Update from the Heartland
No.256
30.10.06 – 5.11.06
To all,
Tomorrow is Election Day in the United States . . . Vote American! This silly season is nearly over.
The President tells us repeatedly that we should vote Republican to keep the tax rate low and prevent Democrats from raising taxes. For many years, I bought the argument . . . Republicans stood for smaller, more frugal, government, which in turn meant lower taxes. I suppose I must admit my naivet̩ in thinking Republicans had a more noble purpose that aligned with my views of government's place in our lives. The last few years have been a staggering disappointment Рlower revenue must be balanced with lower expenses. The divisiveness and extreme polarity the current administration and Congress have generated while sucking off the Treasury riches to which they feel their elected offices entitle them, produces a vile, odiferous stench. A Republican-controlled Congress has spent money like a drunken sailor still deep in his alcohol stupor among a bevy of willing prostitutes, and the Republican president has steadfastly refused to say no to this ridiculous spending spree, far beyond the tax revenue available. Regrettably, my analogy does a serious disservice to noble members of the naval service as well as to respectable prostitutes. Disappointment is hardly an adequate word to describe the betrayal of this government.
One among many sad realities of contemporary American politics involves the contentment of so many citizens who feel quite comfortable finding some lackey candidate to be their agent for moral projection and/or their conduit for siphoning the Treasury. And, politicians – being fine, upstanding, moral, characters – are perfecting willing to fill the role as agent and conduit. So few modern politicians have the moral backbone and courage to do what is correct for the Nation despite the self-interests of their political party and large contributors. Perhaps the greatest single flaw in our representative form of government is unchecked pork-barrel spending, i.e., influential citizens find their access to the public Treasury via their willing surrogates. This Congress in concert with an all-too-willing Executive has found new and imaginative ways to spend the public treasure, and I do not like it!
Since this was the last full week of this year's silly season, I feel the urge to note the Jim Webb / George Allen senatorial campaign in Virginia as it appears to be the best example of why I have no desire for and will never seek public office. George is so bloody desperate to get re-elected that he is trying mightily to gain traction by making Jim’s novels a campaign issue – Jim’s novels have sex scenes . . . oh my gosh! Will wonders ever cease? My written opinions and certainly my books – novels, non-fiction – essays and most likely this Update as well – would undoubtedly upset more than a few folks in this neck of the woods and elsewhere, but they are what they are. I like words, ideas, debate and opinion far more than any power an office in Washington might entail.
On a related note and a measure of the bizarre nature of George Allen's desperation, I found one of those rare occasions that I actually agree with Maureen Dowd of the New York Times -- "Brothels, Sex Kittens, Pedophilia?" 28.October.2006 -- an opinion article about the Republican panic ranging from Mark Foley to George Allen's meltdown. Strange . . . for me to agree with Maureen, however, I must say, spot on, Maureen. There you have it.
Then, just when we thought we had seen the worst, the junior senator from Massachusetts takes the silly season to new depths. At a Pasadena City College campaign rally, John Kerry sought to inspire the largely student audience to focus on their education, to which he added, "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.'' The implicit statement of the junior senator . . . education = cushy job; no education = military & combat. Kerry's attitude is that of the classic privileged elite . . . or in Spiro Agnew's immortal words, "an effete corps of impudent snobs." I did not attend Harvard or Yale. I am not a lawyer or a doctor. My family has never been wealthy. I can claim and I am quite proud that I served as an officer in this Grand Republic’s Corps of Marines. Worse than Kerry's despicable choice of words is his underlying attitude of disgust toward the military. Kerry's statement does make me wonder why he served in the military. Was it just to check a box? And then, he has the gall to claim he meant his comment to be about the president rather than the military. Perhaps John Kerry did not realize that it is the military that is serving in Iraq; the president in Washington, not in Iraq. Unfortunately for Kerry, modern recording devices preserve such statements with precise clarity. I heard his words. A botched joke about the president . . . I could use a string of staccato expletives, but simply put . . . I don’t buy it. After making a defiant defense of his faux pas, Kerry made a public apology. I certainly cannot let Kerry off the hook for his underlying snobbery anymore than I can let Mel Gibson off the hook for his underlying bigotry.
While this is a bit out of the ordinary, the attached image seems quite appropriate at this juncture. [Stuck_in_Iraq.jpg] The image speaks volumes of John Kerry's snobbery.
In a contributory break from format, I have inserted a thread of exchanges from various contributors regarding Kerry’s speech and the specifically the noted attached image.
Contributor 1: “A little much but . . .”
Contributor 2: “Not really, your dude was way out of line. Or should I say that he finally let his real feelings show, either way at least I will not have to worry about him in the next election now."
Me: He may have thought his "joke" was about the President, but those are NOT the words he chose to use. What you are missing in judging Kerry's words is the experience of the Vietnam War years. The same analogy was used ad infinitum ad nauseum. I was and still am an educated person, and wonder of wonders, I chose intentionally to serve this Nation as a Marine. I've heard Kerry's words thousands of times before, coming from thousands of different speakers. John Kerry allowed his brand of snobbish bigotry out of its cage -- perhaps inadvertently, perhaps purposefully -- just like Mel Gibson allowed his underlying bigotry out of its box in a weak, drunken moment. So, no, I do not see the "botched joke" excuse.
Our freedom remains safe in the hands of those who choose to defend the Nation against our enemies.
I referred to a couple of relevant and interesting court rulings in last week’s Update. The first is actually a topic or series. Being the silly season, voter identification bubbles to the top. The Missouri State Supreme Court issued its Weinschenk v. Missouri [MO SC88039] ruling striking down the state’s voter identification law. The broad objection of the Missouri court hangs on the payment of fees to obtain the requisite forms of identification, which in turn implies inappropriate disadvantage for poor, elderly or disabled citizens, and thus a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of both the U.S. Constitution and the Missouri state constitution. Then, a few days later, to make the topic all the more confusing, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the 9th Circuit’s rejection of a similar Arizona law in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez [06A375 (06–532)]; the stay did not analyze or establish the constitutionality of voter identification laws. Thus, similar state laws in Missouri and Arizona are being diametrically executed during this election. Given the exigencies of our dysfunctional immigration control amid the War on Islamic Fascism, the oddity of these two rulings compounds the uncertainty of the U.S. electoral process. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will settle the issue before the next presidential election. Lastly, while I truly appreciate the argument for equal protection in the Weinschenk ruling, we must find a positive, constitutional, inviolate way to establish a voter’s identity and eligibility to cast his vote. To date, we have used an historic and antiquated ledger process to substantiate voter identity. As with so many aspects of modern life, the nefarious element has found easy means to circumvent the ledger system. We need a more positive method to ensure one citizen, one vote.
The second court ruling gets us back to everyone's favorite topic -- same-gender marriage. The New Jersey State Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow v. Gwendolyn L. Harris [NJSC: (A-68-05)]. The 90 page epistle reversed lower court judgments and appeals against seven same-gender couples as petitioners. While the Court's reasoning goes on at length, the two, opening sentences of the ruling best summarize this decision. "Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process." Previous rulings to the contrary focused primarily on the government's interests in marriage rather than the individual's rights under the Constitution. An interesting facet of this ruling touches on the notion of marriage as a fundamental right of all citizens. In the Court’s reasoning, I agree with the conclusion that there is no fundamental right to marriage. The Court rightly hangs the decision on the Equal Protection Clause; as stated in the opinion, “The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people.” I could add, although the Court did not, that the State has very limited legitimate reasons for intruding into the private affairs of citizens including the commitment of individuals to each other. Chief Justice Deborah Tobias Poritz wrote a concurring-in-part/dissenting-in-part opinion with which two other justices joined. Her dissent states that the majority did not go far enough to remedy the injustice. She concluded, “I would extend the Court’s mandate to require that same-sex couples have access to the ‘status’ of marriage and all that the status of marriage entails.” Of particular note in this ruling, none of the seven justices disagreed with the ruling; the only dissent was that the decision did not go far enough. The Court appears to have taken a careful, thoughtful and appropriate position with its recognition of equal protection of all citizens as it enjoined the Legislature to modify the applicable laws to ensure equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation or preference. The case for equal protection of all citizens especially in matters that are predominately private and personal is strong, righteous and proper. What State interest could be so compelling to overpower that basic and fundamental right to individual Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
Here are a couple of relevant questions: Should the United States of America become a Christian theocracy? Would such an action make evangelical Christians happy?
The rapid debunking of popular Christian evangelical Reverend Ted Haggard this week has once again validated an irrevocable truth . . . hypocrisy is a very sharp blade that eventually eviscerates the hypocrite.
Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and two of his cronies were found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by hanging, with the sentence to be carried out 30 days after the automatic appeals process is complete -- circa Spring 2007 -- none to soon for me.
On 26.October, the President signed into law the Secure Fence Act of 2006 [H.R.6061; PL No: 109-367] that authorizes the building of 700 miles of security fence along the 2,100 mile U.S.-Mexico border . . . among other initial rumbling of immigration reform. I have a wide spectrum of mixed views regarding this fence thing. From a national security and immigration law perspective, the fence makes sense as a means to slow down the amateur illegals. Such a fence is at best only a throttle, not an impenetrable barrier. On the flip side, this fence represents a physical example of the failure to control our borders by successive Federal administrations including the current version. The bottom line for me is, something, anything, is better than the status quo. And yet, we must not forget that there is no perfect security and the professional border jumpers will find a way to penetration our security including this regrettable fence.
The Michael J. Fox / Rush Limbaugh kerfuffle has a positive side – it has brought the topic of embryonic stem cell research back to the forefront of public debate. Limbaugh chose to make the debate personal. Fox chose to take the high road and keep the public debate focused on embryonic stem cell research. My position on embryonic stem cell research should be well known. Just for a point of clarity, the segment of stem cell research focused on adult cells remains vital and essential to the science. We have much to learn, and we can and will learn the specific differentiation triggers for adult cells. Unfortunately, the keys to full spectrum differentiation of a single cell can only be determined via the observation and analysis embryonic cells. The fear of human cloning is precisely one of the principal reasons the Federal government must be deeply involved in embryonic stem cell research. I am resigned to the fact that we will not achieve proper public scientific research with the current administration. In this context, Michael J. Fox is spot-on. He has claimed his message is non-partisan and will offer his support to any candidate of any political party who supports Federal participation in the embryonic stem cell research arena. God bless him for his courage to place himself sharply in the public eye.
The Washington Post reported on a disturbing Maryland State Court of Special Appeals ruling in the case of Maouloud Baby vs. State of Maryland [MD CSA 00225/05]. The sloppy details are essential to the Court’s ruling, however I respectfully submit, they serve only prurient interests in this context. Yet, for context, the case involves the conviction of a 16 year old male for the rape of an 18 year old female. The essential question on appeal centers upon whether removal of consent during sexual intercourse that began as a consensual act constitutes rape. The Maryland Appeals Court vacated the conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court based on the fact that Maryland state law in such cases states that consent once given and sexual intercourse initiated, consent remains to the conclusion and thus does not constitute rape. I am not an expert on Maryland state law, thus it must suffice that the appeals court appears to have interpreted the law properly. For this forum, I raise this topic on a human level of respect. Sexual activity of any kind from simple touching or fondling to intercourse involving any orifice must be mutual and completely consensual at every moment all the time. If either or any participant withdraws consent at any instant, the activity ends immediately. If cessation does not occur, then what began as consensual sexual activity becomes sexual assault or rape. The Maryland law as well as the applicable laws in any other state must be repaired to acknowledge and respect the individual rights of every citizen all the time. The notion that a sexual act once commenced with consent supercedes the rights of any citizen is inhumane, archaic – held over from the days when women were considered chattel – and otherwise grossly inconsistent with our sense of equality, tolerance and individual liberty. Despite my outrage at such a preposterous ruling, the court ruled as it must have . . . in accordance with the law as it is written.
Comments and contributions from Update no.254:
"Being a Marine, of course I'm looking forward to seeing 'Flags of Our Fathers.' Iwo Jima is hallowed ground. Thanks for the review.
"I am so glad you mentioned something about the population reaching 300 million. It really bothered me that considerable emphasis was placed on this debatable milestone. Whenever the media was talking about reaching 300 million, not once do I remember anyone talking about the repercussions associated with such a burdensome number. Do few understand the long-term consequences of an unchecked increasing population? And to make matters worse, this is a population producing less and less as the years go by. All one has to do is look back in time and see what history has taught us. We, not you and I in our lifetimes, as a civilization, our children and our children's children, will face increasingly greater difficulties in the future. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." But who will make the difficult choices? Who will abide? Who will enforce? Wouldn't you just like to drop in in 50 years or 100 years and see how things are going? Why are the Europeans able to control their population so much better than us? Are they not as susceptible to religious stricture? Are they smarter than we are? Have they learned to think long term while we, as a whole, are unable to think long term? How do they do it? Thanks for bringing up the 300 million topic."
My response:
You have posed some excellent questions. Population control is as important as environmental concerns or the War on Islamic Fascism. In fact, I think an argument can be made that birth control is a subtle part of the War and an essential factor in our survival. While I am an outspoken critic of those religions that espouse rampant procreation well beyond the sustainment rate, I worry about birth rates in Japan, Europe and within segments of the United States being well below the sustainment rate. I do not know why the Japanese rate is so low, and I certainly do not know why the native birth rate in many European countries is and has been below the sustainable threshold. Couple a contracting birth rate with the labor demands of expanding economies with a quasi-open border immigration control, we have a recipe to conflict and disaster. I suspect part of the causal factors involve the inherent me-ism of free societies rather than a broader sense of collective identity and security. While individual liberty is essential to our freedom, we must not lose the commonality of the collective.
Border control and security along with a rational, purposeful, immigration policy is vital to the long term health of any culture, and IS NOT some racist conspiracy.
. . . to which came this response:
"I saw 'Flags' over the weekend and have been reflecting upon constantly since:
"Being a Marine, and a student of WWII history, I have known the great cost to take those islands from when I started reading books on WWII. It was truly a great cost. I am still amazed to think of the accomplishments the Marines made, especially against such a fanatic adversary.
"I had no idea the three men were such pawns. It was enlightening and disheartening to see what was done to Bradley, Gagnon, and Hayes, although Gagnon seemed to accept the program better then the other two, and perhaps Hayes the least. Is this yet another example of where "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? The brass and the politicians dreamed up the scheme for the good the bond drive at the cost of the three men. No one who wasn't on that island, or many others, could have known what it was like. There appeared to be little concern for the three men and some of the family member of those who died. What a mess -- the two flag raisings -- who was there -- who was not.
"Regardless, I will still get goose bumps and tears will well up in my eyes, as has always been the case whenever I see the Marine Corps Memorial. It is the greatest iconic symbol in my life.
The movie was well done. That shot at the end with the camera panning over the memorial atop Mt. Surabachi and then looking down at the beach was really something. I have tears in my eyes as I write this. Sometimes I wish everyone could feel what we feel, but then we would not be a breed apart. Something strange occurred at the end of the movie. There is always a very small percentage of people who stay behind after a movie is over to watch the end credits. The largest percentage, by far, of any audience I can remember stayed to watch the end credits. Even those who got up to leave and were moving toward the exit stopped in their tracks and stood quite and unmoving until the end credits completed and the house lights came up. It was eerie -- the faint subtle music playing, the black and white stills from the battle on the left side of the screen, and the credits scrolling on the right. My compliments Mr. Eastwood. However, to express some disappointment. I thought for sure the Marine Corps Hymn would be used for the end credits. I was very surprised when I found out it was not used.
. . . with one last comment from me:
No.256
30.10.06 – 5.11.06
To all,
Tomorrow is Election Day in the United States . . . Vote American! This silly season is nearly over.
The President tells us repeatedly that we should vote Republican to keep the tax rate low and prevent Democrats from raising taxes. For many years, I bought the argument . . . Republicans stood for smaller, more frugal, government, which in turn meant lower taxes. I suppose I must admit my naivet̩ in thinking Republicans had a more noble purpose that aligned with my views of government's place in our lives. The last few years have been a staggering disappointment Рlower revenue must be balanced with lower expenses. The divisiveness and extreme polarity the current administration and Congress have generated while sucking off the Treasury riches to which they feel their elected offices entitle them, produces a vile, odiferous stench. A Republican-controlled Congress has spent money like a drunken sailor still deep in his alcohol stupor among a bevy of willing prostitutes, and the Republican president has steadfastly refused to say no to this ridiculous spending spree, far beyond the tax revenue available. Regrettably, my analogy does a serious disservice to noble members of the naval service as well as to respectable prostitutes. Disappointment is hardly an adequate word to describe the betrayal of this government.
One among many sad realities of contemporary American politics involves the contentment of so many citizens who feel quite comfortable finding some lackey candidate to be their agent for moral projection and/or their conduit for siphoning the Treasury. And, politicians – being fine, upstanding, moral, characters – are perfecting willing to fill the role as agent and conduit. So few modern politicians have the moral backbone and courage to do what is correct for the Nation despite the self-interests of their political party and large contributors. Perhaps the greatest single flaw in our representative form of government is unchecked pork-barrel spending, i.e., influential citizens find their access to the public Treasury via their willing surrogates. This Congress in concert with an all-too-willing Executive has found new and imaginative ways to spend the public treasure, and I do not like it!
Since this was the last full week of this year's silly season, I feel the urge to note the Jim Webb / George Allen senatorial campaign in Virginia as it appears to be the best example of why I have no desire for and will never seek public office. George is so bloody desperate to get re-elected that he is trying mightily to gain traction by making Jim’s novels a campaign issue – Jim’s novels have sex scenes . . . oh my gosh! Will wonders ever cease? My written opinions and certainly my books – novels, non-fiction – essays and most likely this Update as well – would undoubtedly upset more than a few folks in this neck of the woods and elsewhere, but they are what they are. I like words, ideas, debate and opinion far more than any power an office in Washington might entail.
On a related note and a measure of the bizarre nature of George Allen's desperation, I found one of those rare occasions that I actually agree with Maureen Dowd of the New York Times -- "Brothels, Sex Kittens, Pedophilia?" 28.October.2006 -- an opinion article about the Republican panic ranging from Mark Foley to George Allen's meltdown. Strange . . . for me to agree with Maureen, however, I must say, spot on, Maureen. There you have it.
Then, just when we thought we had seen the worst, the junior senator from Massachusetts takes the silly season to new depths. At a Pasadena City College campaign rally, John Kerry sought to inspire the largely student audience to focus on their education, to which he added, "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.'' The implicit statement of the junior senator . . . education = cushy job; no education = military & combat. Kerry's attitude is that of the classic privileged elite . . . or in Spiro Agnew's immortal words, "an effete corps of impudent snobs." I did not attend Harvard or Yale. I am not a lawyer or a doctor. My family has never been wealthy. I can claim and I am quite proud that I served as an officer in this Grand Republic’s Corps of Marines. Worse than Kerry's despicable choice of words is his underlying attitude of disgust toward the military. Kerry's statement does make me wonder why he served in the military. Was it just to check a box? And then, he has the gall to claim he meant his comment to be about the president rather than the military. Perhaps John Kerry did not realize that it is the military that is serving in Iraq; the president in Washington, not in Iraq. Unfortunately for Kerry, modern recording devices preserve such statements with precise clarity. I heard his words. A botched joke about the president . . . I could use a string of staccato expletives, but simply put . . . I don’t buy it. After making a defiant defense of his faux pas, Kerry made a public apology. I certainly cannot let Kerry off the hook for his underlying snobbery anymore than I can let Mel Gibson off the hook for his underlying bigotry.
While this is a bit out of the ordinary, the attached image seems quite appropriate at this juncture. [Stuck_in_Iraq.jpg] The image speaks volumes of John Kerry's snobbery.
In a contributory break from format, I have inserted a thread of exchanges from various contributors regarding Kerry’s speech and the specifically the noted attached image.
Contributor 1: “A little much but . . .”
Contributor 2: “Not really, your dude was way out of line. Or should I say that he finally let his real feelings show, either way at least I will not have to worry about him in the next election now."
Me: He may have thought his "joke" was about the President, but those are NOT the words he chose to use. What you are missing in judging Kerry's words is the experience of the Vietnam War years. The same analogy was used ad infinitum ad nauseum. I was and still am an educated person, and wonder of wonders, I chose intentionally to serve this Nation as a Marine. I've heard Kerry's words thousands of times before, coming from thousands of different speakers. John Kerry allowed his brand of snobbish bigotry out of its cage -- perhaps inadvertently, perhaps purposefully -- just like Mel Gibson allowed his underlying bigotry out of its box in a weak, drunken moment. So, no, I do not see the "botched joke" excuse.
Our freedom remains safe in the hands of those who choose to defend the Nation against our enemies.
I referred to a couple of relevant and interesting court rulings in last week’s Update. The first is actually a topic or series. Being the silly season, voter identification bubbles to the top. The Missouri State Supreme Court issued its Weinschenk v. Missouri [MO SC88039] ruling striking down the state’s voter identification law. The broad objection of the Missouri court hangs on the payment of fees to obtain the requisite forms of identification, which in turn implies inappropriate disadvantage for poor, elderly or disabled citizens, and thus a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of both the U.S. Constitution and the Missouri state constitution. Then, a few days later, to make the topic all the more confusing, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the 9th Circuit’s rejection of a similar Arizona law in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez [06A375 (06–532)]; the stay did not analyze or establish the constitutionality of voter identification laws. Thus, similar state laws in Missouri and Arizona are being diametrically executed during this election. Given the exigencies of our dysfunctional immigration control amid the War on Islamic Fascism, the oddity of these two rulings compounds the uncertainty of the U.S. electoral process. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will settle the issue before the next presidential election. Lastly, while I truly appreciate the argument for equal protection in the Weinschenk ruling, we must find a positive, constitutional, inviolate way to establish a voter’s identity and eligibility to cast his vote. To date, we have used an historic and antiquated ledger process to substantiate voter identity. As with so many aspects of modern life, the nefarious element has found easy means to circumvent the ledger system. We need a more positive method to ensure one citizen, one vote.
The second court ruling gets us back to everyone's favorite topic -- same-gender marriage. The New Jersey State Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow v. Gwendolyn L. Harris [NJSC: (A-68-05)]. The 90 page epistle reversed lower court judgments and appeals against seven same-gender couples as petitioners. While the Court's reasoning goes on at length, the two, opening sentences of the ruling best summarize this decision. "Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process." Previous rulings to the contrary focused primarily on the government's interests in marriage rather than the individual's rights under the Constitution. An interesting facet of this ruling touches on the notion of marriage as a fundamental right of all citizens. In the Court’s reasoning, I agree with the conclusion that there is no fundamental right to marriage. The Court rightly hangs the decision on the Equal Protection Clause; as stated in the opinion, “The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people.” I could add, although the Court did not, that the State has very limited legitimate reasons for intruding into the private affairs of citizens including the commitment of individuals to each other. Chief Justice Deborah Tobias Poritz wrote a concurring-in-part/dissenting-in-part opinion with which two other justices joined. Her dissent states that the majority did not go far enough to remedy the injustice. She concluded, “I would extend the Court’s mandate to require that same-sex couples have access to the ‘status’ of marriage and all that the status of marriage entails.” Of particular note in this ruling, none of the seven justices disagreed with the ruling; the only dissent was that the decision did not go far enough. The Court appears to have taken a careful, thoughtful and appropriate position with its recognition of equal protection of all citizens as it enjoined the Legislature to modify the applicable laws to ensure equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation or preference. The case for equal protection of all citizens especially in matters that are predominately private and personal is strong, righteous and proper. What State interest could be so compelling to overpower that basic and fundamental right to individual Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
Here are a couple of relevant questions: Should the United States of America become a Christian theocracy? Would such an action make evangelical Christians happy?
The rapid debunking of popular Christian evangelical Reverend Ted Haggard this week has once again validated an irrevocable truth . . . hypocrisy is a very sharp blade that eventually eviscerates the hypocrite.
Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and two of his cronies were found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by hanging, with the sentence to be carried out 30 days after the automatic appeals process is complete -- circa Spring 2007 -- none to soon for me.
On 26.October, the President signed into law the Secure Fence Act of 2006 [H.R.6061; PL No: 109-367] that authorizes the building of 700 miles of security fence along the 2,100 mile U.S.-Mexico border . . . among other initial rumbling of immigration reform. I have a wide spectrum of mixed views regarding this fence thing. From a national security and immigration law perspective, the fence makes sense as a means to slow down the amateur illegals. Such a fence is at best only a throttle, not an impenetrable barrier. On the flip side, this fence represents a physical example of the failure to control our borders by successive Federal administrations including the current version. The bottom line for me is, something, anything, is better than the status quo. And yet, we must not forget that there is no perfect security and the professional border jumpers will find a way to penetration our security including this regrettable fence.
The Michael J. Fox / Rush Limbaugh kerfuffle has a positive side – it has brought the topic of embryonic stem cell research back to the forefront of public debate. Limbaugh chose to make the debate personal. Fox chose to take the high road and keep the public debate focused on embryonic stem cell research. My position on embryonic stem cell research should be well known. Just for a point of clarity, the segment of stem cell research focused on adult cells remains vital and essential to the science. We have much to learn, and we can and will learn the specific differentiation triggers for adult cells. Unfortunately, the keys to full spectrum differentiation of a single cell can only be determined via the observation and analysis embryonic cells. The fear of human cloning is precisely one of the principal reasons the Federal government must be deeply involved in embryonic stem cell research. I am resigned to the fact that we will not achieve proper public scientific research with the current administration. In this context, Michael J. Fox is spot-on. He has claimed his message is non-partisan and will offer his support to any candidate of any political party who supports Federal participation in the embryonic stem cell research arena. God bless him for his courage to place himself sharply in the public eye.
The Washington Post reported on a disturbing Maryland State Court of Special Appeals ruling in the case of Maouloud Baby vs. State of Maryland [MD CSA 00225/05]. The sloppy details are essential to the Court’s ruling, however I respectfully submit, they serve only prurient interests in this context. Yet, for context, the case involves the conviction of a 16 year old male for the rape of an 18 year old female. The essential question on appeal centers upon whether removal of consent during sexual intercourse that began as a consensual act constitutes rape. The Maryland Appeals Court vacated the conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court based on the fact that Maryland state law in such cases states that consent once given and sexual intercourse initiated, consent remains to the conclusion and thus does not constitute rape. I am not an expert on Maryland state law, thus it must suffice that the appeals court appears to have interpreted the law properly. For this forum, I raise this topic on a human level of respect. Sexual activity of any kind from simple touching or fondling to intercourse involving any orifice must be mutual and completely consensual at every moment all the time. If either or any participant withdraws consent at any instant, the activity ends immediately. If cessation does not occur, then what began as consensual sexual activity becomes sexual assault or rape. The Maryland law as well as the applicable laws in any other state must be repaired to acknowledge and respect the individual rights of every citizen all the time. The notion that a sexual act once commenced with consent supercedes the rights of any citizen is inhumane, archaic – held over from the days when women were considered chattel – and otherwise grossly inconsistent with our sense of equality, tolerance and individual liberty. Despite my outrage at such a preposterous ruling, the court ruled as it must have . . . in accordance with the law as it is written.
Comments and contributions from Update no.254:
"Being a Marine, of course I'm looking forward to seeing 'Flags of Our Fathers.' Iwo Jima is hallowed ground. Thanks for the review.
"I am so glad you mentioned something about the population reaching 300 million. It really bothered me that considerable emphasis was placed on this debatable milestone. Whenever the media was talking about reaching 300 million, not once do I remember anyone talking about the repercussions associated with such a burdensome number. Do few understand the long-term consequences of an unchecked increasing population? And to make matters worse, this is a population producing less and less as the years go by. All one has to do is look back in time and see what history has taught us. We, not you and I in our lifetimes, as a civilization, our children and our children's children, will face increasingly greater difficulties in the future. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." But who will make the difficult choices? Who will abide? Who will enforce? Wouldn't you just like to drop in in 50 years or 100 years and see how things are going? Why are the Europeans able to control their population so much better than us? Are they not as susceptible to religious stricture? Are they smarter than we are? Have they learned to think long term while we, as a whole, are unable to think long term? How do they do it? Thanks for bringing up the 300 million topic."
My response:
You have posed some excellent questions. Population control is as important as environmental concerns or the War on Islamic Fascism. In fact, I think an argument can be made that birth control is a subtle part of the War and an essential factor in our survival. While I am an outspoken critic of those religions that espouse rampant procreation well beyond the sustainment rate, I worry about birth rates in Japan, Europe and within segments of the United States being well below the sustainment rate. I do not know why the Japanese rate is so low, and I certainly do not know why the native birth rate in many European countries is and has been below the sustainable threshold. Couple a contracting birth rate with the labor demands of expanding economies with a quasi-open border immigration control, we have a recipe to conflict and disaster. I suspect part of the causal factors involve the inherent me-ism of free societies rather than a broader sense of collective identity and security. While individual liberty is essential to our freedom, we must not lose the commonality of the collective.
Border control and security along with a rational, purposeful, immigration policy is vital to the long term health of any culture, and IS NOT some racist conspiracy.
. . . to which came this response:
"I saw 'Flags' over the weekend and have been reflecting upon constantly since:
"Being a Marine, and a student of WWII history, I have known the great cost to take those islands from when I started reading books on WWII. It was truly a great cost. I am still amazed to think of the accomplishments the Marines made, especially against such a fanatic adversary.
"I had no idea the three men were such pawns. It was enlightening and disheartening to see what was done to Bradley, Gagnon, and Hayes, although Gagnon seemed to accept the program better then the other two, and perhaps Hayes the least. Is this yet another example of where "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? The brass and the politicians dreamed up the scheme for the good the bond drive at the cost of the three men. No one who wasn't on that island, or many others, could have known what it was like. There appeared to be little concern for the three men and some of the family member of those who died. What a mess -- the two flag raisings -- who was there -- who was not.
"Regardless, I will still get goose bumps and tears will well up in my eyes, as has always been the case whenever I see the Marine Corps Memorial. It is the greatest iconic symbol in my life.
The movie was well done. That shot at the end with the camera panning over the memorial atop Mt. Surabachi and then looking down at the beach was really something. I have tears in my eyes as I write this. Sometimes I wish everyone could feel what we feel, but then we would not be a breed apart. Something strange occurred at the end of the movie. There is always a very small percentage of people who stay behind after a movie is over to watch the end credits. The largest percentage, by far, of any audience I can remember stayed to watch the end credits. Even those who got up to leave and were moving toward the exit stopped in their tracks and stood quite and unmoving until the end credits completed and the house lights came up. It was eerie -- the faint subtle music playing, the black and white stills from the battle on the left side of the screen, and the credits scrolling on the right. My compliments Mr. Eastwood. However, to express some disappointment. I thought for sure the Marine Corps Hymn would be used for the end credits. I was very surprised when I found out it was not used.
. . . with one last comment from me:
If you have not read the book, I highly recommend it. They were just men trying to do the job the Nation asked them to do and get on with their lives. Unfortunately, the Nation needed more . . . they used them without the respect due them in order to raise funds for the war effort . . . perhaps an even greater sacrifice than they suffered on the black cinder island.
I share your disappointment in the missing Marine Corps Hymn. Perhaps, Clint did not want to make it any more overt than it was, and the author was the son of Navy Corpsman John (AKA Jack) Bradley, USN. Oh well, we know the story.
Comments and contributions from Update no.255:
“I agree Limbaugh was wrong to make that comment. Let him get that awful disease and THEN see what he has to say about stem cell research.”
Another contribution:
"I think you've been listening to the "drive-by media" on the Fox issue. Rush said he was either off his medication or acting. Fox admitted in his book that he often goes off medication when trying to point out the terrible ravages of the disease. He then admitted on one of the talk shows a day or two after Rush's statement that he was 'overmedicated' when he made the commercial.
"The main point of Rush's statement about Fox was that what he said was mostly lies and exaggerations and he pointed out each lie or exaggeration and said that once Fox made the commercial he was not off limits and that having a disease does not give him a 'pass' on being exposed as telling lies. He then said that since he had seen Fox on TV and other places not looking so bad, he was either acting or off his medicines.
"Funny that virtually no one has commented on the fact that the commercials were false or misleading, they have only commented on the fact that Rush said that he was 'acting.'
"I said earlier that this is a religious war that will last for years and the non-Moslems better be prepared to stand up against them, or convert, or die. Moslems will not give up; the best we can hope for is that they will be willing to live by themselves and not try to convert the world-it may never happen! The new Crusades have begun."
My reply:
“Drive-by media” ay . . . in this context, yes. I rarely have the opportunity to listen to Rush’s radio show, although I do find him entertaining. I don’t think it matters one iota whether Michael J. Fox was off his medication or acting. He has Parkinson ’s Disease. The disease progresses through stages of involuntary musculo-skeletal tremors as portrayed in the advertisement. Further, embryonic stem cell research is still seen as a potential cure for Parkinson’s. What lies and exaggerations? Everyone on all sides of any issue naturally emphasize the positives and diminish the negatives of their particular argument. I agree . . . once he makes a public statement, his opinions are fair game. But, his disease is NOT in that category, no more so than his religion or skin color or sexual orientation. If Rush had focused on the political argument rather than belittling Michael’s affliction, the defense of Limbaugh would be more appropriate. As such, I still believe Rush was wrong and owes Michael a public apology, and in this, we shall respectfully disagree.
We are certainly agreed on the religious-basis of the current war and on the likely duration of such conflicts. I am not sure the use of the label or term ‘crusade’ is relevant, but the prima facie character of this conflict is undeniable.
Another contribution from a different person:
"More often than not I go GOP in elections, but I will tell you The Republicans are doing a lot to piss me off. My biggest hang up is the fact many of them (especially in the Senate) seem to have given up their spines and their nads the moment they entered D.C. Whenever someone starts calling them racists for trying to secure our border or when they hear the daily barrage from the defeatist Press criticizing everything going on in Iraq, instead of challenging those charges, they tremble, wet their pants, and beg forgiveness. Can you picture Teddy Roosevelt doing that? Then again, someone like TR wouldn't last in this sort of political/media/PC environment. Cap, I'm sure you could give these jello spines some lessons in leadership from your days in The Corps.
"BTW, picked up my first Mitch Rapp novel "Transfer of Power." Don't know if you had a chance to read that one. But after 150 pages, I am sold! Rapp knows the score in the War on Terror. I especially loved the part where he tongue-lashed the wimpy VP, AG and the VP's jagoff Chief of Staff."
My response:
Since the day I was old enough to understand politics, I have identified with Republican professed values. I did my miniscule part in Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign, before I could vote. I believed the message . . . smaller, less-intrusive government, lower taxes, strong economic and national security policy, honesty & integrity, et cetera. I did not lose my ardor for those values even as we were immersed in Tricky Dick Nixon’s betrayal of the national trust and the Office of the President. The 1994 Contract with America seemed like a noble and genuine endeavor to realize the true compassionate conservatism of Barry Goldwater. Regrettably, my recognition of the sordid reality took several years through the smoke and confusion of 9/11 along with the opening campaigns of the War on Islamic Fascism. To speak frankly, I feel betrayed by the current crop of Republican politicians . . . not all, but certainly a disgusting percentage. Dick Nixon perpetrated perhaps the single deepest and greatest intrusion upon the privacy of American citizens. George Bush (no.43) perpetrated perhaps the greatest betrayal of Republican values with his acquiescence or inability to veto the obscene spending of the drunken-sailor-esque Republican Congress – taxes have gone down, all well and good, but the size, breadth and intrusiveness of the Federal government have grown far beyond any previous administration in the history of this Grand Republic. Is it really any wonder why moderate, secular conservatives like me are so bloody disgusted with government in general and these two damnable major political parties in specific? TR would not be happy, but more importantly to me at least, Barry Goldwater would not be happy.
. . . along with an additional, later comment:
"I'm sure you're gonna cover this in your next Update, but I'm so pissed off about this I have to vent.
"John Kerry's comments where he painted the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces as uneducated morons has infuriated me to no end. Forgive this unrefined take on it, but Kerry is a disgusting puddle of maggot puke. And then when he's asked to apologize, which he should do, he says he was criticizing Bush, and people who were never in war shouldn't criticize him. What BS is that!?! How is insulting the military an insult to Bush? And people like me who've never been to war shouldn't criticize him? Hey, veteran or not, when you make a disgusting comment like that, you deserve to be criticized. When you throw yourself into the arena of ideas, you open yourself up to criticism, no matter who you are or what you did. If you don't like it, then keep your frackin' mouth shut! I never served in the military, but I have the utmost respect to those who do. They do the hard work so people like me can enjoy our freedoms, and saying my hat's off to them probably doesn't come close to really honoring the work they do. So veteran or not, John Kerry can go **** himself, along with Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Michael Moore and all the other America haters out there.
"Now, on this flap about Lynne Cheney's novel, I don't have the full story, but as an author myself, I'm looking at this Lynne Cheney wrote a book, like, 25 years ago that dealt with a lesbian love affair and my response is "So?" If this lesbian love scene is critical to the flow of the novel, what's the big deal? It's a frackin' fiction novel? I ask again, what's the big? Hey, in "Epsilon" I had a scene that dealt with a woman almost getting raped. So should my book be put under a microscope, especially since I put it in the context where the rapist was obviously the bad guy and paid the price when Epsilon crushed his hand into ground chuck. I guess the mainstream press needs to make up a controversy, like there ain't enough to choose from in this silly season. Thank God I mainly cover sports now. It's much more fun than dealing with this crap."
. . . and my response to the addition:
I also share your views of the kerfuffle over Lynn Cheney’s book, “Sisters.” The crabs are dragging the other crabs back into the pot, making sure no crabs get out. One of many sad realities in our society comes from being taught that anatomy is bad, sex is disgusting, and natural human activities are uncivilized. What a joke!
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
I share your disappointment in the missing Marine Corps Hymn. Perhaps, Clint did not want to make it any more overt than it was, and the author was the son of Navy Corpsman John (AKA Jack) Bradley, USN. Oh well, we know the story.
Comments and contributions from Update no.255:
“I agree Limbaugh was wrong to make that comment. Let him get that awful disease and THEN see what he has to say about stem cell research.”
Another contribution:
"I think you've been listening to the "drive-by media" on the Fox issue. Rush said he was either off his medication or acting. Fox admitted in his book that he often goes off medication when trying to point out the terrible ravages of the disease. He then admitted on one of the talk shows a day or two after Rush's statement that he was 'overmedicated' when he made the commercial.
"The main point of Rush's statement about Fox was that what he said was mostly lies and exaggerations and he pointed out each lie or exaggeration and said that once Fox made the commercial he was not off limits and that having a disease does not give him a 'pass' on being exposed as telling lies. He then said that since he had seen Fox on TV and other places not looking so bad, he was either acting or off his medicines.
"Funny that virtually no one has commented on the fact that the commercials were false or misleading, they have only commented on the fact that Rush said that he was 'acting.'
"I said earlier that this is a religious war that will last for years and the non-Moslems better be prepared to stand up against them, or convert, or die. Moslems will not give up; the best we can hope for is that they will be willing to live by themselves and not try to convert the world-it may never happen! The new Crusades have begun."
My reply:
“Drive-by media” ay . . . in this context, yes. I rarely have the opportunity to listen to Rush’s radio show, although I do find him entertaining. I don’t think it matters one iota whether Michael J. Fox was off his medication or acting. He has Parkinson ’s Disease. The disease progresses through stages of involuntary musculo-skeletal tremors as portrayed in the advertisement. Further, embryonic stem cell research is still seen as a potential cure for Parkinson’s. What lies and exaggerations? Everyone on all sides of any issue naturally emphasize the positives and diminish the negatives of their particular argument. I agree . . . once he makes a public statement, his opinions are fair game. But, his disease is NOT in that category, no more so than his religion or skin color or sexual orientation. If Rush had focused on the political argument rather than belittling Michael’s affliction, the defense of Limbaugh would be more appropriate. As such, I still believe Rush was wrong and owes Michael a public apology, and in this, we shall respectfully disagree.
We are certainly agreed on the religious-basis of the current war and on the likely duration of such conflicts. I am not sure the use of the label or term ‘crusade’ is relevant, but the prima facie character of this conflict is undeniable.
Another contribution from a different person:
"More often than not I go GOP in elections, but I will tell you The Republicans are doing a lot to piss me off. My biggest hang up is the fact many of them (especially in the Senate) seem to have given up their spines and their nads the moment they entered D.C. Whenever someone starts calling them racists for trying to secure our border or when they hear the daily barrage from the defeatist Press criticizing everything going on in Iraq, instead of challenging those charges, they tremble, wet their pants, and beg forgiveness. Can you picture Teddy Roosevelt doing that? Then again, someone like TR wouldn't last in this sort of political/media/PC environment. Cap, I'm sure you could give these jello spines some lessons in leadership from your days in The Corps.
"BTW, picked up my first Mitch Rapp novel "Transfer of Power." Don't know if you had a chance to read that one. But after 150 pages, I am sold! Rapp knows the score in the War on Terror. I especially loved the part where he tongue-lashed the wimpy VP, AG and the VP's jagoff Chief of Staff."
My response:
Since the day I was old enough to understand politics, I have identified with Republican professed values. I did my miniscule part in Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign, before I could vote. I believed the message . . . smaller, less-intrusive government, lower taxes, strong economic and national security policy, honesty & integrity, et cetera. I did not lose my ardor for those values even as we were immersed in Tricky Dick Nixon’s betrayal of the national trust and the Office of the President. The 1994 Contract with America seemed like a noble and genuine endeavor to realize the true compassionate conservatism of Barry Goldwater. Regrettably, my recognition of the sordid reality took several years through the smoke and confusion of 9/11 along with the opening campaigns of the War on Islamic Fascism. To speak frankly, I feel betrayed by the current crop of Republican politicians . . . not all, but certainly a disgusting percentage. Dick Nixon perpetrated perhaps the single deepest and greatest intrusion upon the privacy of American citizens. George Bush (no.43) perpetrated perhaps the greatest betrayal of Republican values with his acquiescence or inability to veto the obscene spending of the drunken-sailor-esque Republican Congress – taxes have gone down, all well and good, but the size, breadth and intrusiveness of the Federal government have grown far beyond any previous administration in the history of this Grand Republic. Is it really any wonder why moderate, secular conservatives like me are so bloody disgusted with government in general and these two damnable major political parties in specific? TR would not be happy, but more importantly to me at least, Barry Goldwater would not be happy.
. . . along with an additional, later comment:
"I'm sure you're gonna cover this in your next Update, but I'm so pissed off about this I have to vent.
"John Kerry's comments where he painted the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces as uneducated morons has infuriated me to no end. Forgive this unrefined take on it, but Kerry is a disgusting puddle of maggot puke. And then when he's asked to apologize, which he should do, he says he was criticizing Bush, and people who were never in war shouldn't criticize him. What BS is that!?! How is insulting the military an insult to Bush? And people like me who've never been to war shouldn't criticize him? Hey, veteran or not, when you make a disgusting comment like that, you deserve to be criticized. When you throw yourself into the arena of ideas, you open yourself up to criticism, no matter who you are or what you did. If you don't like it, then keep your frackin' mouth shut! I never served in the military, but I have the utmost respect to those who do. They do the hard work so people like me can enjoy our freedoms, and saying my hat's off to them probably doesn't come close to really honoring the work they do. So veteran or not, John Kerry can go **** himself, along with Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Michael Moore and all the other America haters out there.
"Now, on this flap about Lynne Cheney's novel, I don't have the full story, but as an author myself, I'm looking at this Lynne Cheney wrote a book, like, 25 years ago that dealt with a lesbian love affair and my response is "So?" If this lesbian love scene is critical to the flow of the novel, what's the big deal? It's a frackin' fiction novel? I ask again, what's the big? Hey, in "Epsilon" I had a scene that dealt with a woman almost getting raped. So should my book be put under a microscope, especially since I put it in the context where the rapist was obviously the bad guy and paid the price when Epsilon crushed his hand into ground chuck. I guess the mainstream press needs to make up a controversy, like there ain't enough to choose from in this silly season. Thank God I mainly cover sports now. It's much more fun than dealing with this crap."
. . . and my response to the addition:
I also share your views of the kerfuffle over Lynn Cheney’s book, “Sisters.” The crabs are dragging the other crabs back into the pot, making sure no crabs get out. One of many sad realities in our society comes from being taught that anatomy is bad, sex is disgusting, and natural human activities are uncivilized. What a joke!
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment