ultimate arbiter of state constitutional claims there is no appeal to the federal level. That leaves the attack on the state level until such time that a federal issue can be raised on 'full faith and credit' grounds. In other words, win one state and force the matter on the rest of the states. This doens't sound very democratic, but hey, everything's fair in love and war. Head on over and read these two articles for more on the issue.
Fri Feb 27, 2004
Cutting Out the Middle Man
Pentagon Broadcasting Corporation
The Pentagon has finally had enough and they ain't gonna take it any more:
The U.S. military will launch its own news service in Iraq and Afghanistan to send military video, text and photos directly to the Internet or news outlets.
The $6.3 million project, expected to begin operating in April, is one of the largest military public affairs projects in recent memory, and is intended to allow small media outlets in the United States and elsewhere to bypass what the Pentagon views as an increasingly combative press corps.
U.S. officials have complained that Iraq-based media focuses on catastrophic events such as car bombs and soldiers' deaths, while giving short shrift to U.S. rebuilding efforts.
Yeah, that might work IF the Pentagon sticks with the facts. Compared to some of the networks news it can't be much worse. Bring it on.
South Dakota Speaks
Stirring the Pot of Judicial Precedent
Meanwhile, in South Dakota, the people have spoken on the matter of abortion:
The South Dakota House Thursday joined the state Senate in passing a bill that says human life begins at conception - something that would outlaw all abortions in South Dakota, except in cases where the mother's health or life were endangered.
Pro-abortion groups called the bill "a direct assault on South Dakotans' rights," and pro-life advocates see it as a way of directly challenging the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.
The bill's main sponsor, Republican state Rep. Matt McCaulley, called it the "strongest, cleanest pro-life legislation" passed by a state legislature since 1973.
Well, now. Perhaps the Supremes will get another opportunity to review their past mistakes in Roe v Wade. Do you think, is it possible, that they will admit the error and do what should have been done 30 some years ago? Maybe, but that would require some serious thought on the importance of adhering to precedent versus the notion that mistakes should be remedied.
That, and a certain amount of crow eating.
Fox's Bret Baier on Osama's Tail?
Embedded Reporters Branch Out
Dave Taylor has a feeling:
I have a feeling that Osama bin Laden is about to be captured. The reason behind this prediction is that Fox News Channel's Bret Baier is reporting from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border on military operations in the area. It's my feeling that Baier, the national security correspondent for the network, was sent to the area on a tip from the Bush administration. Why would he be there otherwise?
It does sound like the action in the region has picked up and with the Pakistanis seeming to have found some extra resolve to get the job done anything is possible. Stay tuned.
Now What?
Kerry Backs Amendment and DOMA
Surprise, surprise. John Kerry has now chosen another path:
Democratic front-runner John Kerry yesterday came out for a Massachusetts constitutional ban on gay marriage and suggested that a law he once blasted as "gay-bashing" should remain the law of the land.
"If the Massachusetts legislature crafts an appropriate amendment [to ban gay marriage] that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," Kerry told the Boston Globe.
Then last night, Kerry told a Los Angeles debate that he's against gay marriage and declined to reaffirm his opposition to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which restricted gay marriage and which he once called "gay-bashing."
When pressed on whether he'd vote to repeal DOMA, Kerry replied: "DOMA is the law of the land today . . . There are no votes to take it back."
Well, that still leaves Nader for Andrew Sullivan and others who are 'enraged' that Bush would dare take a stand contrary to their enlightened goals. How about some outrage for Kerry now?
Meanwhile, Gov. Romney of Kerry's home state expressed wonder at the senator's views:
Read more »
Governor Mitt Romney yesterday chided Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry for what he said were Kerry's confusing positions on gay marriage, because Kerry opposes a federal constitutional amendment to block gay marriages but supports a state amendment.
The Massachusetts senator this week blasted President Bush for supporting a US constitutional amendment to bar gay marriages. But Wednesday, Kerry told the Globe he supports a state constitutional amendment if it offers full benefits to same sex couples.
"In the case of the Massachusetts Constitution, he agrees with me that we should have an amendment. On the federal Constitution he doesn't agree with me," Romney said yesterday. "And I think the American people are going to be just as confused as I am as to where he stands."
Confused? Powerline has more.
« Collapse
Multicultural Mistakes
Europe's Islamist Wake-Up Call
Val MacQueen discusses the multicultural dream turned nightmare that European countries face:
Ever-greater concessions from the host societies are demanded, all the while preaching their destruction. They are using the tolerance of the West to try to impose their own theocracy.
Yet, as British conservative columnist Melanie Phillips wrote recently, “in Britain, the corrosive idea which seethes beneath the whole immigration controversy is the belief in fashionable circles that such a national identity is somehow illegitimate and that to defend it is ‘xenophobic’.”
Heaven forefend anyone in Europe would dare, for fear of being so-labeled, tell the fundamentalists in their midst to put a sock in it.
Until now.
Heaven forbid, indeed.
Thu Feb 26, 2004
The Stealth Constitutional Amendment
Do as I say, Not as I Do
Speaking of constitutional amendments and sex:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—March 18, 2003
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CORZINE,
Mr. DAYTON, Mr. DODD, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. STABENOW, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mrs. BOXER):
S.J. Res. 11. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for women and men ; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Read more »
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for women and men.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
‘‘ARTICLE —
‘‘SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
‘‘SECTION 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.’’
Well what do you know?
Thanks to Evangelical Outpost for this information
« Collapse
Orson Scott Card Speaks
Humpty Dumpty Logic
This Orson Scott Card article is highly recommended:
Do you want to know whose constitutional rights are being violated? Everybody's. Because no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society.
Do yourself a favor, go read it all.
U.N. Invades Haiti
Barricades to Retreat Must Be Removed
Not being satisfied to rest on its laurels, the U.N. is illustrating its prowess once again:
The United Nations tried to evacuate nonessential staff and their families from strife-torn Haiti on Wednesday but was unable to do so because of barricades in the roads, the world body said on Thursday.
Yeah, those barricades are rough. Perhaps a resolution or two would help? Either that, or call in some French experts to explain how to retreat when hindered by barricades.
Polio of the Brain
A Dumb Epidemic in Africa
Here's a prime example of ignorance in action:
A senior United Nations official has condemned Nigerian states that have refused to take part in a mass immunization drive against polio.
"It is unforgivable to allow still more children to be paralyzed because of... baseless rumors," said UN Children's Fund head Carol Bellamy.
Some Muslim clerics say the vaccine is a western plot to make women infertile.
This is even worse than the past rumor about disappearing penises.
McAuliffe News
One Term Chairman Calls it Quits
The DNC is looking for a new chairman:
Terry McAuliffe, who rose from Syracuse politics to lead the Democratic National Committee, will quit the chairmanship when his term expires next year.
Observers credit McAuliffe with rebuilding the national party by paying off its debts, building new headquarters, introducing high-tech campaigning and rearranging the primary schedule.
Backed by Clinton, McAuliffe became the party's national chairman in 2001.
McAuliffe said he is leaving his options open for the future.
"When we win the White House, who knows what opportunities would be available?" McAuliffe said. "We'll wait and see."
Well, hey, if Kerry wins perhaps he can find a suitable position for Terry. SecDef, SecState, or perhaps even VP. Hang in there Terry, if all else fails Hillary may be able to use you later on.
Who Killed Jesus?
The Answer to the Ages Old Question
Bill Hobbs has a confession to make:
Much of the controversy over the movie centers on the question "Who killed Jesus?" - and on accusations by some that the movie accuses "The Jews" as a group of the murder of Jesus the Christ. Let me say right here that, factually, "The Jews" didn't kill Jesus – some Jews, and some Romans, did. But theologically, the question has a much different answer. I have a confession to make:
I killed Jesus.
Go see for yourself!
Judicial Constitutional Amendments
Who Decides? The Courts v The People
James at OTB has an interesting point that follows on what was alluded to in this previous post:
If we’re going to amend the Constitution so regularly, I’d much prefer that we do it in the manner actually prescribed in the Constitution, with a supermajority of the representatives of the people in Congress and three quarters of the states having their say, rather than have it done by unelected judges. Indeed, I find this whole discussion ironic, since George W. Bush has infinitely less power to amend the Constitution than does Sandra Day O’Connor.
Your choice. The Courts v The People.
Meanwhile, The Log Cabin Republicans weigh in on the issue with this:
Read more »
Log Cabin understands that sharp disagreements exist about how to recognize gay and lesbian families. This is a new and complex issue for all Americans. We encourage a healthy national dialogue.
Log Cabin Republicans have been loyal members of the GOP. We have been on the front lines with this President through good days and bad days. Log Cabin members believe so strongly in conservative principles that we have stood with this party even when we disagreed on some issues. Our principles have been attacked by the radical right and the far left, but we have stuck with our party. We’re not going to leave this party now, but we will not remain silent while some in the GOP try to use our Constitution as a tool for discrimination.
“Log Cabin’s mission is bigger than any one person, one election or one issue. We will not abandon our conservative principles, even as others toss their principles aside for short-term political gain,” concluded Guerriero.
No matter what happens in the coming months, Log Cabin will stay in the GOP and fight—fight for fairness, liberty and equality. Hundreds of Log Cabin leaders will gather in California this April for our largest national convention ever. And in August, Log Cabin will have a strong presence in New York for the GOP’s 2004 national convention. We will mobilize all our resources and grassroots strength to fight this anti-family Constitutional amendment.
And that, is the way it should be.
« Collapse
The Enemy Within
European Terror Tactics
Jim Hoagland takes a look at the 'enemy within' in European countries and contrasts the terror fighting styles of those countries with that of the U.S.
As a global military power, the United States relies more on sending soldiers and spies abroad to fight far from American shores. The Pentagon and CIA have identified a global insurgency that they are countering with military and espionage strategies that still reflect the all-or-nothing stakes of the Cold War. George W. Bush proclaims himself a war president.
Europeans depend more on national police forces with sophisticated internal intelligence operations, which Americans are reluctant to accept. It is no accident that the most popular politician in France today is Nicolas Sarkozy, the ambitious interior minister who has made his name synonymous with a pervasive and tough police presence. Similarly, Britain's David Blunkett and Germany's Otto Schily, Sarkozy's counterparts, overshadow most of their cabinet colleagues at home.
This should remind us that once the internal situation of immigration gets out of control and the threat of home grown Islamic radicalism increases, the police state effects necessary to combat that threat will make the Patriot Act look like bill of rights. All the more reason to take the fight to the enemy instead of waiting for them in the homeland. Head over and read it all.
Legislation on Gunmaker Immunity
Dems Trying to Tack On Restrictions
It looks like Congress is set to pass some form of legislation giving immunity from lawsuits to gunmakers in cases where their products are used in a crime:
So Democrats plan to push several of their gun bills as amendments to the gunmaker immunity legislation, hoping the bill's momentum will help carry their measures through as well.
"We all know this underlying bill has legs. That's why we want to get some amendments on there," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who plans to offer legislation Thursday requiring handguns to be equipped with child safety locks.
Before the final vote on Tuesday, Democrats also plan to force votes on a proposal to require unlicensed sellers to check buyers' backgrounds and gun shows and to extend for 10 years the ban on assault weapons.
The bill's Republican supporters insist that any attempt to make changes would simply amount to an attempt to kill the bill. For example, the GOP-controlled House already has said it does not plan to approve an extension of the expiring assault weapons ban.
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a sponsor of the bill, said the amendments were an "attempt to divert legislation and delay final consideration."
On the subject of the president's support of extending the ban on assault weapons there is this:
Read more »
The White House, which has indicated support for the assault weapons ban and the gun show measure, called on the Senate to pass the legislation without amendments.
"Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable," according to a White House statement released late Tuesday.
Democrats took that statement as an indication that President Bush was backing off his support for those two separate measures. "For the president to say he's for the assault weapons ban and act against it, that is a flip-flop if I've ever seen one," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
It doesn't sound like Bush is particularly fond of extending that ban, now does it?
Either way, the legislation protecting gun makers from lawsuits seems to have wide support and should pass barring any unacceptable amendments from Democrats. This bill is not designed to immunize gun makers against defective product suits and in fact leaves them liable for such actions. Sounds reasonable.
« Collapse
Wed Feb 25, 2004
Paige Sorry, Meant to Call NEA 'Extortionist Cabal'
An Unfortunate Choice of Words Corrected
How about a little humor/satire from Scrappleface to lighten things up a bit?
2004-02-24) -- U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige issued an apology today for joking that the nation's largest teachers' union is a "terrorist organization."
"It was an inappropriate choice of words to describe the NEA as a 'terrorist organization'," said Mr. Paige. "I consulted a dictionary today and found several more appropriate terms to describe the highly-paid Washington lobbyists who masquerade as altruistic advocates for America's children. Therefore, I revise my previous remarks. The NEA is not a terrorist organization. The NEA is an extortionist, obstructionist, monopolistic cabal."
Mr. Paige added that his remarks did not necessarily apply to America's hard-working public school teachers, who he described as "NEA victims and conscripts."
That's better.
Societal Experimentation
When Grand Ideas Turn into Mistakes
Here's a little something to ponder. It is an article rebutting the idea that allowing homosexuals to marry poses no risk to society:
So the highly touted half-page of analysis from an unpublished paper that supposedly helps validate the "conservative case" for gay marriage--i.e., that it will encourage stable marriage for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike--does no such thing. Marriage in Scandinavia is in deep decline, with children shouldering the burden of rising rates of family dissolution. And the mainspring of the decline--an increasingly sharp separation between marriage and parenthood--can be linked to gay marriage. To see this, we need to understand why marriage is in trouble in Scandinavia to begin with.
Read more »
SCANDINAVIA has long been a bellwether of family change. Scholars take the Swedish experience as a prototype for family developments that will, or could, spread throughout the world. So let's have a look at the decline of Swedish marriage.
In Sweden, as elsewhere, the sixties brought contraception, abortion, and growing individualism. Sex was separated from procreation, reducing the need for "shotgun weddings." These changes, along with the movement of women into the workforce, enabled and encouraged people to marry at later ages. With married couples putting off parenthood, early divorce had fewer consequences for children. That weakened the taboo against divorce. Since young couples were putting off children, the next step was to dispense with marriage and cohabit until children were desired. Americans have lived through this transformation. The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we've come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that?
Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step--the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures--or higher tax rates--than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It's easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.
The taxes necessary to support the welfare state have had an enormous impact on the family. With taxes so high, women must work. This reduces the time available for child rearing, thus encouraging the expansion of a day-care system that takes a large part in raising nearly all Swedish children over age one. Here is at least a partial realization of Simone de Beauvoir's dream of an enforced androgyny that pushes women from the home by turning children over to the state.
This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.
We see this process at work in the radical separation of marriage and parenthood that swept across Scandinavia in the nineties. If Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates had not already been high in the late eighties, gay marriage would have been far more difficult to imagine. More than a decade into post-gay marriage Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates have passed 50 percent, and the effective end of marriage as a protective shield for children has become thinkable. Gay marriage hasn't blocked the separation of marriage and parenthood; it has advanced it.
Head on over and read it all.
Allowing homosexuals to marry is an experiment that has already been tried by our European brethren. The result, according to this article, is a further decline in marriage, family, and a greater reliance on the welfare state. Given such 'evidence', the prudent course of action in regards to gay 'marriage' is one that takes into account the risk associated with any further weakening of the family unit. There is a risk, of that there is no doubt. Read it all and consider it when debating the merits of experimental social engineering. Then, ask yourself: Who has the right to demand that all of our society pay the price for failed social policy? The answer to that is no one, not gays, not straights, not courts. Only the people as a whole have the right to make such decisions. After all, everyone will have to pay the price for failure.
« Collapse
Gitting in a Snit
Much Outrage about Nothing
Kevin at Wizbang offers some soothing advice to those who have gotten themselves worked up over the 'issue':
Everyone's panties are in a wad about Bush's call for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as that between a man and a woman. Didn't everyone have to take a course in high school on U.S. History and Government?
Amending the Constitution is as American as apple pie. The argument that we've never amended the constitution to take rights away from people is a canard. Look up the 18th Amendment; better known as Prohibition. That amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment proving that even amending the Constitution is not a permanent action.
Those who say that the president is imposing anything on the country with an announcement that he would support an amendment really need to stop and study the process. The president is mostly irrelevant to the process. Where usually he would sign a bill into law, in the case of an amendment he is not involved at all. The president is limited to cheerleading and using the proverbial "bully pulpit."
Head on over there and check out the links to more on this subject.
Like I said in this previous post: If you have a problem with a constitutional amendment, you have a problem with democracy itself.
South Dakota to Outlaw Abortion
Lawmakers Standing up to the Courts
Speaking of Roe v Wade and controversy, here's something from Evangelical Outpost about a South Dakota decision to outlaw abortion:
At first you might wonder if the state wasn’t aware that Roe v. Wade already decided the issue. But South Dakota has decided that someone needs to call Justice Blackmun's bluff. House Bill 1191 states:
Section 1. The Legislature finds that the State of South Dakota has a compelling and paramount interest in the preservation and protection of all human life within and subject to its jurisdiction and that the preservation and protection of human life applies to all human life, born or unborn.
Section 2. The Legislature finds that since neither constitutional law nor Supreme Court decision has resolved the question of the beginning of life, it is within the proper sphere of state legislative enactment to determine the question in light of the best scientific and medical evidence. The Legislature therefore finds that unborn human life begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm.
I missed this one when it was originally posted so there are events to catch up on:
Read more »
The SD abortion ban almost didn’t make it through the Senate. Earlier this month, a legislative committee reduced the proposed ban down to a Right to Know bill. The measure was sent back to the Senate floor and stalled after a 17-17 vote.
Then, at the last moment, Sen. William Napoli (R-Rapid City) switched his vote.
Head on over to Evangelical Outpost for the rest of the story. If nothing else, we see here a prime example of lawmakers standing up to the courts and deciding to right the wrongs they perceive to have been created by court decisions.
« Collapse
Compounding Errors
How Court Precedent Binds Us to Mistakes
Given the current atmosphere where charges of 'activist courts' are flying around and a debate over a proposed constitutional amendment is hitting the headlines it seems to be a good time to consider some of the problems with our court system. One problem stems from the use of the doctrine of 'stare decisis':
Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true.
Based upon this definition it should be evident that our courts are simply compounding some past errors on occasion. This becomes more apparent when we take a look at some opinions regarding the use of precedent. For instance, in Planned Parenthood v Casey, the Supreme court seems more concerned with preserving precedent than it does about correcting the mistakes it admits were made in Roe v Wade:
Read more »
The Court is unquestionably correct in concluding that the doctrine of stare decisis has controlling significance in a case of this kind, notwithstanding an individual Justice's concerns about the merits. The central holding of Roe v. Wade has been a "part of our law" for almost two decades.
Joanne Mariner offers this as an explanation of the Casey decision:
Toward the end of its disquisition on precedent, the Casey opinion concludes that simple disagreement with the holding of an earlier case provides an insufficient reason for overruling the case. Instead, in the joint opinion's stated view, a decision to overrule a previous holding must "rest on some special reason over and above the belief that a prior case was wrongly decided."
This appears to indicate that our courts seem bound to compound errors. In their quest to avoid the inconvenience of frequently changing court opinions that may be the result of changing political views within the court itself they simply agree to be bound by the past regardless of the merits of the precedent setting decision. This does not sound like an ideal way to conduct business.
Judicial power is by its nature retrospective; the Court applies law to factual circumstances that have already occurred. Erroneous precedents themselves are part of the factual backdrop against which the Court decides a current case. Thus, they are part of the "facts on the ground" that properly influence the application of retrospective judicial power. These facts may in some instances limit the ability of the Court to abruptly change course, even if persuaded of past error. For example, even if the Court were tomorrow to deem erroneous its longstanding precedents upholding the constitutionality of paper money, surely the Justices could not ignore the vast economic system that has built up in reliance on paper. But that does not mean that we must live with--and keep repeating and reaffirming--mistakes forever. When the Court makes a mistake in interpreting the Constitution, and later admits making the mistake, there are often ways that the other branches of government can structure things going forward in a way that is more consistent with the proper constitutional order. Importantly, these other branches of government may be able to return to a constitutionally proper regime by acting purely prospectively in a way that judges sometimes should not or cannot, because of their inherently retrospective character.
In situations like this, it is crucial for judges to tell us if they have indeed erred in the past so that the other branches may properly ponder their constitutionally permissible options.
Justices, of course, may not relish confessing error, but they have no proper warrant for refusing to do so when called to account. Notwithstanding recent self-serving pronouncements of judicial supremacy, other branches of government have important roles to play in constitutional conversation, and the success of this conversation depends ultimately on good faith and candor on the part of all participants, including the Court.
The Court's duty, then, is not, as Casey would have it, to affirm and extend precedent without deciding whether it is right or wrong. Rather, it is first to admit error whenever the Court finds that error has occurred, and then to consider whether special reliance factors apply and how those factors might constrain the ability of the Court, and perhaps other branches as well, to set things right.
Well, it seems the time for other branches of government to step up and assume their important roles in the 'constitutional conversation' has arrived. If judges refuse to admit, much less correct their past errors, then the other branches must take whatever action is needed to remove our society from the burden that judicial compounding of errors lays on its shoulders.
The question is: How?
There is the infamous Constitutional Amendment. What else?
The answer is that there is nothing else following a Supreme Court decision. Take a look at Roe v Wade. For 30 some years this country has been torn apart by a court decision that removed all state control of the abortion question. In that matter, courts created a right that did not exist in many peoples' minds. Courts legalized the murder of babies in the view of many citizens. What remedy is there for such an issue?
Now, with the marriage issue on the table many people think that a constitutional amendment is wrong. Well, what is the alternative when courts refuse to allow states and their people to regulate such matters? If the courts would adher to their role there would be no need for constitutional amendments. In a perfect world we would not see various activists evading the will of the people and taking the judicial route to get their way. But, this is not a perfect world. The people have a right to decide this issue and have in fact already decided it in some 38 states. Are they supposed to sit back and wait for a tribunal to overturn their right to decide? If so, then the people can expect another Roe v Wade and the compounding of errors that attach themselves to such bad court decisions.
Sometimes, it is best to take the offensive. In the case of marriage, that time is now, otherwise the people will be bound to the whim of the court. Given the track record of the judiciary, that may not be the wisest course of action. There remains the alternative. Take whatever the courts decide and be stuck with it. Let the minority dictate public policy for the majority. Something just doesn't sound right with that. That leaves a constitutional amendment, or at least the threat of one, as the only course of action that would allow the people to decide the marriage issue. The last time I heard, the president does not have a role in that process beyond what every other citizen has, a single vote. Bush is simply expressing his opinion on a matter that goes further than simply allowing gays to wed. He is in fact leading by example, taking a stand, and fighting to preserve the basic rights of the American people, their states, and their representatives to decide such matters. Anyone that has a problem with that has a problem with democracy itself.
« Collapse
The anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment
Another bad Bush move
I think a majority of Americans believe that committed gay couples should receive similar legal protections to those afforded committed straight couples. Not all of the latter category are legally married and none of the former category can make that claim, at least until very recently. But let us suppose that we go with the notion that gays can enter into a civil union that provides each partner with the same rights as a married couple enjoy. When John and Mark or Patricia and Millicent decide that they should enter into a civil union and legalize their relationship then they may well want to celebrate the event. If they choose to call the celebration a wedding and the relationship a marriage, then that's what they are, at least in the eyes of their friends and family. As I see it, granting gays the right to enter civil unions with the same legal status as marriage is virtually the same as legalizing gay marriage. If they call their civil unions marriages, then that's what they are. It comes down to a matter of labels.
Bush should not have touched the issue, just like he should not have touched immigration. All he did was energize his opponents, annoy important supporters, and distract from far more important issues.
Now, if Bush really was serious about protecting the traditional heterosexual institution of marriage, he should call for the repeal of the laws that take money from taxpayers and gives it to the mothers of illegitimate children. I've no moral objection to single mothers, but I sure don't like my tax dollars funding programs that give single mothers incentives to have babies and reduce the incentive for fathers to assume their parental responsibilities.
Tue Feb 24, 2004
Patterns of Academic Deception – Part III
Michael E. Mann - Hockey stick man
Michael E. Mann, assistant professor of Climatology in the Department of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia is famous for the historical temperature graph published in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report of Jan 2000 and the actual report of 2001. In contrast with the bulk of previous research on climate over the last 1000 years, Mann's graph, as published by the IPCC, shows a very slight cooling trend for 900 years with minor variations, followed by a sharp up-tick in the 20th century. That distinctive shape led to his graph being described as a "hockey stick".
This new picture of climate over the last 1000 years stood in sharp contrast to the graph published by the IPCC in 1995. That graph clearly shows the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) that lasted from 1000 AD to 1450 AD followed by the Little Ice Age (LIA) that lasted from 1450 AD until 1900 AD.

Mann's new graph also directly contradicted masses of historical and scientific evidence that documented both the MWP and the LIA. Mann claimed that: Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990's were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence. This claim has become received wisdom, even within the scientific community. Certainly, the environmental movement takes it as gospel and opinion makers and politicians have followed suit. The debate has moved from whether or not global warming is actually happening or even what is causing the observed changes (other than the assumption that it is CO 2) to a discussion about what can be done to ameliorate the impact.
Read more »
Still, not everyone has bought into the "hockey stick". Mann's research has been criticized on a number of grounds. The 20th century temperatures were based on land based temperature records while the temperatures for earlier centuries were based on proxy measures of temperature, primarily tree ring cores. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison that should never have passed peer review. The 20th century ground based records do not correlate very well with satellite based readings of the upper atmosphere, which show far less warming. Moreover, the satellite readings are corroborated by readings from weather balloons. These show negligible warming over the last few decades. Had Mann appended these readings onto his tree-ring readings, his graph would have been known as the billiard cue.
It is also amazing that Mann would have the effrontery to claim "moderately high levels of confidence". In reality, Mann's margins of error are so large they could accommodate any number of wild swings in temperature over the last 1000 years. Mann's claim that 1998 was the warmest year on record ignored that fact that that as the year of an exceptional El Nino event and not even Mann can claim that slight increases in CO 2 precipitated El Nino events. Here's the hockey stick again with the error ranges shown in yellow.
Longer term analyses of temperature based on ice cores, for example, show that temperatures frequently increased and decreased in very short time spans. The graph shows temperatures estimated from ice-core samples going back into the last ice-age. This graph really is scary.
There are also problems with Mann's reliance on tree ring cores, particularly when they are not geographically dispersed, as David Legates points out in his TCS column: But do proxy records really represent air temperature fluctuations? Most of the analyses on which the "hockey stick" relies are taken from tree-ring cores. Trees, however, respond not only to temperature fluctuations but also to species competition, fire episodes, pest infestations, and droughts. For example, if rainfall is limited, as often is the case in western North America (where the preponderance of data for Mann's pre-A.D. 1400 analysis is located), tree growth is severely restricted, regardless of the temperature conditions. It is impossible under such conditions to discriminate between a cold period and a dry period -- which is why Soon and Baliunas correctly characterized their assessments as "climate anomalies" rather than boldly assert they reflect air temperature fluctuations, as Mann does. Moreover, Dr. Jan Esper of the Swiss Federal Research Institute and colleagues demonstrated that their careful analysis of tree-ring chronologies yields an annual temperature curve for a large portion of the Northern Hemisphere that, unlike the "hockey stick," clearly shows the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and that temperatures during the early years of the millennium were commensurate with those of the 1900s.
Soon and Baliunas followed Mann's limited quantitative study with a qualitative study that reviewed 240 recent research papers that analyzed climate over the past 1000 years. They looked for climate anomalies rather than attempt to assign a global average temperature to each period. Their research clearly showed that the MWP and LIA were real events; the scientific evidence corroborates the historical evidence. The reaction to their work has been hostile and ad hominem.
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick obtained Mann's original data and tried to reproduce his work. According to the abstract of their paper CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998)PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES: The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components. Mann and company responded to McIntyre and McKitrick in a series of exchanges that suggest Mann was having trouble supplying his opponents with his original data files and then blasting them for using the wrong data. It also reveals that Mann' evidence against the MWP rests on just three data series. That is very slight evidence to cite against the preponderance of scientific and historical evidence for the MWP. The graph shows Mann's original graph on top and the revised version that McIntyre and McKitrick derived from Mann's datasets. Note how many datapoints lie above the base line in the revised version.
There are valid reasons to be concerned about adverse human impact on the environment. But the current hysteria about global warming is diverting attention and resources away from addressing real environmental problems. Poor research that fits the climate activists' agenda makes headline news while good news is ignored. I recently read about a study that claimed global warming was going to destroy 95% of the coral in the Great Barrier Reef by 2050. The author's of the study do not address how the coral made it through the Medieval Warming Period, presumably because they assume it never happened – it isn't on Mann's IPCC sanctioned graph. They are simply assuming global warming of the order of 2°C to 6°C will occur over this century. Such is the power of Mann's hockey stick. There are threats to the reef that are under human control; man can cut the flow of sediment, fertilizers and pesticides on to the reef. But, as in the past, the climate will vary and there won't be much humanity can do about it. This will become abundantly clear when the current interglacial vacation ends.
Climate activists claim that human induced greenhouse gas emissions will lead to a catastrophic increase in global temperatures. In their view, recent warming trends over the last century are solely due to human influence and mans' burning of fossil fuels has disturbed a natural equilibrium that goes back at least a thousand years. Mann's hockey stick is their proof and they deny that there even was a MWP or LIA. Mann himself denies that there ever was a warmer period than the 1990s over the last 1000 years. But the weight of scientific evidence will eventually break Mann's hockey stick and the consensus view based on it, just as scholars eventually demolished the work of Foster and Bellesiles.
« Collapse
Fact Check
Kerry Says Bush Cut VA Budget
Let's do a little fact checking about this recent statement:
In the Feb. 15 Democratic debate, Kerry suggested that Bush was being unpatriotic: “He’s cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.”
Now, on the surface, that does not sound right. Below the surface it sounds even worse.
In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.
In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%
Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%.
By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton.
Read more »
One reason: the number of veterans getting benefits is increasing rapidly as middle-income veterans turn for health care to the expanding network of VA clinics and its generous prescription drug benefit.
According to the VA, the number of veterans signed up to get health benefits increased by 1.1 million, or 18%, during the first two fiscal years for which Bush signed the VA appropriations bills. And the numbers continue to grow. By the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30, the VA estimates that the total increase under Bush's budgets will reach nearly 1.6 million veterans, an increase of 25.6 percent.
And according to the VA, the number of community health clinics has increased 40% during Bush's three years, with accompanying increases in the numbers of outpatient visits (to 51 million last year) and prescriptions filled (to 108 million).
Naturally, Democrats keep avoiding the facts. Check out the lies for yourself. Remember, if it ain't the truth, it's a lie.
« Collapse
Pakistan Getting Serious?
Looking Good So Far
Here are some promising signs that Pakistan is backing up words with action:
Pakistani troops using helicopters and artillery flattened three housing compounds and detained at least 20 people Tuesday in a remote border region where Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida fugitives are believed to have sought refuge.
The sweep followed a warning to tribal elders to hand over foreign suspects who were reportedly in the area. The Pakistani military searched house-to-house for six hours in villages near Wana, just a few miles from the border with Afghanistan.
This sounds promising and so does this:
Read more »
Authorities had talked for days about launching the operation if tribal authorities didn't hand over the suspects. Troops set up heavy guns and brought in troops in a show of force.
The operation began after dawn when authorities deployed about a dozen helicopter gunships to the village of Zarkai, which is in Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal region about 190 miles west of Pakistan's capital, Islamabad.
Soon, two other villages west of Wana, Kaloosha and Azam Warsak, were also under siege. When the leaders failed to hand over the suspects, troops fired artillery and leveled three compounds where fugitives were allegedly hiding.
"They were given enough time," a government official supervising the operation told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. "We launched the operation when they failed to hand the foreign terrorists over."
Whatever it takes.
|