Biden and Pluto

-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) renewed the campaign to promote his Iraq proposal. It is a five point plan that is centered around dividing the country into three regions along sectarian lines. According to Biden, the weak national level of the government would mainly be charged with the distribution of oil revenues. For a comparison model, think of our post-revolution Articles of Confederation. The plan has some solid points to it, but there are two or three problems that I have with the proposal.

First, it includes a comprehensive withdrawal at the end of 2007. While I agree that we need to have a viable exit strategy, setting a date is no bueno. It would be a dangerous sign of weakness for an already emboldened Iran, and it would give our enemies plenty of time to strategize for post-coalition Iraq.

Second, the nation is, for the most part, divdided along sectarian lines already. One of the reasons that there is so much violence in Baghdad is because it is the melting pot of the country. It would still be the capital for the national government, so it would still have large communities of at least Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Since we could not give the city to one province and force all others out, the situation would remain the same. The plan offers no solution for developing and maintaining any kind of peace in the city. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the violence would subside.

Finally, the Sunni region could become a terrorist haven. I am not certain that they will accept a deal that keeps them from possessing their Saddam-era power over the country. They can be blamed for much of the violence in the country for that exact reason. They have been the big losers since Saddam got the boot, so they have the most to gain and least to lose by continuing a campaign of carnage.

This proposal is a building block at best. But, hey, at least someone calling for withdrawals actually has a plan (I mean other than holding up signs, saying dumb things, and smelling bad).

-The International Astronomical Union voted yesterday to reclassify Pluto as a dwarf planet, cutting the number of planets in our solar system to eight. A science museum curator who decided to do the same in his institution six years ago received multiple death threats from the move's publicity. If this is any indicator, look for riots on North Avenue in Atlanta. There could be a lot of angry Tech nerds out there. (In case you're wondering, Pluto was not named after Mickey Mouse's dog. It was named as a tribute to the man who funded its discovery, Percival Lowell. They took his initials, PL, and used that as the base for what would be the new planet's name.)

Gay Marriage and the Myth of "Rights"

As the son of a Purple Heart paratrooper and a member in a long line of U.S. Army veterans, I have been taught to appreciate our rights and freedoms more than most. I understand the cost of these benefits, and have the utmost level of respect for those who sacrifice to give them to the world.

Three things agitate me: 1. those unwilling to do what is necessary to secure the blessings of liberty; 2. those who disrespect both our soldiers and our democratic processes; and 3. those who invent rights to advance their political agenda.

No single group of people is guilty of violating #3 more often than the political left of this country. Just yesterday, I heard a gay marriage advocate say that he "just wants the rights guaranteed to everyone else."

Well, guess what? I have some great news. You have the same rights as anyone else in this country. You see, marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. I do not recall seeing a fundamental right to marriage in the Bill of Rights. If it were somewhere in that wonderful text, then the government would have to provide losers like myself with a bride. Instead, you have to go through a process, and if you qualify (and only then) you are granted a marriage license.

Government is not in the business of love. It does not grant benefits to married couples because it is just so happy that Ross and Rachael finally got together. That is the role of religion, the source of marriage in the first place. Instead, the government encourages marriage for a few different reasons. I will briefly discuss the two most important:

1. To encourage population growth. The government has a compelling interest in ensuring that it will have soldiers and scientists to keep it competitive on the global scene. This seems overly simplistic, but consider the panic in Europe in regards to rapidly shrinking populations. If you don't buy the soldiers/scientists theory, then you will agree that more babies = more tax payers, and more tax payers = funded entitlement programs (social security, medicare, etc.), many of which are unfunded now.(Here is a great article from The Economist - in case you don't believe me. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1923383)

2. To combat crime and poverty rates and ensure the well-being of the newest generation. Several major studies have shown that children with married parents do better in every measure of well-being than their counterparts with different living situation. Therefore, the government once again has a compelling interest in encouraging marriage. (http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028317.cfm)

Uncle Sam views marriage as a mutually beneficial business deal. It has nothing to do with love or fuzzy warm feelings, and it is certainly not a guaranteed right. There are tangible benefits to promoting matrimony, and unfortunately homosexuals can not reciprocate government benefits.

I have heard the argument that if we do not allow gays to marry because of these factors, then old or sterile couples should not be given the privilege of marriage benefits. We call this, "grasping at straws." The fact of the matter is that these couples can still form the unit that serves as the base of our society. Additionally, they are just as able to adopt children as any other couple is to conceive themselves. The bottom line is that they meet the requirements of our democratic society to receive the benefits of the privilege of marriage. In a democracy, the people have the right to direct their own society. That said, overwhelming majorities have voted down gay marriage in various statewide referendums.

This is not a matter of discrimination. It is an issue of simply not always allowing people to do whatever they want to do just because they think it is their right.

Gay "rights" advocates have chosen the low road in debating this issue. For my views on the matter, I will undoubtedly be labeled a facist, racist, relgious fundamentalist, and all kinds of other great names. Why? Because those who invent their own rights hardly ever respect the guaranteed rights of others. My opinion is not based on religion, hate, or prejudice. It is based on political fact. And it's my right.

Why I Was Wrong

When I am wrong, I would rather admit it than go on looking like a fool.
A few posts ago, I argued that it was dangerous that Arabs view the recent conflict in the Middle East as a victory for Hezbollah. It is, and I made some good points, but I now see that Israel really did lose.
At the outset of the battle, each side had strategic objectives. Israel wanted to have its two kidnapped soldiers returned and Hezbollah disarmed. Neither happened. Hezbollah wanted to surivive. That did happen.

Israel still has the buffer, and at the time of my last post I thought that the U.N. peacekeeping force could be trusted to disarm the terrorist organization. I usually have no faith in the U.N., but for some reason I did in this case. I was wrong. After begging for a cessation of violence on the condition that peace keepers maintain a buffer zone and disarm Hezbollah, no nations have stepped up to the plate by volunteering troops.

I will no longer put any faith in the U.N. to handle difficult situations. If you do, then you are an ignorant sucker, plain and simple.

sensational!

What a tumultuous week in global affairs.

In the past few days, we have seen:
-A spoiled terrorist attack that would have been deadlier than 9/11 and directly affected two Western Democracies;
-A harsh armed conflict in the middle east that pitted the region's only Democracy against an Iranian/Syrian funded terrorist organization;
-The intense diplomatic negotiations to bring a cessation of violence in the middle east;
-The ousting of a respected three term Senate incumbent in a primary;
-The activist judicial ruling against the domestic surveillance program;
-AND-
-The outrageously anti-Semitic behavior of soon-to-be-former congressthing Cynthia McKinney.

We now face:
-A long, heated campaign season that will ultimately decide the fate of American invovlement in the middle east;
-A controversial national debate on the limits of the government in prosecuting the War on Terror;
-An extremely volatile situation in southern Lebanon spurred by delays and unwillingness to deploy a U.N. peace-keeping force - which could lead to more hostility in the very near future;
-AND-
-A tough diplomatic battle in regards to dealing with Iran and Syria's support and funding of Hezbollah, Russia's $1 billion weapon sale to Iran, and the UN resolution to scold the Iranians in regards to the upcoming nuclear crisis. In more general terms, the mad dictator, Ahmadinejad, who is convinced that the end of the world is at hand and that he is the one who is to bring it about in the next week.

BUT

All that I have seen on the news for the past day and a half is a 5 year old girl who was killed ten years ago and the pathological pedophile who claims to be responsible.

This is an awful situation for the family, but the media has nothing on which to base its reports and this is very, very old news with a very, very limited scope. Over 2,000 children were killed in 1996 when this case originally came to the public's attention. This one just happened to be the most photogenic.

The real death that should be a top story is that of quality journalism - which unfortunately died out some time in the mid '90s as a result of the growth of the 24 hour news market and America's relentless craze for sensationalism.

Cable news should be called "cable speculation". They report what they hear and deal with the consequences later. Consider the Sago mining tragedy. The media reported that all but one of the miners were alive and the families were overcome with joy. They showed footage of them hugging, crying tears of joy and singing. An hour later, the talking heads confessed that they had gotten the story wrong. All but one of the miners was killed.

Just yesterday, a 60 year old woman had a claustrophobic fit on an airplane and the captain decided to ground the flight to take care of the situation. Two major networks reported that a woman with a screwdriver, vaseline, matches (all of which are banned on commercial flights), and a note with a reference to al-Qaeda was raising hell. When the truth was revealed, their defense was, "well that's what we heard!" It has since been reported that she might have had two of the items with her on the plane, but this still represents shaky journalism.

The blame cannot be placed squarely on the shoulders of the anchors, producers, and network executives. It should be placed on the American public. After all, the networks are just runnning what the market demands.

Start demanding quality - at least in the area of news.

Soros vs. Reason

Normally I try to discuss issues pertinent to the events of the week. However, due to popular demand, I will make a few comments on Joe Lieberman's Senate primary loss last Tuesday.

Many people who casually follow politics are not sure why the country was captivated by a primary race in one corner of the nation. There were several factors that thrust this race under the microscope, but political observers mainly wanted to see if Connecticut Democrats would really oust Lieberman. This contest was viewed as a likely predictor of two things: 1. the direction that the Democratic party is headed; and 2. the probable outcome of the November midterm elections.

This race featured a George Soros/moveon.org backed antiwar millionaire, Ned Lamont, versus the slightly-left-of-center three term incumbent, Joe Lieberman. In the past two decades, Lieberman has been one of the most universally respected actors in American politics. His honesty, integrity, and willingness to reach across the aisle to solve problems has earned high praise from Democrats and Republicans alike. Now, whenever the waaay lefties act up publicly, Democrats always claim that they do not represent the meat and taters of their party - that they are simply fringe allies.

And so the stage was set. Would the antiwar leftists hijack the Democratic party and oust one of its most respected politicians? Or would the more reasonable Dems rise to the challenge and crush Soros and the moveon.org wing of the party?

Unfortunately, we now know that the new base of the Democratic party won the day. The importance of an established three term incumbent losing in a primary cannot be overstated. This shows the power and influence that the "fringe" of the blues now has over the Democratic party.

Lieberman immediately announced that he would run in the general election as an independent, and local polls show that he is in the lead as such. He will undoubtedly pick up a large portion of the Republican vote, and I believe that he has a good chance of winning re-election as an Independent.

As a result of this primary, I expect the following to happen:

1. The Democrats were primed for a big win in November. Thanks to the foiled terror plot a mere day after the results were announced, they have never looked more weak on national defense. They might pick up some seats in the midterm elections, but will not take over the government.

2. The Democratic party is one at crossroads. The struggle between the old party moderates and the new socialist base will rage for quite a while. I would not be surprised in the least to see a third party, or maybe just a serious third party candidate for president, emerge from this in the coming decade. I think the old party faithful are disgusted by Soros and his cronies and would not be surprised to see some effort at a break.

Random Thoughts on the matter:

The day after the results were made public, VP Dick Cheney said that Lieberman's defeat was a "victory for the al Qaeda types." Naturally, he was chastised and accused of being a cheap shot artist. Normally I would agree. I actually got sick to my stomach reading an Ann Coulter book this past week. However, in this case, he is right. Any way that you dice it, AQI (al Qaeda in Iraq) and their insurgency has had a major impact on our domestic political landscape. Mission accomplished. Would they rather have a Lieberman or Lamont?

The "big money Republican candidate" stereotype is no longer fair game for Democratic challengers. Billionaires like George Soros and his PACs are buying leftist candidates exposure - and then ultimately elections.
The first step in recapturing the party of Jefferson will be the reelection of Lieberman...ironically...as an Independent.

Keep Shining, City on a Hill

Recent world events, more specifically those in regards to Islamic fundamentalism, have forced the world to ask tough questions. How do we deal with an enemy that refuses to raise an army, refuses to fight a traditional war, and targets civilian populations? Should our military, civilian emergency response agencies, or diplomats be at the forefront of our efforts?

There are no simple answers to these complex questions, and good, well-intentioned people often disagree over proposed means to a common end.

In this spirit, I have been alarmed at the right wing cry for systematic "terrorist profiling" as a response to the latest terror threat. They refuse to call it "racial profiling", but they use "terrorist" as a code word to mean, "young, middle eastern male."

I cannot argue that the vast majority of terrorists fit their description, but I do not see the benefit of systematically singling them out. The vast majority of American Muslims are decent people who embrace their Western society. No one is arguing that we need to put those that fit the bill into internment camps, but the effort to profile one specific group of people is reminiscent of the Japanese internment camps during World War 2 and more recently segregation in the American South. Both were periods of our nation's history that we look back on in shame.

Not only would such actions constitute a general abandonment of the American spirit, but it would be highly ineffective as a policy. We know that Jemahh Islamiyah (the Filipino branch of al Qaeda) was largely responsible for the Mid-Atlantic plot and that the would-be hijackers were mostly South Asian men and women. We also know that al Qaeda has actively recruited western converts to Islam to attract less attention to potential attacks. The bottom line is that the enemy will adjust to our tactics one way or the other.

What we need is a set of uniform security standards for public transportation terminals and special events. If we have authority figures who know what to look for, then we should not need to single anyone out unneccessarily.

Americans need to fully consider the ramifications of such actions before jumping on a bandwagon. If we allow our government to systematically single certain groups out, then we cannot expect to have a healthy, integrated society. Consider the chaos in France last summer. Consider the crisis Britain now faces with its homegrown Islamic fundamentalists. If our citizens are not fully assimilated and accepted into our processes then they become disenfranchised with our institutions - and that can be a very dangerous condition.

I find it upsetting that the party of Reagan would allow fellow Americans to be treated as second class citizens just to save some time at the airport. If you have never read the "Shining City On a Hill" speech, I recommend doing so now.

America, especially Reagan Revolutionaries, should always take up the cause of her citizens - so long as they are willing to take up hers.

Who Won?

Today marks the second day of the "permanent" cessation of violence in the Middle East, and already various actors are declaring Hezbollah the ultimate winners of the month-long conflict. They argue that the mere survival of Hezbollah will advance their public relations cause and give them infinitely increased recruiting potential. After all, these ragtag fundamentalists stood up to the Israeli Defense Force and refused to be wiped out like so many other Arab armies. They will be resupplied by Iran and Syria, and with all the new recruits that will come from this notoriety they can easily become much more of a headache for the West.

This is how the Arabs view the results of the past month, and that is a problem for everyone. What strategic gains did Hezbollah achieve in the past month? They got some notoriety. A lot of them got killed. They got a lot of civilians killed. And they damn sure got half of Lebanon destroyed.

What about Israel - what did that country gain? They killed a lot of the enemy and they depleted and/or destroyed a good portion of Hezbollah's weapons stockpiles. But the biggest strategic gain for the Jewish state is the internationally enforced buffer zone. Most people do not realize that Hezbollah has been firing rockets into Israeli territories on a daily basis for years, so they got to show force in addressing their enemy and gave their citizens a safety zone.

A cost/benefit analysis for both sides shows a stark contrast in favor of Israel. Yet this is considered the best an Arab force has done in standing up to Israel yet, which is amazing. Consider that no uniformed unit actually stood up to face the IDF at any point in the conflict. They used Lebanese civilians as human shields. They fired stockpiles of rockets indiscriminately into civilian populations. They managed to get their country completely decimated. And they have nothing - nothing - to show for it.

If simply surviving (albeit by utilizing cowardly tactics) is enough to be labeled a victor, then Israel is the supreme winner of the universe. They have survived for decades despite being surrounded by virulent enemies and hampered by the pesky rules of decency practiced by the West.

Unfortunately, the population of the Middle East is too anti-Semitic to see how badly Hezbollah, and indeed their society, really lost.

PS I shouldn't say that Hezbollah gained nothing. They are instruments of Iran, and I guarantee that their invading Israel had the purpose of distracting the Security Council and the world from Iran's nuclear ambitions. Is this a lead in to or distraction for something on 8/22? (read the article below)

Armageddon, courtesy of Ahmadinejad?

This is an interesting article from Free Republic. I actually just heard about this on the radio last week and wanted to look it up.
Those of us reading this in the West might not take it seriously, but one thing that we need to keep in mind is that many Muslims take what you are about to read quite literally. The refusal of the Ahmadinejad government to reply to U.N. mandates until 8/22 fuels the speculative fire, but I wouldn't worry about any real nuclear threat. I personally haven't checked out the Iranian nuclear sites, but from what I can tell they still need a few years to develop workable nukes.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1682392/posts

Terror Bust

The news of recently thwarted terrorist attacks has once again awoken Americans to the reality that we have cruel and irreconcilable enemies. Thanks to the heroic efforts of British, American, and Pakistani intelligence agencies, we did not not need to watch thousands of our countrymen die to rediscover this lesson.

The fact that several countries banded together to spoil this plot should be seen as a victory for freedom over tyranny. However, instead of celebrating the success, liberals immediately went on the offensive - accusing Republicans of manipulating the situation to "play politics". This stinks of desperation to me.

Perhaps the left is desperate because they have no frame of reference in the national security debate. They have not brought a single original idea to the table in years. Their policy has been purely reactionary. As a substitute for meaningful policy, they have harshly criticized the actions of those on the right, while never actually suggesting a better course of action themselves. They have no plan for the Middle East, and they have no concept of the War on Terror.

The reason liberals came out swinging immediately after this news broke is because of how the plot was foiled. British Intelligence has made no qualms about the fact that it used a comprehensive domestic surveillance program to track the conspirators and their actions. This, they say, is the only reason they were able to prevent the attack.

The phrase "domestic surveillance program" might sound familiar to many Americans. It is precisely what the left was describing as an "unconstitutional executive power grab" just a few short months ago. Before accusing the administration of playing politics with national security after preventing an attack, the Lib faithful were grandstanding on their soapboxes - griping about the very practices that prevented thousands of British and American citizens from being killed. What do we call that? Ah, yes. Playing politics. The worst kind of playing politics, mind you.

There is no need to "play politics" when your policies are effective. Ironically, accusing your opponent of playing politics is, in and of itself, playing politics.

The Left has is slowly sealing its fate - irrelevance.

Jury Duty

Jury Duty
About a month ago, I got a typically dreaded notice in the mail: a jury summons. Actually, I am interested in the legal process, and - somehow dodging it myself to this point - wanted to see it in action.

I left Statesboro at 5:30 a.m. yesterday and headed for the Chatham County Courthouse. I arrived at the courthouse early (very early), and waited to be called in to the Jury Assembly room.

Then I waited. And waited. And waited. Finally, at 1:30, we got called to the courtroom for jury selection. It was a Superior Court trial involving a homeless man who stole some tools from a construction site. What a thrill.

The voir dire went by relatively quickly, and, being the son of a retired police officer, the only man in the room with a tie on, and the victim of several instances of theft myself - I was not selected.

I did not get the educational experience of seeing a trial in person, but I still learned something that day about my fellow man.

Americans are the most spoiled rotten people on the planet. Our country asks little of us as citizens: taxes, jury duty, and in the most dire of circumstances, involuntary military service. A comparison of our duties and our rights shows a stark contrast. I liken it to a bag boy at your local grocery store getting paid $1 million a year - the benefits far outweigh the amount of work required to attain them. And yet we still gripe about the little we are asked to do. Everyone expects the benefits of Democracy, but when asked to do what is necessary to secure the rights of ourselves and others, the knee-jerk reaction is to bitch, moan, and avoid.

BUT, if we suspect for even a second that someone else might be considering inhibiting one of our perceived rights (i say "perceived" because my libby friends make up rights on a daily basis), the waterworks start flowing and the hearts start a'bleedin'.
Everyone wants a fair trial to be decided by a jury of their peers, but nobody wants to ever sit on a jury. You should have seen the faces and heard the expletives of the people who were selected. Genuine frustration and disappointment was written on all of their faces.
Consider that out of 40 potential jurors, no less than 10 used the voir dire to refuse to be a part of the trial. When asked if they could be fair or impartial if asked to serve, they replied that they would not even try. Several of them used this important moment to denounce democracy and its processes.

One young lady from UGA used the Assistant D.A.'s blanket question to chastise police for their poor treatment of homeless people. She said that she would not participate in this crucial exercise in Democracy because our country could not live up to her sterling expectations in regards to human rights.

However, there was one problem: she was wearing a red shirt with a hammer and sicle on the front and the crescent and star on the back. She had the gall to sit in on a process by which a defendant (caught in the act by police officers) had the right to help select the people who would decide his guilt or innocence, and chastise the United States of America for its human rights practices, while promoting those of China and the former U.S.S.R. Stalin's secret police killed millions. China has a government controlled media, absolutely no freedom of speech (mentioning the word "Democracy" will get you thrown in prison...look it up), and readily takes political prisoners.

But she, sitting in a courtroom where a person who was caught in the act of theft was on his third appeal - selecting those among his peers who would determine his fate, was appalled by the practices of the U.S.A.

All I ask is that you do one of two things: 1. shut up and do your duty because it's the right thing to do, or, 2. forfeit your rights altogether. If you do not choose option 1, at least don't bitch and moan when option 2 is imposed upon you. You have no right.