The Long March to November

Peggy Noonan always moves me with her articles. She's just so reasonable, so well-thought, so nice. Anyone could read her writing aloud and it would make my heart flutter. At any rate, her article this week is a pretty broad (and accurate) assessment of the candidates and the issues. John Edwards does indeed need a win or else he's useless in this race. (I think he serves one legitimate purpose: he's so nice he just exacerbates John F'in Kerry's pompousness.) Kerry has a high percentage of support right now because Dems just want someone to win. He will, however, start to face real scrutiny when it's just him and Dubya. And Dubya has one big issue (terrorism) and a forced issue thanks to the gay movement (marriage). It's going to be an interesting race.

And I can't wait until Ms. Noonan writes again.

The Genius of Rumsfeld

The Washington Times has an insider's look at Rumsfeld's focus after 9/11. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld recognized the evil for what it was, saying "This wasn't a criminal act. This is war." According to the article, the Clinton Administration viewed all of the bombings during its tenure as criminal acts. This shortsightedness may be the signature shortcoming of that Administration. They failed to recognize that a growing alliance of thieves was forming against us and our interests. Because of our inaction, our enemies grew emboldened and became more overtly hostile to us. Rumsfeld managed to turn the entire U.S. government around in a matter of months.

Pay special attention to the changes to the Special Forces when you read the article. If advanced communications accomplished one thing for the U.S. military, it was adding a level of bureaucracy to critical operations. Whereas spies and their ilk necessariliy had autonomy in earlier days, Special Forces have always had to radio in for Presidential authorization to "take out" important targets. As I understand it, Rumsfeld turned it into an "objective-oriented" approach. In other words, we send out the SOF troops with an order to take out terrorist X. We don't send them to find Terrorist X, put him or her in their sights and then radio in for Presidential and Congressional authorization. We send them to get the job done. And they do it. Quietly, quickly and relatively painlessly. All while the rest of us are still asleep.

Dubya does it again

Love them or hate them, recess appointments will continue indefinitely. And the other party will always hate them. Well, the Democrats' filibuster only encourages recess appointments. Bush did everything they ask ("Get us ABA-approved nominees and we'll appoint them"). Now he [recess-]appointed Alabama Attorney General William Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Fantastic. The Democrats' biggest concern? He criticized Roe v. Wade. Well, so has everyone else.

One important thing to note: the Democrats filibustered [appointed] Justice Pryor because he holds the traditional Catholic position on abortion. The Catholic Church, as guided by the Holy See, is so firm on the subject that they even oppose condoms. Such position may be a bit extreme for me, but the Democrats' focus was the anti-abortion stance. Venerated Catholics such as Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle may support, encourage, cheer and anticipate every abortion procedure. But the nation is quickly learning that they are simply disingenuous Catholics, holding the religion in name only to squeeze a few extra votes every election. William Pryor will be a fantastic judge.

My big problem with the Democrats' position: the nation is almost 50/50 divided on the abortion issue. On the same note, a judge/justice is a human being with a set of values. They are being chosen from the population that is evenly divided on abortion. But every issue that goes before the court involves an issue with arguments on both sides (which different segments of the population care about).

Thus, on any given day, these judges will consider issues contrary to their beliefs. These men and women are chosen because they are supposed to impartially consider issues that come before them, regardless of any previously-held beliefs. The Democrat establishment is under the illusion that only pro-abortion judges can consider any abortion case. They thus call all pro-life judges liars. To decide that a judge is incapable of deciding any issue on which they already hold a belief is completely silly and unintelligent. But it does shed a little light on how Democrats view judges -- they should all be Democrats! Hold no firm beliefs, but sway with the wind to make sure the set of values you hold cover 50.1% of their respective electorate. All ideas are good, the Constitution does not have any words which keep the same meaning from day to day, and any sort of discrimination is bad. Even the word "bad" is bad.

I think Americans are still a bit too intelligent to be Democrat judges.

[Anti-]Trust Your Feelings

Safire whines about media monopolies in the NY Times. The truth is, we haven't had a good ol' trust-breakin party since Ma Bell. Safire repeats the tired line that FCC Chair Michael Powell "never met a merger he didn't like" but the truth is we've been traveling down this path for 20 years. The erstwhile AOLTIMEWARNER may not have worked, but in every industry we now have giant corporations with very few competitors. The grocery stores are down to Kroger, Albertson's and Safeway. How about law school textbooks: West, Aspen and Lexis are about it. The rest of higher education has Prentice Hall and Harcourt (famous for formerly owning SeaWorld). Electronics: Circuit City (who I predict will merge with someone else soon), Best Buy, Good Guys. And don't forget Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Target. Costco and Sam's Club. Home Depot and Lowe's. Every field has almost no room for a newcomer.

But the pendulum keeps swinging. Sooner or later we will have a Justice Department that wants to switch resources from rescuing little Cuban boys from suffering in America (to live lives of luxury in Havana), to take on giants of industry. It happens every so often: steel, oil (due for another crackin' any day now), railroads (worked a little too well), and others.

Safire complains, but sees only one tree in his forest. The trusts will break, just not today. And they won't break in one industry. The crack will be felt and seen from Seattle to Tampa to NYC. And it will come when we least expect it.

Roe Development

It appears the 5th Circuit will revisit Roe v. Wade. The original Roe, now a Christian conservative pro-lifer, is arguing that a change in the facts of the case warrant a revisit of the decision. According to the article, the District Court turned them down but the Court of Appeals will hear it. Add into the mix that President Bush used a vacancy appointment to put Judge Pickering on that panel. Throw in a few thousand protestors on either side and this fight will be worth watching with a couple bags of popcorn.

For fairness' sake, I must mention that the pro-choicers were afraid of exactly this eventuality. Positively prescient, they were.

Also, please note my opinion of this subject. I believe in moral agency, in full accordance with my religious beliefs. A decision like Abortion is too important to decide at the Federal level. Along the same lines, I understand that the Constitution does not guide the minutiae of individuals' lives. The separate States get that honor. Thus, as much as I am for the High Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, I am also against forbidding it from the top down. Let the people of each State fight it out in their own Legislatures. Though I disagree personally with the majority of abortions, I do not believe the Federal government should be in the abortion business for either side.

Israelis get Mean/Smart

It's about time. Israelis will employ the ultimate weapon -- pig lard -- in their home-grown war against terror. I remember after Pan Am Flight 103 my dad suggesting we start lining airliners with lard so if a homicide bomber took it out their body would be forever defiled. If homicide bombers' intentions are truly religious, then the detterent properly should be religious as well.

The Battle Begins

Cal Thomas fires a warning shot across Kerry's bow. He lists off Kerry's glaring inconsistent opinions on Iraq. Someone needs to get the C-SPAN clips of Kerry on the Senate floor telling everyone, in his elitist dulcet tones, about how dangerous Iraq is. Then they need to play those clips over, and over, and over again. And just as Cal says, Prez Bush needs to read the playbook in the movie "The American President." At one point Michael Douglas looks into the screen and denounces his [Republican] opponent for sitting on his high horse and casting about acidic criticisms. (The candidate always ended his statements with "... and I'm running for President.") Prez Douglas says "I am the President!" Well, Prez Bush needs to tell Kerry, via a well-choreographed commercial on every network, something along these lines: "I am the President, I had the intelligence, I made a decision that saved hundreds of thousands of lives and began an era of peace in the Middle East unlike anything in recent memory." And a money shot of Qaddhafi wouldn't hurt.

Counterculture becomes: Culture

Peggy Noonan does it again. She has a remarkable ability to put things into perspective. In my opinion, at least, she is always a must-read. At any rate, she discusses the pre-9/11 excesses that seemed to wane a bit after the Towers fell. The Superbowl antics appeared to demonstrate a resurgence of the defects in our modern culture. But 200,000 Americans kicked back with angry letters, faxes and emails to CBS. That anger is a good sign. We should be angry in defense of our minds and our children. AFter all, who that has seen an image from that incident cannot recall it in their minds? The picture is there, seared in our memories until time erodes it. I certainly don't like clouding my mind with such destructive imagery.

A sidenote about the Left. They generally celebrate such artistic expressions. (And, of course, they're in charge at CBS and MTV.) In my view, there is nothing artistic about it. It ranks right up there with Palestinian suicide bomber pictures hanging over a pool of simulated blood. It only serves to destroy. What about human decency? Are women supposed to allow men to tear off their clothes? Are women supposed to expose themselves in public? Why did they choose that sequence, as opposed to Janet ripping off Justin's jockstrap? Are we now accepting violent acts by men on women? There isn't a single theme in their artistic expression worth studying. All it shows is the degredation of the Left's view of life. Do we really want our children influenced by the creators of that scene, at MTV and CBS? Do we want the NFL around to pay for it?

One last note: I've seen a lot of news lately and nowhere have I seen NOW representatives crying out in disbelief at the imagery. Their cause is finished if they cannot stand up to blatant disregard of women's rights. They simply continue to exist in dishonesty.

At any rate, read Ms. Noonan's article. Twice.

Slippery Slopes

It's time to take on the overpopulation myth. The Earth probably has trillions of creatures. (It's only logical that there are so many; how many times have you read about how outnumbered we are by, say, the Ant?) The Earth also goes through its own cleansing processes wherein billions of those creatures go *poof*.

But humans have not yet faced such a cleansing -- as long as you forget the Black Death, the flu epidemic of 1912(?), WWI and WWII, AIDS, and every other epidemic and event that has resulted in over a million deaths. And technology always seems to create more space -- apartment complexes, for instance, now enable vastly more people to live in increasingly smaller blocks of land.

As for resources -- those come with time, too. Have you flown over Virginia recently? More trees there than when the Colonists first arrived. Water? Technology is ready and waiting to recycle everything we use. Humans are inventive creatures -- if something starts to run out, we find something new.

No doubt some Chicken Little concern for resources motivates this Washington legislator's push for a 2-child limit. I know a substantial percentage of Americans would support such a measure because they are concerned enough for the environment in a very ignorant way. After all, friends of mine on the Left believe that abortion should be mandatory for poor families. Forget about the national debate on whether abortion should be legal at all. Many on the Left believe there are too many Americans; that more Americans are an anathema on the face of this Earth.

In fact, UN's statistics show that much of the West (plus Japan) are falling prey to such an ideology and have aging, shrinking populations. Translation: the West is making less babies. Is the rest of the world following our noble lead? Absolutely not. The Third World -- rather, everyone outside the West (plus Japan) -- is propagating just fine. Which part of the world would *you* say contributes more to everyone else? The West (plus Japan) contributes vast amounts of aid to to the rest of the world (food, money, Medecins Sans Frontieres, etc.). The West (plus Japan) has harnessed technology to protect the environment while still growing stronger (i.e., emissions, efficiency, etc.). I, for one, believe the West deserves to continue through history, not to melt straight out of it...

Roe and the Patriot Act

So I finally read Roe v. Wade. It has particular impact on some of the more vocal criticisms of the Patriot Act.

There were a line of cases, culminating in Roe, that began the long march toward the infamous "right to privacy." These decisions searched the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments and started crafting a nonexistent general right to privacy. The Roe opinion itself relies on that line of cases as part of its justification. To the pertinent part of the opinion:

"In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth Amendment, or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, and child rearing and education.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-153 (1973, citations omitted).

You can see the lousy reasoning the Court was using to formulate this courtroom legislation. Among the many problems with their grasp for validity is: 1) wanted and also unwanted child rearing is mentally and physically taxing; all maternity is uncomfortable; and the word "adoption" is nowhere to be found (i.e., an alternative to the Court's perceived life of misery). Frankly, it's intellectually disgusting -- but they tried to bolster it all with a justification that the Stoics believed in abortion as do some Jews and Protestants. But this case and a few of its predecessors in the preceding decades are the only place in which this general "right to privacy" ever exists in the annals of the Courts. The Patriot Act's infringement of the right to privacy only reveals the fallacy behind Roe and the other appurtenant cases. If those cases were anything but judicial incursions on States' rights and their populations' concepts of morality, they would be the exact source of a court striking the Act down. But it has not happened to any substantial degree because the reasoning simply fails.

It's all very similar to the 9/11-caused asbestos clouds over NYC. Everyone knew the demolished buildings had thrown asbestos into the sky. What did the EPA say? That it's not so dangerous in those doses. And so every class-action against Johns Mansfield was thus invalidated, too late to rescue the company. In its own way, the Patriot Act has served to invalidate Roe and its related cases.

But the people of the several States are too infantile for the Court to let them make such an important decision on their own...