Judicious Search


Advanced 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

Judicious Asininity blog, news, views, opinions

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

Your Email
Subject
Message

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.

Posted by: Pat on Feb 29, 04 | 10:06 pm |
| [0] comments (1288 views) |  | Permalink | [32] TrackBack |

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 »

Posted by: Randall on Feb 29, 04 | 11:10 am |
| [0] comments (1112 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 29, 04 | 10:06 am |
| [2] comments (1521 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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?

Posted by: Randall on Feb 29, 04 | 10:01 am |
| [5] comments (1238 views) |  | Permalink | [1402] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 28, 04 | 7:11 pm |
| [5] comments (1388 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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 »

Posted by: Randall on Feb 28, 04 | 6:51 pm |
| [15] comments (1723 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 28, 04 | 10:33 am |
| [4] comments (1423 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 28, 04 | 9:23 am |
| [1] comments (1246 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 27, 04 | 6:50 pm |
| [2] comments (1484 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 27, 04 | 10:53 am |
| [3] comments (1326 views) |  | Permalink | [1575] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 27, 04 | 10:29 am |
| [4] comments (1505 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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 »

Posted by: Randall on Feb 27, 04 | 9:56 am |
| [4] comments (1247 views) |  | Permalink | [6] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 27, 04 | 9:51 am |
| [0] comments (1274 views) |  | Permalink | [2068] TrackBack |

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 »

Posted by: Randall on Feb 26, 04 | 9:17 pm |
| [0] comments (1158 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 26, 04 | 7:16 pm |
| [0] comments (1102 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 26, 04 | 6:53 pm |
| [0] comments (1194 views) |  | Permalink | [1368] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 26, 04 | 6:29 pm |
| [0] comments (1073 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 26, 04 | 6:20 pm |
| [0] comments (1148 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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!

Posted by: Randall on Feb 26, 04 | 12:17 pm |
| [0] comments (1063 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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 »

Posted by: Randall on Feb 26, 04 | 11:59 am |
| [1] comments (1361 views) |  | Permalink | [299] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 26, 04 | 9:54 am |
| [0] comments (1075 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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 »

Posted by: Randall on Feb 26, 04 | 9:36 am |
| [0] comments (1051 views) |  | Permalink | [2208] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 25, 04 | 9:24 pm |
| [6] comments (1710 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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 »

Posted by: Randall on Feb 25, 04 | 7:12 pm |
| [3] comments (1252 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Randall on Feb 25, 04 | 2:23 pm |
| [6] comments (1345 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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 »

Posted by: Randall on Feb 25, 04 | 2:04 pm |
| [1] comments (1189 views) |  | Permalink | [281] TrackBack |

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 »

Posted by: Randall on Feb 25, 04 | 10:14 am |
| [1] comments (1425 views) |  | Permalink | [1573] TrackBack |

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.

Posted by: Pat on Feb 25, 04 | 12:38 am |
| [5] comments (1189 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

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".

image

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.

image

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 CO2) to a discussion about what can be done to ameliorate the impact.


Read more »

Posted by: Pat on Feb 24, 04 | 11:25 pm |
| [1] comments (3681 views) |  | Permalink | [2786] TrackBack |

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 »

Posted by: Randall on Feb 24, 04 | 9:12 pm |
| [1] comments (1211 views) |  | Permalink | [636] TrackBack |

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 »