The Balance Of Power

Don Surber: CNN reporter saves the Marines

2006-06-01T04:56:00.000-07:00

Don Surber: CNN reporter saves the Marines

You Are What You Eat And It Could Be Killing You

2006-03-01T15:17:00.000-08:00

Good afternoon readers!

Last week I shared with the readers at Ancient Eyes For Current Times (AEFCT) the story regarding Pizza Hut's cheese that is farmed out to your children in the schools.. and the potential that what is being used on these pizzas could harm your child!

In THIS week's news... (oh and get ready to gag--)

Congress Bill Takes Rights To Know What's In Your Food
The problem with this situation, is that there have been some astute states and watchdogs that have worked VERY HARD, to make sure that the food industry must disclose what is in the food you eat, and at what amount. If this bill passes, say goodbye to knowing what GMO foods you are ingesting, what possible carcinogens and toxins are in it!

New Cancer Study Obligates FDA To Recall Aspartame
That problem with Aspartame will just *NOT GO AWAY!*
As AEFCT has spoken about before, Aspartame should have never BEEN cleared for public consumption to begin with, IMHO!
They maneuvered, manipulated and worked around all the rules and regs to make it happen.. now as the degenerative diseases and cancers are being linked with the ingestion of Aspartame, there is a growing call from those in the holistic health industry as well as in the western medical industry to take a closer look at and/or removing Aspartame from the market of our food and drinks.

Okay.. so great right?
What do we do with all the people that have been ingesting it for YEARS?
By the Gallons?
By the product, after product, after "lose the fat" product.. ??

In today's news a 12 year old Science Student found that:

Fast Food Ice Dirtier Than Toilet Water!
12 year old in Florida conducts science fair test and finds that the ice that your fast food drinks are served with is more filthy then the toilet bowl water in the same fast food restaurants!

Folks its time to start thinking CLEARLY about the issues that are slipping by with such regularity

(Albeit, that will be hard to *DO* given the Aspartame and MSG and Formaldehyde and Rocket fuel that are already pickling and damaging our brains as it is!)

You are what you eat, America.. and the fact is its beginning to kill you.

So think about it as you eat that:

genetically modified hamburger bun
that contains the
bovine growth hormone hamburger,
served to perfection with
the lettuce that grew via water with rocketfuel in it
garnished with MSG laden ketchup and condiments
and
formaldehyde producing cheese

Oh and while you're at it:

Have some sugary gluten frenchfries that were fried in the oil that is NOT what it was claimed to be
then wash it all down with an
Aspartame Diet Drink
that is pleasantly chilled with
ice that is 70% more bacteria laden then toilet water!

On your way to see your PCP who has ordered a cardiac stress test, blood tests to check those triglyceride levels and the disturbing amount of ecoli in your system and wants to schedule a CAT scan and Mammogram to figure out just what those nasty little 'lumps' are!

Is Iran Next?

2006-02-15T02:44:00.000-08:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

Many in the blogosphere have been asking... Is Iran Next?

In a word... Yes. The President all but said so in his "Axis of Evil" speech, and I am afraid, given the current state of affairs, that war with Iran, in one form or another, is inevitable. Is immediate action absolutely necessary? NO, we must go the route of diplomacy first, but we CANNOT shy away from war. This entire situation has very grave consequences, our failure to act, no matter what the reason, will haunt us into eternity.

Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Palestine, along with their agents in Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Queda, are all intimately connected through Radical Islam. This IS a holy war to them, and in their eyes they are doing Allah's will.

We are on the precipice, one might say, of World War Three, all the pieces are there, being laid out by several factions worldwide. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fancies himself the ring leader of the righteous, and his saber rattling is almost inviting war. That alone gives me pause. One of two things is apparent, either he has no means to do anything, but desperately wants the world to think he does... or he is closer than we all think and is itching for an excuse to be a martyr for the cause. Both allude to an insane power play, that is all to common in that part of the world.

At the very least, I would never ignore or turn my back on him, but I would also keep awareness of my surroundings. Something tells me MUCH MORE is going on here than any of us realize... Much, much more...

But why are we in this position? For that I agree with a comment I found at Stop The ACLU...

LomaAlta comments...

Yes, I believe war with Iran is inevitable. We tried it Jimmy Carter's way in 1979 and Khomeini showed the nature of radical Islam and the future of Iran by invading our embassy and holding our citizens hostage.

Now, one of the "students" from that incident is president of Iran, and like Hitler is announcing his plans. History has taught us two things: First, madmen usually try to follow up on their threats. And, it is easier to stop them earlier rather than later.

With history as our guide, the civilized West can stop Iran now with a few hundred to a few thousand deaths or face a nuclear showdown later with hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths.

No sane person wants war, but if war must come, we should try to win it this time as we did in WWII–destruction of the enemy's capacity to resist and unconditional surrender. As distressing as it is, I believe lesser measures will ultimately result in more deaths and destruction.

Weakness and capitulation only breeds boldness and aggressiveness in this part of the world. It is human nature to be barbaric, and it takes civilized and reasoned societies to rise above that, an action that the radical Islamists have failed to accomplish.

Matthew (Zaphriel) of Liberty Just In Case

I have been watching the events with Iran unfolding for some time. I remember well, our last go around with these folks, during the Iran Hostess crisis. It is true, this government can be barbaric as I recall.

I am not a person that goes the routes of war, not when there are other ways of promoting peace and compromise and diplomatic routes.

However, as the rhetoric out of Iran has increased.. my stance has turned more to a guarded eye.

While I feel that we have stuck our nose in and sought to tell another nation what it can and cannot do, even though we are ourselves do and have the same nuclear capability.. I see that they are doing nothing on their end to meet at the table of compromise.. not only has their new leader, walked away from the table recently - he is in the process of overturning it all together.

As a Christian.. we are told to not be afraid of "wars and rumors of wars"we are, in short NOT TO LOSE OUR PEACE.. due to these things.. it is hard not to do so, when so much is in on the line! But.. it wasn’t a suggestion that Christ made, folks.. it was an order.. DO NOT be afraid..

Okay.. so laying the fear to rest.. what now?
I think it is in the duty of every American family to do two things now: unafraid at that..

1. Prepare your homes for another world conflict.. get that pantry ready as you've been planning on doing, take the time to read the emergency preparedeness information that is out there.. it is better to have both and not need them then to need them and not have them!

2. Pray for a defusing of the situation. Pray for the leaders of this nation and for the leader and people’s hearts of Iran. If the leaders heart will not turn.. pray that he loses his base of "people" that will support it. Pray that if the entire nation will not be softened and meet again at the table of the peace-making process.. that if military action is warranted and necessary that it be swift, sure and complete.

Pray for our Nation's leaders that they will be in good wisdom at this very critical time.

Above all things, I guess my comment here is "Do not be afraid..." Be prepared.. be wise.. be ready.. be at prayer.. but do not be afraid.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

This nation has been at war since 9/11/01. On September 20th, 2001, President Bush laid out the initial framework of that war:

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)

"...every government that supports them." The applause was universal and united then. He continued:

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.

They hate our freedoms. Including our freedom to publish cartoons without fear of beheadings, riots, and bloodshed. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. In fact, the new Iranian President has said clearly he wants to drive Israel in to the sea. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of Africa and Asia. Anybody heard of the genocide in Dharfur lately?

The terrorists hope that America grows fearful, retreating, forsaking our friends. Right up to and including leaving the Iraqi Front, and using Murtha's "over the horizon" strike force.

The President continued to gaze in to the future:

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Every resource at our command. Including listening to terrorist operatives making and recieving calls from outside this country. Every resource. That's what total war is. A committment to use every resource to achieve total victory. What does all this have to do with Iran? Read the last sentences again, especially the Applause lines:

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism. You are with us, or you are with the terrorists. Congress applauded, Democrats and Republicans, right and left, applauded. If you heard that speech, given a few weeks after the Towers fell, the chances are very good that YOU applauded.

President Bush has never stepped back from these words. The United States followed those words in to Afghanistan. We followed those words in to Iraq. And we've followed those words to a thousand other undisclosed places of this war, from the jungles of Indonesia and Columbia to the secure vaults of banks in New York and Switzerland.

And now, with the coming of a nuclear Iran, seedbed of terrorism for over 30 years, we will follow those words again.

As President Bush spoke, the acrid fumes continued to pour from Ground Zero. The Pentagon continued to smolder, and the story of Flight 93 was just beginning to be known. The letters containing anthrax were in the mail, and the coming attack on Los Angeles was in its final stages.

President Bush ended his speech with these words:

I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. (Applause.)

Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice -- assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.

These words ring as clear and true today as they did in that long ago time, when the wound to our hearts was fresh. And the choice set before the nations by our President remains. Iran, by her words and actions, has chosen sides. In our September 12th world, we must act before Iran attains nuclear weapons. Fear and cruelty would be magnified a million-fold should the mad mullahs of this terrorist nation achieve their goal. Freedom and justice will prevail...but only if we hold fast to the words spoken at the beginning of this long conflict. We must wage total war on the terrorist and the nations that harbor them. Only then can we attain total victory.

Mark of Liberty Just In Case

Zaph, I understand where you are coming from, definitely. This guy is a certifiable KOOK, after all. No doubt about it....

Or IS he?

What I want to know is, how well does this guy get along with Kim Jong-il, from North Korea anyway? After all, it wouldn't be the first time North Korea and Iran crawled into bed together, would it?

Doesn't this all sound familiar? Wasn't it just a few short months ago that we had a guy over in North Korea doing the same thing... just daring the United States and President George W. Bush to take a swing at him?

True, we cooled him down, continued our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his voice disappeared largely. Then this guy from Iran starts piping up at a time when we are cash strapped and overstretched, militarily speaking... and the rhetoric sounds EXACTLY the same way the guy in North Korea's did... if I recall correctly.

Guys, I sure hope our Commander-In-Chief knows what he is doing this time, because it sure seems like the writing's on the wall to ME. It looks like a "sucker punch". A "rope a dope". A "two on one". It looks to me like this is about to kick up into a "2 against 1" situation and it is quite scary to me, frankly.

Because of this: if this IS the case... we cannot compete without a draft, a helluva lot more tax money, and a helluva lot more dead Americans.

Are we ready for it?

I do not see how it could be so.

Carl of The Gun-Toting Liberal

While the possibility certainly exists that we will end up at war with Iran, I don't believe that it is imminent (within say the next two years). Ahmadinejad is currently doing what all thugs and bullies do; he is rattling his sabers and beating his chest in a display designed to scare his foes. However, I do not think the fact Saddam's attempts to pose the same kind of bluff were called is lost on him.

It may be the case that he believes that the US's current commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq offer him cover and a cursory glance would certainly seem to back that position. Fortunately, this is not Iraq and the game has changed. The world (read Europe and the UN) will not rally against an attack against Iran.

In fact, it is Europe that is currently taking the lead against Iran. Though their resolve has yet to be tested, Europe is certainly starting to wake up to the reality of what radical Islam is all about. Since 9/11 Europe has repeatedly been the victim of its own policies of appeasement. Spain, the UK, France and the Netherlands have all had blood spilled at the hands of those looking to impose Sharia on the entire world. Though I am certainly not ready to bet my continued existence on this earth on the spine of Europe, I firmly believe they will offer no cover for Iran in this matter, and would likely comprise a significant portion of any war effort against Iran.

In addition, Ahmadinejad knows that it is only the US and Europe that stand between him and Israel. If Europe did not stand in the way, Israel will be free to protect their interests as they saw fit. While Iran may talk tough, I believe they know full well the consequences of Israel being unleashed. Perhaps this is what Ahmadinejad wants. Such action by Israel would certainly not play well in the Muslim world and could possibly lead to a World War III, as Zaph has suggested. I just don't see it though. I think that most governments in the Middle East are well aware of the sweetheart deal they have going and would be reticent to follow in Saddam's footsteps by engaging in a war they know they could not win. Russia has provided Iran with an out and my guess is that once it is obvious that Iran will not receive cover from the usual suspects, there will be great pressure within the Muslim nations to press Iran into accepting the deal.

Liberty Dog of GMRoper

Domestic surveillance

2006-02-06T11:05:00.000-08:00

Hey Everyone, GTL's Back... **Everyone Cheers**
Now, on with the show.

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

Domestic surveillance / wiretapping of U.S. Citizens: A necessity for self-preservation, or an unnecessary, blatant violation of our civil liberties?

Anybody who knows me knows I am a huge talk radio fanatic. Talk radio stimulates the mind, helps get the Citizen involved in politics; both on a community and national basis depending upon the program. As my regular readers know, I served in the "sandbox" (location not given for security purposes) recently. When I was over there, one of the many things missing from my life was talk radio and political news in general. While I did have Internet access, it was very limited to say the least. The only talk radio hosts allowed behind the restrictive firewall were the far right ones; Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, and folks like that.

Of course, all of these talk radio personalities required a subscription fee for them to be heard over the Internet, so on my very limited budget, and in a moment of temporary insanity, I subscribed to Rush Limbaugh just so I could hear what was going on back home in the political arena even if it was going to be coming at me from a biased, far right point of view. I could have subscribed to any of the guys' podcasts, but I chose Rush for two reasons and two reasons only:

1. Michael Savage (by far the best of conservative radio hosts - not just a Republican Party "yes man" like the others ones are) does not offer a podcast or online subscription to my knowledge.

2. Rush Limbaugh is at least entertaining to me even when I disagree with him, which is quite often obviously.

Whenever I had a few free moments to download Rush's latest podcast during my busy work schedule, I would do so, and then download it to my MP3 player so I could listen to it after work and before going to sleep. I was unable to do this more than just a handful of times because of the work schedule (12 hour plus days, up to 7 days per week), but I was able to catch a few broadcasts.

One day I was listening to Rush as he demonized the liberals for their stance against domestic wiretapping when a caller called in. He introduced himself as a troop who had just come back home from the sandbox and he went on to tell Rush how it dismayed him that he served his country to preserve freedom, democracy, and personal liberty just to come back home and hear Rush demonizing the liberal Americans who were trying to do the same thing on the home front. As Rush went off on this Soldier, I kept listening to hear if Rush, a vocal "supporter" of the troops was going to be thanking this Soldier for his service.

NOPE.

That is when it really hit me that the guys like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh only support the troops who blindly support the Republican Party. I guess I always knew that, but it wasn't until that moment that I realized Rush Limbaugh actually despises those who disagree with him politically, even those troops who are Democrats, or open-minded, left leaning, libertarianish independent thinker such as myself. But back to the topic at hand.

I, much like the Soldier who called in to Rush Limbaugh, signed on the dotted line to preserve and spread freedom, liberty, and democracy. No other reasons; just those. When I heard about the domestic wiretapping of U.S. Citizens over there, I was quite disappointed and heartbroken. Yes, heartbroken.

How could this happen in my America? The Government suspects a Citizen is sleeping with the enemy, the Government takes the information to the judge to gain lawful permission to monitor that U.S. Citizen, the judge says "no"; case closed. But no, the case isn't closed; not under this Administration. Under this Administration, the judge is completely ignored and the snooping goes on anyway.

Now don't get me wrong; I am not one of those on the loony, far left who is going to tell you that "Bush is evil", or "Bush is trying to destroy America". I truly believe President Bush is trying to do his very best to protect America, just like I am, and just like the other more liberal folks are trying to do. We simply disagree on the way the President is going about it, that's all.

But that also doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and say "Well, since the President has the best of intentions, we'll just wait until '08 and the People will vote in people with better ideas who won't resort to the revocation of our civil liberties" either. In fact, I'm going to say the exact opposite.

Wait a minute, allow me to back up for a second. Let's take just a brief moment to give President Bush some credit for his anti-terrorism record so far since 9/11. If we're going to hold him accountable for everything that's gone wrong, let's give the man a few "kudos" for the fact that we haven't been attacked on U.S. soil again since the day those (mostly) Saudi bastards bombed the hell out of the Twin Towers. The man's record speaks for itself.

On the other hand, I will not simply buy into the notion that this is due to the fact that the Government simply snoops around in the private emails, private phone calls, and even the private homes of American Citizens whenever it feels like going on a fishing expedition. I have a very hard time believing that any judge in the United States is going to review the Government's proof that any American Citizen is talking to al-Qaida on the phone, and then say "Nope. You may not monitor those phone calls." If this is what's going on, then I, as an American Citizen, demand that judge be removed immediately from the bench. But I have more faith in our judicial system than that. This is exactly why our Founding Fathers divided the Government and the Judiciary into two separate branches; so this sort of thing would not go on. But it is going on. And that is also heartbreaking to me.

Listen; I hate frigging losing. If you can prove to me that the only reason our Democracy is still intact is because of the suspension, or revocation of our civil liberties and our guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure, I'm going to have to admit that we've lost this War on Terror. I'm not going to be doing that yet. I do not believe for one moment that we've lost this war. I truly believe we can defeat terror without having to give up all that makes America what she is; our freedom and liberty.

Here is where I think the President and his Administration are coming from: it would literally tear them apart to see another terrorist act on our soil; to see Americans be killed by Muslim extremists needlessly. They, like myself, and like all of the other Liberals and Conservatives, are patriots who are trying to do what is best for America. I'll grant them that much. I can totally relate, but let me ask you this:

Would you grant the Government the right to snoop around in your home, your private transactions, your private phone calls, your private emails, your health records, or any personal items you may own if these actions would guarantee our nation would never, ever have another terrorist attack on our soil?

Not ME, bub.

Allow me to use an analogy. Some of us live in safe neighborhoods, some of us live in dangerous neighborhoods and some of us live in semi-safe neighborhoods. Let's say you live in one of the dangerous neighborhoods where somebody gets shot, or at least maimed every other day. Let's say the police have a new program where they can guarantee they will root out all of the "bad guys" in your neighborhood and clean it up and make it safe again if you'll only just allow them to spy on you at will, until they have eliminated you from their "bad guys" list. After all, if you aren't doing anything illegal, you don't have anything to worry about, right?

And this is where the fundamental ideological differences between the left and the right become revealed. Many on the right generally agree that this would be a reasonable trade; "Civil liberties for a guarantee of safety? what a bargain!" Whereas; most of us who lean a bit more to the left are more likely to say "Hell no, you can't come into my house and root around and spy on me! I'll watch my back and take my chances, thank you very much."

To complete my analogy, let's look at the United States as if it were also a neighborhood. It's not that much of a stretch because it is our "neighborhood". It was once thought to be a completely safe neighborhood, but some people in a house down the block just got thoughtlessly, senselessly murdered by a bunch of gang members. The attackers were killed, but other members of this same gang in other areas of town are promising they will kill again in your neighborhood. They say they have members of their gang hiding out in your neighborhood, poised to help the outside gang members destroy your neighborhood; it's only a matter of time. You're stuck with your mortgage and you've put a lot of work into making your neighborhood safe and prosperous, so you feel that moving to another neighborhood is not an option.

Your options are:

A) Work with your other neighbors to create a "neighborhood watch program". You and all of your neighbors agree in solidarity to look out for each other and you take your chances.

B) Take a neighborhood vote and select a small number of "upstanding" and wealthy fellow neighbors to do anything they feel they need to do your homes and businesses of the neighborhood as long as they try to catch the bad guys. You all grant them permission come and go as they please from now on.

Sorry, but I chose "A". How about you?

Carl of The Gun Toting Liberal

In August of 2004 I developed severe breathing problems. The problems grew so bad that I was forced to stop work. For the rest of 2004, and well in to 2005, I was completely disabled, forced to stay home, sometimes unable to leave the house. During this time of enforced confinement, talk radio and the blogosphere became my links to the world. Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, and Hugh Hewitt became a regular part of my day. Lest someone say, "Aha! That explains it! He's been brainwashed by the "right-wing!" let me also add that I would listen to Air America until they went belly up hear in Chicago. And, as my blog partner Matt can attest, I spend at least as much time on left wing blog sites as I do conservative ones. I work very hard not to just have my own views confirmed by those I agree with.

But conservative talk radio has remained a constant for me, even as my health has improved. That's why GTL's characterizations of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity offended me so much. Because I have heard Rush go out of his way to thank military personel for their service, regardless of their political leanings. In fact, Rush has a program going to make subscriptions to his website available free of charge to military personel. And its not based on anything other than being a confirmed member of the military. GTL, you didn't have to pay for your subscription. You still don't. And, yes, I do indeed thank you for your service to this country, and to the blogosphere.

Now, GTL has presented the fears over the NSA surveillance program that was illegally leaked to the Mainstream Media. He,in effect, echoed Senators Durbin, Leahy, Feingold, Feinstein et al at the Senate Judiciary Hearing on 2/7/06. And, like them, he shows an ignorance of the facts, and the law. Now, GTL is no lawyer, so he has an excuse. Most of the Democrat Senators are lawyers, and so have none.

There is no excuse for exaggerating the program revealed, not with today's internet access. Here are the facts, taken primarily from analysis by lawyers. Rather than go through these arguments again, I'm going to point toward the references that should be read by all:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez layed out the case in a debate at Georgetown Law School on 1/23/06. The attorneys at Powerline have done an excellent job of summarizing General Gonzalez's speech.

On 2/7/06, General Gonzalez testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. After a preliminary bid by Democrats to put Gonzalez under oath for the cameras failed, the Attorney General gave his opening remarks. Again, he layed out why the program leaked to the New York Times is both necessary and legal. One of the key myths being perpetuated today is that FISA allows 72 hours to get a warrant. Here are the facts behind this myth, from General Gonzalez's opening statement:

In this debate, however, I have been concerned that some who've asked, "Why not FISA?" do not understand how that statute really works.
GONZALES: To be sure, FISA allows the government to begin electronic surveillance without a court order for up to 72 hours in emergency situations or circumstances.
But before that emergency provision can be used, the attorney general must make a determination that all of the requirements of the FISA statute are met in advance.
This requirement can be cumbersome and burdensome.
Intelligence officials at NSA first have to assess that they have identified a legitimate target. After that, lawyers at NSA have to review the request to make sure it meets all the requirements of the statute. And then lawyers at the Justice Department must also review the request and reach the same judgment or insist on additional information before processing the emergency application.
Finally I, as attorney general, must review the request and make the determination that all of the requirements of FISA are met.
But even this is not the end of the story.
Each emergency authorization must be followed by a detailed formal application to the FISA courts within three days. The government must prepare legal documents laying out all of the relevant facts and law and obtain the approval of a Cabinet-level officer as well as a certification from a senior official with mass security responsibility, such as the director of the FBI.
Finally, a judge must review, consider and approve the application.
All of these steps take time. Al Qaida, however, does not wait.
While FISA is appropriate for general foreign intelligence collection, the president made the determination that FISA is not always sufficient for providing the sort of nimble early-warning system we need against Al Qaida.
Just as we can't demand that our soldiers bring lawyers onto the battlefield, let alone get the permission of the attorney general or a court before taking action, we can't afford to impose layers of lawyers on top of career intelligence officers who are striving valiantly to provide a first line of defense by tracking secretive Al Qaida operatives in real time.

Now, one more myth of the media. What exactly did President Bush authorize? From Strata-Sphere on 2/5/06:

As I posted earlier, it was divulged in the 1970's, during the Church Committee investigations, that NSA routinely intercepts calls to people in the US when monitoring overseas enemies - it is unavoidable. What the NSA did if and when this happened was to bury the information regarding the US side of the communication.
This is probably how 9-11 murderers Midhar and Hazmi were missed when they were making all their calls overseas to what had to be targets of the CIA and German intelligence. The NSA would see the call, but due to short sighted and lazy policies that avoided arguing why these people should be monitored, their information would never be transmitted to the FBI.
What Bush did was direct the NSA to send their leads in the US to the FBI for investigation. That's it. Even if the NSA did expand it surveillance into new methods, without opening the gate between the NSA and FBI the leads would still be hidden from domestic law enforcement.

Remember "connecting the dots?" Remember the 9/11 Commission's Report about the Wall between law enforcement agencies? A Wall placed there by none other than Jamie Gorelick, a 9/11 commissioner? If the hysteria of the Left wins, that Wall will be put back, stronger than ever. One of the provisions of The Patriot Act currently twisting in the wind due to Democrat intransigence is the removal of that Wall.

GTL gave an analogy of a neighborhood, and stated that we could either form a neighborhood watch program, or elect representatives to look out for us. If I'm worried about a burglar stealing my computer, a neighborhood watch program makes sense. If I'm worried about who is going to patrol the streets at night, I'll elect a mayor, a city council, and form a police department also to help keep me and my family safe.

But if I've already lost 3000 friends and neighbors, and seen the destruction of the Twin Towers, I'll do more. And, if the murdering bastards that did the killing are calling my neighbor down the street FROM OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY to plot more deaths, and I have the ability to listen to the conversation and stop it, you bet I'll do that.

The program illegally leaked to journalists with a poltical agenda is necessary.

It is also legal.

Mark of Liberty Just In Case

I tire of this entire argument, but here goes anyway.

Amendment IV.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I guess the key word here is Unreasonable... Is it UNREASONABLE to listen in on telephonic contact outside of the United States to areas known to have enemy agents in abundance? Is it UNREASONABLE to use every means available to expediently attempt to prevent certain attack on the United States? Is it UNREASONABLE to act within the FISA regulations when possible, but to act outside of them when it is neither prudent, necessary, nor effective?

These programs of foreign surveillance are exactly that FOREIGN SURVEILLANCE. They are not listening in to your pizza order, or your private chat to Gramma, unless of course Gramma lives next to an Al Qaeda cell in Yemen.

What irritates me more than people trying to get political mileage out of this situation (knowing full well that it is fully and perfectly legal both by actual law and legal president) is that we even know of it at all. This program WAS / is still CLASSIFIED, and as with all of these situations lately I think the real issue is being overlooked, and / or swept under the carpet. SOMEONE HAS committed a crime here, and it is once again NOT the president of the United States. SOMEONE LEAKED highly classified information and once again cut the intelligence community off at the knees, for simple political gain.

Our Homeland Security, Military and Intelligence communities need to be STRENGTHENED, if we ever want to live as a free and peaceful nation once again, not weakened and obstructed. Political gain is temporary, our nations future should not be. But if we don’t soon end the back biting and political backstabbing "AT ANY COST", it very well may be.

We need to focus on the goal, and stop muddying the waters. America is great and we need to keep it that way. We are at war; we need to act like it.

Matthew of Liberty Just In Case

Added Late... Sorry, Z.

I found myself giggling *ALOT* when I read GTL's opening statement. I remember well listening to my father's radio all through the night, as he would be drifting in and out of sleep to the voices on Talk Radio. Many times, did we cross the western landscapes between New Mexico and Nevada to the voices of people like Rush Limbaugh.

On the topic of the wiretapping, my issue has never been with preserving the safety of American Citizens from possible terrorist or terrorist attacks. My issue is with the way that the lines between what is "legal" and what is not "legal" became far too obscure and blurred as has been evidenced in the hearings with Mr. Gonzales this week. It appears, to the average American Citizen, that the lines have been intentionally blurred and obscured to support something (that by the definition of freedom of speech and the laws regarding privacy of Americans) would not have elsewise been allowable.

In the aftermath of September 11, Americans for a time became terrified. We were angry, confused and afraid of what would come at us next--a situation that had not happened on American land since Dec. 7, 1941. Much like the occasion of Pearl Harbor, American's pulled out the patriotism and the heroism that was needed to pull our nation through a colossus of tragedy and we survived. No.. we THRIVED! However, how long will we live in fear (either real or contrived by others)? What for our worrying will we add or delete to from the plan that is above us and around us? The answer is simple: not a thing. Yes, we need to be cautious. Yes, we need to be wily and crafty to outwit those that would do intentional harm to our country or our citizens, but will that be at the expense of the Freedoms that this country was founded on? I for one would answer that question as a resounding, clanging NO! NO! NO!

I would rather live one day of freedom in my homeland and face the possibility of tragedy on the dawn of the next--then to live in constant fear, never fully experiencing the beauty of my land, my life and my liberty because I am too afraid of what the dawn may bring!

My heart's wish is that this country would remember that we have a back bone and it is not dictated by Washington, its policies or its politicans. All that American's will ever truly need, lives in the heart of every free, liberty loving American. The honor that is upheld in New Hampshire's state motto is one that all American's should look to as the standard of what the true American value on Freedom is:

"Live FREE or Die."

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Houston, We (Still) Have a Problem

2006-01-14T08:37:00.000-08:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

It was just like old times. All the networks left the game shows for the launch of Discovery. Even Oprah and Dr. Phil were preempted for the Return to Flight. And the launch was a thing of beauty.Until the tile came off. Live. On International television. And the nearest tow truck was still in the hangar. That was July of 2005. There has not been a U.S. manned space flight since.

NASA is working with technology from the '70's. Does anybody have anything left in their house from the '70's? I may have an old Superman comic book stashed away from that period, old and fading, crumpled around the edges, but that's about it.That comic book and the Shuttle program have alot in common. Both are falling apart, and being maintained with tape and chewing gum.
The difference is my comic book is stashed in a closet. The Shuttle is on TV, with men and women aboard her. Men and women who may be younger than the craft they are flying.It's time to start over.

It's time to jettison the worn out bureaucracy of NASA, and invest our space dollars where they can be effective. The X-Prize gave us a look at the future of space flight. Private enterprise can do it better, cheaper, and safer. An influx of funds from the Federal Government could jump start the private space industry with technology from this century. It would also get us to the Moon, and Mars much faster than a plodding NASA ever could.It's time to reach for the stars by looking forward, instead of back to a bloated government entity long past it's glory days. It's time for private enterprise to take the lead in manned space flight.

Private enterprise and competition is the best way to fulfill the dream so many of us have held dear for so long. A nation will get to Mars within the next 20 years. A nation will get back to the Moon and develop a permanent colony there. There are only two nations who have the plans and the technology to do this. One is the United States. The other, working far more aggressively to see the plans realized, is China. It would be a tragedy if the next time we see a man land on the Moon, he is from the People's Republic of China.

The tragedy would be that we let the opportunity slip away, by choosing bureaucracy over individual effort, and Big Government over private enterprise. The X-Prize showed us the way to the Solar System. Let's get moving.

Mark of Liberty Just In Case

I agree with Mark that private space travel is probably the way of the future, but I have reservations about government subsidy of private space flight.

The Associated Press recently reported that the Federal Aviation Administration has proposed 120 pages of new regulations on private space travel. I fear that public funding would accelerate the regulation. Once the government puts up the money, it will have one more incentive to regulate private space travel. Members of Congress would have an incentive to write the conditions of the prize to favor companies to which they are friendly.

As my high school history teacher, Mr. Voshell, used to say, "Whence comes money comes control." Private businesses that accept government subsidies usually find that those subsidies come with strings attached. This would probably be the case with government subsidy of the space travel business as well.

Jason of Leave Us Alone!

While I agree that trying to use outdated equipment, technology and etc for our space program is absolutely ridiculous-- I simply do not support a drive to spend MORE money (that we don't have.. considering the deficit) on going to space and seeing what all is out THERE... when we cannot effectively see and or deal with what is going on RIGHT HERE on THIS planet, in THIS nation at THIS time.

One thing that I realized when the X Prize accomplished what it did was that indeed, private enterprise can do it better and cheaper. That of course, opens up other issues.

As I see it, the Government of the United States, needs to work at governing the people of the United States and not further increase our indebtedness in chasing the stars in space, when we cannot manage the space that we live in, with the social and global issues that we are already currently involved with.

However, when private enterprise is given free reign to open space what can we expect? Do we expect them to respect the integrity of the Heavens anymore then they have respected the integrity of the Earth? Billboards in the heavens that similar to the old Burma Shave billboards will repeatedly direct you to the "Eat At Joe's"? What about Space Walmarts--ahhhh, you KNOW someone will attempt it or at the very least THINK about it. Will they be able to say "Owned by Virgin Records" as they speed by and slap a bumper sticker on a meteor?

Funny analogies, I know, however, I really do think that our audacity and ego has become (overall) that boundless and that if private enterprise is allowed to continue the space exploration there needs to be some sort of "rule book" that is not easily manipulated or gotten past.

The Bible says that "The Heavens declare the glory of God". We need to make sure that they continue to do so and not become just another ransacked "Earth, Part 2".
To colonize the Moon is a great thought, greater still is to fix the issues right here on Earth and let the Moon do what it always has. Colonizing another region (be it here on Earth or in another part of space) would seem to be a grand adventure however, are we only running from the problems we have created here and cannot or will not fix?

To want to achieve travel in space is a wonderful thing, yet here on Earth in the United States we already have trouble guarding our own borders and the issues of travel between here and there. How will we navigate yet more space and more issues? To want to achieve space exploration and colonization, wonderful thing-- however, why must it be a race that we must get there before China? You see, there is NOTHING in our ego, our manner or our thoughts that would lead me to believe that WE have changed, that our hearts have changed or that our desire to conquer has changed. Thus, Space is yet just another thing to be 'mastered' not necessarily respected, yet another thing to be 'owned' not necessarily to be shared.

Until such time as we can work out these issues right here on good old Planet Earth.. we have no business, going deeper into the Heavens with the ego that we have.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Social Justice

2006-01-11T07:38:00.000-08:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

Social Justice for the 21st Century

"Those who shut their ears to the cry of the poor will themselves also call and not be heard." Proverbs 21:13

What IS Social Justice and how are we to respond to it?
Many have debated this topic for hundreds if not thousands of years and now it is hashed between the partisan politics on Capitol Hill and still we must ask ourselves-- are we a Socially Just Society, Nation and People?

The topic of Social Justice is uniquely intertwined with faith for many. The bible speaks:

"The Lord hears the cry of the oppressed. He is not deaf to the wail of the orphan, nor the widow when she pours out her complaint. The prayer of the lowly pierces the clouds; it does not rest until it reaches its goal. Nor will it withdraw till the Most High responds, judges justly and affirms the right." Sirach 35:13-18

The Book of Romans calls us to remember the Poor, to feed those who are hungry, give drink to those that are thirsty. Remember the widows, be kind to strangers.
Going on to say "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

So it is a topic that should indeed cross partisan lines and fall directly to the heart of all humanity.
"How do we care for the poor and needy? Am I a Socially Just person? Is the world I live in a Socially Just world?"

We live in a needy world.
There are those that live without the basic necessities of life in our world. There are those that live beneath the standards that we would ourselves deem fit and proper for our loved ones. There are those that have much and give little. There are those who have little yet give of what they have. There are those that are guiltless over-consumers and there are those that live simply so that others might simply live. These are the facts.

Here at Balance of Power, speaking of the needy in this nation has previously been a *VERY* hot topic of debate. It is not my intention to rehash the same debates that we've had before--who's responsibility is it? Where does my responsibility begin and another's responsibility end?
We've had the "bootstraps, bootstraps" conversation and we have all at one point or another had to take responsibility for our own situations and realize we were part of the problem in how we ended up where we were.
So, to begin, lets just establish.. yes we all bear personal responsibility for ourselves. YET... is that where our responsibility should end? What amount of giving is "too much giving"?

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, brought us all face to face with the emotion and reality of the poor, the impoverished, those that had lost it all and were waning in their hope of recovery.
For most of us we responded with our hearts first: prayer, condolences, giving, offering of ourselves and even our shelter. It brought out the best (and also the worst) in what America is made of. We were confronted and assailed by questions of why were the majority of those that remained in New Orleans, black and impoverished? What has our society done, what were the circumstances that made it so clearly demarcated as a "social issue" rather then just another "weather related catastrophe?"

Social Justice is not only about doing for the poor and the needy it is about LIVING justly. It is about wise consumerism and learning to live Sustainable and Just Lifestyles. The more this occurs in our own lives, then the more we can

A. share the methods of sustainability and justice
B. do more with our reserves and overflowing abundance
for those that are truly needy in this world.

There are numerous Social Justice organizations alive and working in the world such as The Catholic Workers Movement that was founded by Dorothy Day in 1933
http://www.justpeace.org/whatis.htm

These are common people that live for the purposes of helping others live the works of mercy, justice and peace.

There are numerous Self Sustaining communities that have become more active in this nation and others in the effort to live more simply, to use less so that those that are in need might have more to draw from.

There are some simple suggestions that we might make ourselves more socially just people in the effort to make our world as a whole more socially just. For example:

We can spend less money on unjust global corporate economy. We can learn to shop more locally and support our local farmers and small businesses.

We can consider how we work. Does our work and our life support peaceful existence or do we work for conglomerate empires that pollute the environment or make bombs to perpetuate the cycles of aggression and war?
We can change, with deliberate mindfulness.

We can choose to live debt free so as not to support national chains and finance companies that drive the rates of poverty, indebtedness and bankruptcy.

We can look at how we live. Do we have more then we need, could we pitch together with others in a co-housing effort. Could the notion of community take root and spring up in single persons taking shelter together with others that are of similar spiritual and just minded philosophy and "Become the change they wish to see in the world"?

We can look at how we use energy and minimize it so as to reduce the dependence on petroleum products. We can look at things like carpooling, solar and wind power.

We can grow more of what we need and barter it, sell it locally at friendly prices.

We can recycle, reuse, make-do. Support things like freecycle and remember that everything comes from somewhere and we are called upon to be good stewards of our resources.

Of such are a few suggestions to get the ball rolling towards living more Socially Just in the 21st Century.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Nariel's suggestions got me to thinking about what I could do to be more socially just. Soon after Hurricane Katrina, many bloggers encouraged readers to donate to various organizations. I participated by posting something on my own blog and by donating money.

This was a worthy effort, however I was remiss in not responding similarly to a much greater disaster that hit the world last fall. In October, an earthquake struck southern Asia, killing at least 87,000 people. I can't think of any good reason why I all but ignored the southern Asian earthquake after having contributed to help the survivors of Hurricane Katrina. (No, the fact that the victims aren't American is not a good reason.)

Well, better late than never, I suppose. Now is a critical time for the south Asian earthquake survivors, with winter setting in. Pakistan Earthquake 2005 has more information. Here are a couple of relief agencies:
UNICEF
Mercy Corps.

In an effort to live more socially justly in 2006, I'm going to make financial contributions to agencies that are helping the survivors of the south Asian earthquake. If you haven't already done so, please join me. If you have already done so, you're a better person than I am.

Jason of Leave Us Alone!

Social Justice many times is a misapplied idea.

Nariel sights scripture to back up her argument, and I agree with her. "The Book of Romans calls us to remember the Poor, to feed those who are hungry, give drink to those that are thirsty. Remember the widows, be kind to strangers. Going on to say 'Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.' "

Yes it does, and I am of the belief that that action must be chosen by each and every one of us, not forced by the government. We must choose to help the needy for it to truly be a selfless and good act. It is the responsibility of each one of us to act, to provide charity via whatever currency we see fit.

I also believe it is better to give tools than produce. There is a generally un-attributed truism out there that says, "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime." Giving people the tools to pull themselves us, and giving them the assistance to get up in the first place is what needs to occur. Your local soup kitchen and salvation army are good for that along with many faith based initiatives.

But to the Question… How much is enough? Enough is for each of us to look into our hearts and decide. Enough is as much as we CAN give. And that will be different for each person.

The biggest thing for me however is that this should not have anything to do with the government, it is not their role to be the nations charity. It is however our role, and we must all provide it.

Matthew of Liberty Just In Case

Values

2006-01-04T00:29:00.000-08:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

This weeks guest blogger is John Dias of cornpone.net. John wrote us and asked to put together a post for the Balance of Power, and so we gave him a shot. It's pretty much that easy to be part of the Balance of Power.

New Years Eve is also my oldest child's birthday. This year, he'll bring in 2006 at the age of 16. Where did those years go?

Last night, as I lay in bed wide awake waiting to get up at 12:01 and wish him a happy birthday, I wondered if I had done all that I could do as a parent. Of course, I haven't. Not that I think myself a poor father, but I'm certainly no uber-pop, either. But I think, despite my failings, I've been able to impart some of my ideals to my son and I hope that I've given him something to think about rather than being an old bore.

Anyway, I tried to think of the most important things I want my boys to know and understand before I'm no longer responsible for their care and feeding. Mind you, these aren't exactly pearls of wisdom, but I hope my young men will find them useful, if not now then later on when they're on their own. After considering recent events and circumstances I really feel there are some lessons to be learned. Rather than sit my son down and lecture him on his happy day, I thought it better to purgatize on my own and spare him the words. It's best to communicate ideal living through action, anyway.

Dear Son,

You are responsible for your own hide. Sadly, I think we all count too much on the soulless entity we call "government" to provide for us in time of need and failing. Instead of looking within ourselves, and making wise decisions, we've become accustomed to having a safety net below us so that no matter how carelessly or foolishly we live, "the government" will do something to make us whole again. Never were so many disappointed when the city of New Orleans was all but destroyed and they learned that the safety net doesn't have the tensile strength to withstand the weight of so many in need of salvation at one time. And frankly, although this was a huge disaster, it could have been much worse.

There are certainly situations that you can't plan for or avoid, but a huge meteor notwithstanding you can protect yourself from most dangers in this world. You only have to motivate yourself with the simple realization that nobody can take care of you, your beloved and your property like you can.

The best part of being prepared is that you are also able and ready to help others around you. Not only is this the essence of civil living, but it's also beneficial spiritually. Notice that you don't have an obligation to help. You're free to sit on your ass and watch your neighbor's home go up in smoke. But then, that's not a good way to live - for several reasons.

Speaking of being free, always remember that freedom and responsibility are inseparable. Here, the Golden Rule typically applies. Of course, that doesn't mean that others will always abide by this simple guide to living. There are those who are just plain rude or uncivilized. Let them alone and eventually time will show them the error of their ways. Just know that it's not your job to tell others how to live. You must show them how to live and do so quietly and humbly. I've raised you as a Christian, and hopefully you haven't picked up the wrong idea from a good many of your fellow Christians.

By that, I mean that it's OK to hold certain things or thoughts or deeds as sinful and contrary to what your belief system regards as good living. But you should avoid telling others that you believe they are wrong. First, it's just rude and secondly it turns them stone hard against anything you may do or say in the future that my show them your light. As the old proverb says, "Actions speak louder than words."

I'm not talking about a relativistic approach. Don't compromise on your own values and beliefs. But somehow we've got to shed the idea that we can force people to good. That's been the greatest failing of the Church throughout history. Conversion must be intellectual or it will never last.

Speaking of Christianity, don't buy into the notion that American Christians are under attack or are being persecuted somehow by the media or Hollywood or some other such imaginary enemy. American Christians enjoy more freedom than anywhere on Earth or anytime in history. If we Christians in America were really being persecuted, I don't think we could stand up - as a group - to the pressure. I really think you'd see a good many "Christians" abandon the Cross without a pinch of guilt.

Learn your faith, continue to study and be reasonably proficient at apologetics and you'll have nothing to fear. No one can take your faith, anymore than they can take your name or your will. Only you can do that to yourself.

That's about all, son. Be true to yourself. Love your brother, always. Keep in touch with friends. Pray and work.

You'll do fine.

Love,

Dad

John Dias of Cornpone.net

Having a 16 year old son myself, I couldn't help but to read this post and find myself nodding my head along in many places.

It is a hard thing, raising a child of character, of values, of conscience in this world today. In so many ways they are assaulted on multiple fronts. Makes the job of parenting that much harder at times.

For myself, I have tried to raise my son to be a man of substance in his world. To have opinions, thoughts, views, dreams, ambitions that would not only bring to his life a sense of pride and accomplishment but also to bring good things to the lives of the world and people around him.

We don't always agree on things, he and I. But it doesn't mean that I can't respect the things that he thinks. We have our meetings of the minds and our knocking of heads on myriad issues but in all of these times.. I am thankful that I raised him to be an independent thinker--to not follow after the crowd but to forge his own way where he must and to truly live out the goal of "To thine ownself be true."

I try to teach him that it is good to experience new things and to attempt to do things in the manner that he feels best--but to temper that with the ability of knowing when to ask for assistance.

I recall to him, the times that his great-grandfathers served in foreign conflicts proudly- distinguishing themselves as men of honor and yet I cannot make him aspire to military service, nor can I even justify the actions of the military in the world at this time. It is difficult but I remain in hope that should he feel led to serve his Nation that he will do so proudly, with integrity and not because its a great way to get a college-education, see the world, etc. but because his heart feels led to do so from a well-spring of patriotism within him.

I speak often of history and matters of our world. It has been said that those that do not remember history, are doomed to repeat it. So I tell him the straight truth of things as I've found it and armed with that he sees his world through his perspective and has formed well rounded opinions on things that are not always respected or appreciated by others but they are none the less--his own.

He's learned already that many times, a man must walk alone with his convictions--that not always will others agree with you and sometimes, they will be downright mean to you when you differ from them. I've taught him that it's alright. I've tried to impart to him that sometimes our own conscience and convictions are the best company with which to keep ourselves. I've tried to impart to him that he should "be the change you would most like to see in your world."

So in essence, I have a "punk" son with a leather jacket of metal spikes and a heart of gold.
As a parent.. I couldn't be more proud.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Much of my life has been influenced by song. Nowhere is that more true than in raising my 10 year old son and almost 13 year old daughter.

There are two songs that mean a lot to me, one I sing to my son, and one will be the song my daughter and dance to at her wedding.

Phillips, Craig and Dean wrote this several years ago. It remains one of the cornerstones by which I parent:

I Want To Be Just Like You - Phillips, Craig & Dean (Lifeline)
He climbs in my lap for a goodnight hug
He calls me Dad and I call him Bub
With his faded old pillow and a bear named Pooh
He snuggles up close and says, "I want to be like you"
I tuck him in bed and I kiss him goodnight
Trippin' over the toys as I turn out the light
And I whisper a prayer that someday he'll see
He's got a father in God 'cause he's seen Jesus in me

Lord, I want to be just like You
'Cause he wants to be just like me
I want to be a holy example
For his innocent eyes to see
Help me be a living Bible, Lord
That my little boy can read
I want to be just like You
'Cause he wants to be like me

Got to admit I've got so far to go
Make so many mistakes and I'm sure that You know
Sometimes it seems no matter how hard I try
With all the pressures in life I just can't get it all right
But I'm trying so hard to learn from the best
Being patient and kind, filled with Your tenderness
'Cause I know that he'll learn from the things that he sees
And the Jesus he finds will be the Jesus in me
Right now from where he stands I may seem mighty tall
But it's only 'cause I'm learning from the best Father of them all

(c) Star Song

The other song, the one my daughter Lexi and I have decided we will dance to at her wedding, is Butterfly Kisses, by Bob Carlisle:

There's two things I know for sure:
She was sent here from heaven and she's
daddy's little girl.
As I drop to my knees by her bed at night
She talks to Jesus and I close my eyes and
I thank god for all the joy in my life
Oh, but most of all
For butterfly kisses after bedtime prayer;
sticking little white flowers all up in her
hair; "Walk beside the pony, Daddy, it's my first ride."
"I know the cake looks funny, Daddy, but I sure tried."
In all that I've done wrong I know I must
have done something right to deserve a hug
every morning and butterfly kisses at night.

Sweet 16 today
She's looking like her mama a little more everyday
One part woman, the other part girl.
To perfume and make-up from ribbons and curls
Trying her wings out in a great big world.

But I remember
Butterfly kisses after bedtime prayer; sticking
little white flowers all up in her hair.
"You know how much I love you, Daddy, But if you
don't mind I'm only gonna kiss you on the cheek this time."
With all that I've done wrong I must have done
something right to deserve her love every morning
and butterfly kisses at night.

All the precious time
Like the wind, the years go by.
Precious butterfly.
Spread your wings and fly.

She'll change her name today.
She'll make a promise and I'll give her away.
Standing in the bride-room just staring at her.
She asked me what I'm thinking and I said "I'm not
sure-I just feel like I'm losing my baby girl."
She leaned over... gave me butterfly kisses with her mama there,
Sticking little white flowers all up in her hair
"Walk my down the aisle, Daddy-it's just about time."
"Does my wedding gown look pretty, Daddy? Daddy, don't cry!"

Oh, with all that I've done wrong I must have
done something right.
To deserve your love every morning and butterfly
kisses-I couldn't ask God for more, man this is what love is.

I know I gotta let her go, but I'll always remember
every hug in the morning and butterfly kisses.

There are no values I could impart to my children than coming to know Jesus, and seeking to be like Him. As our guest blogger so aptly puts it, we've got to shed the idea that we can force people to good. And that begins with our children. Our children will live what they see in us. Such is the great joy, and the great responsibility, of being called to be parents.

Mark of Liberty Just In Case

The love of a child is incomparable to any other emotion. You never know true love until you have a child, or at least I never understood the true nature of love until my darling cherub was born. That type of love compels me to instill in her important values about life, which will serve her well into the future.

Even at the tender age of six she is learning to be self reliant. I have been teaching her that no-one is going to provide for her for her whole life, that she needs to make her own way. (of course this may partially be lost in between the "Did you wipe, flush and wash, in that order?" sessions, but I still try. She's 6, some of the basics still elude her… boy is my childhood biting me in the butt.) I hope that when she is a young woman she knows that she is loved. I hope that she knows she can do anything she puts her mind to. I hope she has learned that she needs to know herself and love herself, before she can try to share that with others. I hope that someday she will feel the love that I feel today, with her, and she has at least a slightly easier time of it.

Our children are precious gifts and we must mold them so they can become gifts to the future. They are our only legacy, and the only thing that will matter 50 years from now.

Matthew of Liberty Just In Case

This is great advice. I think you're absolutely right when you say "...you should avoid telling others that you believe they are wrong. First, it's just rude and secondly it turns them stone hard against anything you may do or say in the future that may show them your light." Much of the polarization and hostility in our culture and politics today results from busybodies on each side heaping disapproval onto the other side. This makes it harder to find common ground.

This is not to say that one shouldn't speak out against immoral acts that actually affect the rights of others. It is not only the right, but also the duty of every citizen to oppose acts, such as murder, theft, and tyranny, that cause actual harm or risk to others without their consent. But when it comes to matters of private morality, it is best to tolerate differences and to lead quietly by example, rather than to try to use the force of law to control the private behavior of others.

Jason of Leave Us Alone!

Season's Greetings

2005-12-22T19:33:00.000-08:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

We at the Balance of Power have been busy lately (as you can see from the post frequencies). We are trying to bring you a better blog. The holiday season is always a busy one and for us that is no exception. I asked the contributors here this week to talk about Christmas, Hanukah, or what ever other winter holiday they hold dear, and also I ask you, the reader, please leave your comments about the season, I know we would all like to hear them. - Matthew

Our church has an annual Christmas pageant. Rehearsals begin the Saturday morning after Thanksgiving, and each Saturday after that, with the all important Dress Rehearsal a day or two before Christmas Eve. Mary is always a high school girl, and the baby Jesus is always a newborn from the parish. Middle School girls play the Archangels (my 7th grader is Gabriel this year) and the elementary age children play smaller angels, and Shepherds. The preschoolers are sheep, complete with floppy lamby ear headdresses, and lamb costumes. The cast of Herod, the Innkeeper and his wife, and various other parts are filled out by children of the church. The script for this production is the same as it was sixty years ago, when the play was first held in our small chapel built during the Civil War.

I bring my children to each rehearsal, armed with my Dunkin' Donuts coffee, and my book. The coffee I drink, but somehow I never get around to the book. There is always another parent to talk to, or a shepherd to help with his robe, or a wayward lamb needing a bit of direction. In the midst of all this, the book lays silent and unread in the pew. The pageant is a time for community, not for the quiet isolation of reading.

The story is timeless, and best done by children. Somehow, in their innocence, the Christmas story comes alive in a way no dry retelling can do. As the little angels sing glory, and march around the church with their arms flapping, I can almost see the real angels sitting in the rafters, smiling. As the shepherds come running down the center aisle, their bath robes flowing about them, I see those herdsman of long ago, awakened by a strange light and a glorious message. And, as the three wise men present their gifts, to the obligatory tune of We Three Kings, I think of the gifts I need to bring to my wife, my children, and to the Risen King whose pageant this is.

The pageant for me represents all that's right about my church, my faith, and Christmas. In this gathering that dates back at least 60 years, we carry on a heritage that will outlive us all. And, on that Christmas Eve, with parents craning their necks to see their own child, rather lamb or shepherd, or Gabriel herself, I think of the Father craning his neck to look past the multitude of angels crowding around that manger long ago, catching a glimpse of his Child. He must have been beaming with pride on that night, knowing The Plan was reaching fulfillment at last.

It is this marvelous joy that we recreate each Christmas Eve, in that ancient tableau of the pageant.

Mark of Liberty Just In Case

Christmas time has always been more than just a "holiday" for me.

It truly is a living, breathing, giving, loving, living time that I for one, have always wanted to last all year long.

It is true that we live in a cynical world and cynical time.
The dreams of youth are stolen so quickly away leaving very little for a child to believe in, the magic, which is Christmas time. By the time they have reached our ages... we must remind ourselves of what it was that truly made Christmas such a wonderful time. We ask ourselves "Where IS peace and goodwill to men?" "Where is the love that this night bore to the world nearly 2,000 years ago?"

It is not so hard really-- the love and the peace are still there, if we can simply remove the veils from over our cynical eyes to SEE it.

They are in the quietest of places, anonymous givers of gifts, little miracles that still happen all the time.

They are in boxes going overseas to our military personnel from churches and individuals that may never even have met them before, but care all the more.

They are in turkeys and trimmings that are provided from our "kettle gifts" to the Salvation Army.

They are hanging as wishes on the "Giving" or "Angel" trees in most every store nationwide, a child's wish begging to be fulfilled by the spirit and nature of Santa Claus that dwells in all of us.

They are in the smiles that people muster as they bustle through crowded aisles in stores.

They are in the many hours of preparation that church choirs undertake to sing the songs you most love to hear.

They are in the sermons of Pastors and Priests worldwide that are being written and practiced for your benefit even now, a week before hand.

Christmas is all-encompassing if we allow it to be.

It is a wonderful season of memories of times gone by, loved ones missed, cherished babies that are soon to be born.

It is in every cutting of every sugar cookie that a mother undertakes.

It is also in her frantic list making as she plans the holiday meal.

But more then this...

The magic and wonder of Christmas is found in our ability to BELIEVE. For that indeed, is what it all hinges upon!

In this world of today, we are told that "Seeing is believing" yet the reverse is true. "Believing is seeing". That which we can conceive of in our minds, embrace with our hearts is what allows us to see the wonders of Christmas.

Who amongst us can say that we have 'nothing', when we look at a lowly stable scene? The picture of a mother, a foster father, a Child-- surrounded by hay and animals is the gauge by which we measure what we have and what we do not have; what is truly important and of value, and what is not.

Two thousand years ago, we were given an example of simplicity, of peace, of love, of giving. Can we look within ourselves and around ourselves as we fuss with ribbons and bows and boxes and shopping-- to find the remnant of that simplicity today? By believing, my friends shall we see it.

No matter what one's faith in this world, the holiday season rings the bells of unity between us all. In every culture, winter brings us to the depth of cold and dark and the lesson is FAITH and BELIEF.

Can we believe that beyond this cold--there is warmth at the hearth of our hearts? Beyond this darkness, can we believe that the light is not extinguished nor even lessened?

For Israel, they had faith that the lamp oil would not go out and they would not be overcome. For the Christian, they have faith that the light of the Wonder Child of Christmas has not dimmed but burns all the more brightly even to today. For the Pagan, they have faith that the winter will yield to spring again and new growth on earth will begin again, in the cycle of life.

Christmas is the season of FAITH.

May we all have more then we had only a day ago, but less today then we shall have tomorrow.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Christmas to me has always been a special time of year, as I figure it is for most people. I found early on however that Santa was not the main point of it all, and the importance of the nativity became redily apparent. Given my name, I was curious about the bible and most especially the book that bore my name (Matthew), the first few chapters tell the story that I came to revere.

The Birth of Jesus Christ
Matthew1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).

24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. ...

The Visit of the Wise Men
Matthew 2:1 Now after
Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise
men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, "Where is he who has been born king of the
Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him,
“In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

6 "And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel."

7 Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him." 9 After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they
offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.

It was a time of peril and of hope. A time that very much reflects today, and I dare say the whole of human existance. Christmas is a time to find hope where there appears to be none, a time to be reborn, and start anew.

As well, it is a time for family and friends to come together and enjoy one another.

May your winter holiday, what ever it is, bring you health, happiness, and love. May we soon, see peace on Earth, and may we all show goodwill towards our fellow man.

Matthew of Liberty Just In Case

The Death Penalty

2005-12-07T11:44:00.000-08:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

Our Guest blogger this week is Jason, of Leave Us Alone. We are glad to have him on board with a great topic: The Death Penalty. Enjoy.

I've always been ambivalent about the death penalty. None of the traditional arguments for or against execution seem persuasive to me, mostly because I believe that liberty is more important than life.

Death penalty opponents argue that with the death penalty comes the risk that an innocent person will be executed. This argument was recently bolstered by a Houston Chronicle investigation of the 1993 execution of Ruben Cantu. Sure, the execution of an innocent person is a horrible tragedy, but so is the imprisonment of an innocent person. If I were wrongfully convicted of a capital crime, I would much rather be killed than spend the rest of my natural life in prison. The conviction of Mr. Cantu, along with the many other wrongful convictions that have taken place, may be evidence that it's too easy to obtain a criminal conviction, but I'm not persuaded that the possibility of a wrongful execution makes the death penalty wrong.

Another argument against the death penalty is that execution lowers society to the level of a murderer. This argument just doesn't hold water. If the death penalty is morally equivalent to murder, then fines and restitution are morally equivalent to theft, incarceration is morally equivalent to kidnapping, and community service is morally equivalent to slaveholding. When we give government the power to punish criminals, we allow it to commit acts that would be crimes if any of us committed them as individuals.

Death penalty proponents argue that the death penalty deters potential murderers. This argument would be persuasive if there were any evidence to support it. However, most research indicates that the death penalty has no deterrent effect.

Another argument in favor of the death penalty is that the ultimate crime deserves the ultimate punishment. As far as I'm concerned, however, death is not the ultimate punishment. Locking someone in a cage full of violent felons for the rest of his or her life is a much worse punishment than euthanizing him or her like a sick, old dog.

It is for that last reason that I lean toward opposing the death penalty as it is currently practiced. The death penalty lets our most heinous criminals off too easily. As Bill O'Reilly asks in a WorldNetDaily column, "...why kill people when you can sentence them in a more punitive way?"

While I lean a certain way, I am persuadable. Does anyone want to persuade me?

Jason of Leave Us Alone

The Answer here Jason, is cost, among other things.

The death penalty in this nation is one of those oxymoronic conundrums that we have. I often find it ironic that the same people that are pro-life are also pro-death penalty. Both are state sanctioned killing right. And still I find little wrong with this dichotomy because of one huge distinction, those to whom the death penalty is imposed have (or at least should have) committed an action that warrants it.

While I support having a higher standard of proof to impose the death penalty, I also think that the associated appeals process is out of control. Beyond all of that however the realist in me sees the real reason the death penalty is important and the answer is money.

I costs allot to keep a man in prison, but beyond that, our prisons currently are very over crowded, which means we either release some, or we build more prisons. Murderers, in my book, have nothing left to contribute to society, keeping them alive, just so that we can punish them more, or really for any other reason, is just bad economics, if not bad government.

Keeping violent murderers alive to be held captive on our dime is ridiculous. In my calloused view I think there should be MORE executions, not less, along with a few other prison reforms. Frankly prison is hardly a punishment anymore. All we are robbing of our criminal element is their freedom of movement, to a man that has nothing, that is hardly a deterrent. After all, any punitive system we have in place should at least on the surface be a deterrent right.

Matthew of Liberty Just in Case

Personally, though I am mostly always to the side of the preservation of life, I am actually an advocate of not only utilizing the Death Penalty but along with our Texas folks to the South of where I am, I think that in certain cases, it ought to be expedited in a few cases. (As in the case of if someone commits murder and two or more credible witnesses SAW it happen).

I do believe that prison (as it is now) has become lax in doing the job that it was instituted to do. When a criminal gets free medical care, free education, free meals, free clothing, a roof over their head and in some cases even cable TV, Internet access and gym facilities--its just not much of a deterrent to crime now is it?

I believe that those that are incarcerated should be working on the "chain gangs" still. Doing things that will benefit the whole of society, whom they are jailed for having wronged anyway.

I believe that punishment and justice should "fit the crimes" and that we need a little creativity in the whole process so that JAIL is actually a DETERRANT again.

As to the Death Penalty, I think that when persons have committed capital crimes against humanity (violent rape, murder) and when they are adjudicated to be non-rehabilitatable (i.e., sociopathic, psychopathic, repeat and serial offenders) it is not only in society's best interest but in many cases the offenders best interest to just be "put to sleep".

For every one person that is on death row that might... MIGHT be innocent, there are ten more that are there because society has deemed it in the best interests of themselves for crimes committed by the offender.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

The death penalty is a tough one for me. I am strongly, adamantly pro-life. Anyone who has debated me over abortion, or the Terri Schiavo case quickly finds this out. I believe there is something essentially sacred in each individual's humanity, and this does sanctity does not end when a human commits a violent crime, even a horrific murder.

This belief flows from my faith in Christ, and belief in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible. Man is a fallen creature, but still has with him the Imago Dei, or Image of God. This image, while shattered by sin, is not removed. Yet, certain crimes were punishable by death in The Old Testament, and this was not in any way contradicted in The New Testament. The story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery in John 8 was about hypocrisy, not capital crimes. And in Romans 13:4, Paul talks about submission to government authorities, who bear the power of the sword. Again, the passage speaks of submission ot authority, and supports the idea of capital punishment.

So, scripturally, I see no contradiction between being pro-life, yet favoring capital punishment. Yet, I can firmly understand those who do hold that capital punishment is wrong. I fail to understand how those on the Left can be against capital punishment, and yet favor Abortion at all costs. This appears to me to be hypocrisy of the highest order.

I believe the greatest case for the continuation of capital punishment in this nation is DNA. The advent of this technology greatly lowers the chances of an innocent man or woman being convicted of a capital crime.

And, there are those who deserve this punishment. The most relevant example of this is Saddam Hussein. His documented destruction of millions of men, women and children, all of whom bear the Imago Dei, certainly makes him worthy of death. And the sooner the better.

Now a more specific answer to Jason's final point, that life in prison represents a greater punishment to the felon. In the prisons of the West, this is simply not true. Forfeiting your freedom, while living in what would be seen as luxury to much of the Third World, is not a punishment for someone like the BTK murderer. Death is the most logical punishment for one such as BTK, or Saddam.

By the way, if you're wondering if you missed Mark's post over the past couple of days, rest assured you didn't. Due to having some minor surgery, I simply didn't get a chance to add my post on this important topic. So, I took my assistant editor's prerogative, and posted late.

Mark White of Liberty Just In Case

Cut and Run: Democrat Policy in Iraq

2005-11-23T00:03:00.000-08:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

OK, I'm tired of the idiocy. Here on the Balance of Power, I rarely use this language, but this time it fits. I would love for someone to tell me exactly how we would benefit from pulling out of Iraq right now.

In the last week Rep. John Murtha called for the immediate removal of our troops from Iraq. Now I respect Rep. Murtha's service, he is a decorated Vietnam Vet, but as a current member of the military, who is actively involved in this particular conflict, I would have to adamantly disagree with Rep. Murtha.

We are at a juncture right now, Iraq is on the verge of democracy, so why in the world would we stop now. We are just mere moments from achieving our goals, why would we cut and run now. It seems that the militaries adversarial relationship with the press has taken it's toll on Rep. Murtha's perception of reality. This whole movement smacks of partisan politics to me. It doesn't even stand up to the most favorable of scrutiny.

Whether or not you believe that we should have gone to war, whether or not you think this is a just war, you must agree on a basic level that we should not pull out of a military operation before it has reached it's objective. The ramifications of that are enormous. Simply put, Iraq would fall completely to the terrorists, and the area would become more unstable than ever. THIS CANNOT HAPPEN.

Rep. Murtha says many of those troops are demoralized and poorly equipped and, after more than two years of war, are impeding Iraq's progress toward stability and self-governance. (source) It is plain to see, having been one of those troops on the ground that Rep. Murtha doesn't know what he is talking about. The only reason this war is becoming anything that even faintly resembles a quagmire, is because Rep. Murtha and his fellow Congressmen (Mostly Democrats) are trying to run this war from the rotunda in Washington. Please for the love of all that is good, Congressmen, will you please SHUT UP, and let the Generals run the war, and you go do what you do best, Make more unnecessary laws.

Zaphriel - Zaphriel's Blog

Zaph, first its good to have you riding high in the saddle again, partner! :0) Welcome back.. now.. on with the show!

I would not call the request for America to get out of Iraq an 'idiocy'. Actually, I think Rep Murtha spoke for a whole lot of the nation in his remarks of this week. Rep. Murtha is not only a Vietnam Vet (which would seem to sort of say he's only 'waxing nostalgic' ) but also of Korea as well. In short, he's a man who's seen a lot of war in his time, a lot of the inner machinations of the "War Machine" and a whole lot of the politics that is driving it both as a military man AND as a politician.

Let us say that he has a view of the 'inside' of this War- more then most of us may have-- yes, even those serving in the military. He's privy to a lot of information that not only the military but the general public may not have the whole picture of just yet.

First, I would like to draw up the language of your topic: "We are at a juncture right now, Iraq is on the verge of democracy, so why in the world would we stop now."
Now, "WE" seems to say that it is our duty as Americans to support, defend, liberate, conglomerate, dictate to Iraq what it will and will not become. This just seems to smack of audacity and Western thinking. Iraq belongs to Iraq, not America. What they do for themselves and on their own behalf is far more important than what WE do for them and on their behalf. It's as if we are saying these are an incapable people -- if we don't lead them by the hand and say "Now do this.. yes.. very good. Now do that...no no, do it the Western way.. yes.. very good." That somehow these people could and would never stand and do it for themselves!

Our objective first, was to go into Iraq and rid it of WMD. *cough* okay.. well that was easy, they weren't there to begin with evidently. Second, remove Saddam from power and topple his regime. Check and done. Third, help the Nation of Iraq to establish its own free government and ruling offices. Check and done. So ultimately I think there are many Americans that are now sitting back and saying..."What more then is it that we are giving our sons and daughter to?" These people have a government installed, they have a Constitution, Saddam is gone and there are no threats of WMD. Now, would someone remind us why we are STILL THERE???

Further, in your article you suggest that should America pull out of Iraq they would instantly fall to terrorists and become unstable. By this argument, the case is made for FOREVER remaining in Iraq because this is not an indictment of their capability but of their inherent national ability, their own national heart and spirit. The Nation of Iraq will stand or fall of its own accord based upon the desire of the people to maintain what has been accomplished there thus far. Just how long is it that Big Brother America is to hold this nation's hand and do for them what they should be doing for themselves?

Nothing is gained by the Iraqi people in the way of national Sovereignty if we continue to do everything for them. It is often said that what we do not WORK FOR, we do not appreciate. Then let them work for it. Yes, yes...I can already hear people saying "But they are! Under our guidance and military power (etc., ad nauseum)." Folks, if that is true then babies should never learn to walk unless momma or daddy constantly holds their hand and do not allow them the occasional bump or bruise of learning in the process!

As far as I can see it we are still in Iraq for one reason primarily. The reason is not to protect Iraq from falling but to protect our own interests there.
If the notion is that we must occupy a nation that is in danger of terrorist activity then by all means America should be invading every single country around the world! Yet, we are not.

While you are a military man, you do not speak for all of the military. What Rep. Murtha has said I have heard with my own ears from more then one military man that has been stationed in that cesspool of a war. You do not feel demoralized and for that I am truly glad... but believe you me, for every one of you that is not, there are some that are. Murtha spoke to the reality that we do not like to face in this nation at this time-- abroad in the world and especially in Iraq and Afghanistan there are numerous demoralized military personnel that just want to be home. They want to be protecting and defending their own wives, husbands, children from the onslaught of financial ruin and simple day to day trials and tribulations. They want to sing "I'll be home for Christmas" and not cry their eyes out with longing for their OWN HOMELAND.

I heard what Rep. Murtha said, from a different place then Zaphriel did. I heard the voice of a man that served in more then one war, saw the violence, bloodshed and chaos. I heard the voice of a man that knows what is lubing the political war machine right now. I saw the face of a father, a grandfather longing to have their children home safe and sound once again.

Consider this much: When we gained our Independence... who helped us? It wasn't the nation of Iraq.. It wasn't France, Germany, England, Korea, China.. NO. We stood alone based on the heart of the Independence Freedom fighters and the belief that if we wanted it bad enough we could secure it. We could defend it. We could forge it.

It's time that Iraq learned these same lessons. If they want freedom then let them stand for it, fight for it, die for it, secure it, defend it, forge it. Nations will rise and fall and the world shall never be secure from it. We cannot make it so by the loss of yet more and more lives in a War that just may never end. Let them stand and show the world that they are proud, free, brave and true in the nation of Iraq--because if they are not that yet-- they may never be. Only time will show.

So THANK YOU Rep. Murtha for speaking what you did, on behalf of those of us that feel our military has done all that it set out to do and its time to come home at long last.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

I absolutely agree with Zaph. What is demoralizing as a troop is to hear lawmakers back home talking about pulling out of a war when the job isn't finished. Our troops are out there for a reason, and that is to bring liberation and freedom to an oppressed people. Don't tell me we are puppets in an war for oil, because even if that were true, it isn't the reason the troops are doing what they are. The troops are out there risking their life, and putting their all into this war because of a heartfelt belief in freedom.

We are making great progress in this war, despite what the talking heads will try to spin you. To be asked to drop the ball, and cut and run when we have made so many victories is not only idiotic, and disastrous, it is spit in the face of our soldiers, and a cowardly insult to the Iraqi people.

In a short period of time since we defeated Saddam's murderous thug government, the Iraqi people have participated and tasted democracy. To leave them surrounded by such a dangerous environment of suicide bombers daily would be a huge mistake.

Think how long it took us to obtain freedom from England. Think about how long it took our democracy to develop, its still developing. It seems to me that the kool aid keeps getting stronger and stronger for the democrats. They try to rewrite history, and say that Bush lied to get us in this war, when they all voted for the same actions. I'm tired of these democrats comparing this war to Viet Nam, and trying to garner political advantage of mourning parents. The Cindy Sheehan crowd is completely in the fringe element of this country, and the left are being viewed as anti-patriotic slimeballs.

The proposition to pull troops out immediately was completely idiotic, and I'm glad the GOP called the Dem's bluff on it. This isn't something we should be playing political games with.

Jay - Stop the ACLU

Two statements a generation apart:

We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war.

And this:

The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them. We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us, wherein our lot would be to merely resist their schemes.

The first is from an interview by the North Vietnamese General Giap to Stanley Karnow in his epic on the war: Vietnam: A History. The second is from Aman al-Zawahiri to Zarqawi in Iraq. It is clear that Al-Qaeda has learned the lessons of Vietnam. It is a continuing horror to me that the Left in this nation has not learned the lessons, but instead wish to repeat history by abandoning an ally we have sworn to defend.

It is not my purpose to rehash the reasons we are there, or whether our being in Iraq is "legal" or not. We ARE there. We are fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq. To pull out now, or even a year from now if the Iraqis still need us would be utter disaster for this nation.

We have lost perspective on war, perhaps because its been 60 years since we fought a global, total war. Yet, make no mistake. We are in a total war, requiring victory. The Islamo-Fascists who confront us are every bit as evil as the Nazis or the Communists before them. And, based on their own statements over the past decade, they are hell-bent on the destruction of the United States and its allies.

The real lessons of Vietnam must be learned. One who clearly learned those lessons was Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX). Last Friday night, he was the last speaker in the raucous debate on the House floor. Here are his final words:

However, sadly - some here want to embolden the enemy by saying we just cut and run. That's just irresponsible and unconscionable.

"I have to ask - What would Iraq be like if the United States pulled out -- allowing dangerous people like the head of al-Qaida, Zarqawi, to run the country? What would that mean for the region? The world?

"Al Qaida rules with death, fear, terror and blood. Al Qaida takes innocent people hostage - then beheads them - and then brags about it on the internet.

"Al Qaida has no respect for human life. They prey on innocent people to do their dirty work - because they know we don't target schools and hospitals and mosques - yet those are the exact places that they're using for safe cover.

"Al Qaida will kidnap loved ones - especially very young children - of people trying to build democracy - like local leaders - to scare them out of helping out the new country. They're taking kids hostage - because parents want a new life and a better future for their children. Why is that such a crime?

"What part of Al Qaida do you want operating here in America?

"Al Qaida is a world-wide organization and world-wide threat. I don't want any part of this. Americans don't want, need or deserve al Qaida. Our troops are over in Iraq fighting not just for our freedom and protection - but freedom for the world.

"We must fight the bad guys over there - not over here. WE must support our troops to the hilt so they don't go to bed at night - covered in talcum-powder thin white sand wondering - "Does America really support me."

"In case people have forgotten, this is the same thing that happened in Vietnam. Peaceniks and people in Congress - and America - started saying bad things about what was going on over there. Let me tell you what it did for troop morale. It's a real downer. I just pray our troops and their families can block this noise out and know that I will fight like mad to make sure our troops have everything they need - for as long as they need - to win the global war on terrorism.

"Withdrawal is not an option!

"I hope and pray every Member of Congress stands up and says to our troops 'THANK YOU' and 'AMERICA SUPPORTS YOU.' To them I say, God bless you and I salute you.

The approach the terrorists have chosen is the same as General Giap a generation ago. Hang on, cause death and destruction, and Americans will pull out. So far, the Left in this nation is following the same game plan in calling for a pull out. This time the stakes are far higher. Pulling out of Vietnam caused millions of deaths, but those deaths were across the Pacific, so the Left could conveniently ignore them. This time, should we bow to the fear and intimidation of terrorists, the deaths will be here, in our business centers, our malls, our schools, and our churches. The main front for World War IV has moved from Ground Zero in New York City to Iraq. Should the Left, and Al-Qaeda, win this debate, the front will return to this nation. We cannot afford to allow that to happen.

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

We're 6

2005-11-21T11:18:00.000-08:00

Man I almost forgot, our first post was 6 months ago.

Man a lot has happened since then.

Open Source Politics

2005-11-08T21:41:00.000-08:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

This weeks guest blogger (I know, and yes we are making a habit of this) is The Cranky Liberal of The Cranky Liberal Pages. He is a well read, well written, opinionated, Classic Liberal, and we wouldn't have him any other way. So without further adeau, please welcome... Cranky.

Sometimes the best ideas come out of left field. I was sitting at home on Friday night reading Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat." Friedman was talking about the Open Source movement as one of the 10 things that "flattened the world." For those of you not quite geeky enough to know what the Open Source movement is, think Linux. Open Source is the opposite of Microsoft. Open Source depends upon the brilliance of individuals working together to continually create and improve software to meet a need, rather than buoy a balance sheet. Open Source is just that - open code, available for anyone to use (for the most part).

While I'm not ready to throw away my Microsoft software (don't laugh you snob, I run enterprise systems and the stuff works great for us), the idea of tapping into the collective brilliance of individuals to solve problems made perfect sense to me. After writing my We're#1 We're#1? piece a few weeks ago, I've struggled with how we fix the problems we face as a nation. Then it hit me - If we can make software that rivals the the best that corporations can provide, why can't we make a political system that rivals, no exceeds the best (or more often the worst) of the Part system. In effect, Open Source politics.

I know I'm not original with that thought. A quick search on the web finds a bunch of references to the idea, especially as it relates to either Howard Dean's Internet fund raising, The Daily Kos, or Moveon.org. Certainly, the blogging community is a great example of empowering individuals to interact with the system. Also, the ability to raise money directly from the people has opened up financing to more potential candidates than ever before. However, neither of these examples is exactly what I was thinking of. I'm not looking for a way for the parties to communicate easier with the masses, I'm looking for a way to find solutions to problems, to fix whats broken, to use our collective intelligence to move beyond the parties.

We need to replace ideology with ideas. We need to replace partisanship with pragmatism wherever we can. We have to take a step back from the fighting and start looking at the fixing, or so help me God, America is a goner. The parties, BOTH parties, are to often closed source companies whose sole job is self perpetuation. Both sides are to beholden to a mix-mash of string pullers making sure that nothing really gets done the way it should be.

It has to start with realizing the guys in power now, in both parties, are a big part of the problem. Further, and no offense to my conservatives readers out there, but you need to realize your party is the one with all the power, and your party has made a royal mess of the situation. I'm going to keep attacking Tom Delay, Bill Frist and George Bush because they are at the heart of why we need Open Source politics - institutionalized cronyism and illogical policies. You can't keep over spending and underfunding. You can't grow the deficit and shrink the revenue forever. You can't keep hiring people with no ability to do the job. You endanger the country. You sabotage the future. Is that fair?

Liberals - we have a lot of issues we need to come to grips with as well. We are dysfunctional. We are a party that looks at the past more often than to the future. We are caught in a cycle of should-be and once-was instead of what-is and it kills us. Globalization happened. Get over it. Get out of bed with the labor movement. Manufacturing counts for less than 10% of the jobs in this country. It is the sign of a maturing economy to increase productivity and reduce labor. It happened in the farm industry (once 70% of the countries occupation, now 2% - and yet we have abundant food). It happened in manufacturing. It happened again in technology. Yet we still thrive on whole. Ignoring the reality of globilization will not stop it's march, but will hamstring us from being able to compete and prosper in it. And we CAN prosper.

Both groups, you need to stop making Abortion your only issue. It is legal. The majority of Americans want it to be legal in some form or another. The majority of Americans also want it to be the option of LAST resort. We have to move on to a place in this country where both ideas are given equal merit. At the point a woman (or little girl) needs an abortion, it's already to late. The damage is done.

We have to make education our top priority. I don’t just mean "No Child Left Behind" but an aggressive program to push science, math and engineering. That's the future. We need less communications majors and more people who can design the communication networks. That's the ONLY way we will compete with the China's and India's (and Cambodia's, Vietnam's, and every other emerging economy) of the world. We need to focus on a local level, a state level, and a federal level. We need to look at creative ways to inspire and encourage kids to pursue these fields. The day's when we could count on attracting the best and brightest from the rest of the world to mask our domestic indifference is waning.

If you're conservative that means you need to pony up the money to better the schools. I've said it before, and I will say it again but investing in education is strategic pragmatism. It is how we secure our nations future. It is the only way we will compete in the new world. You get what you pay for, and if you look at our kids scores, you are getting what you pay for. We should lead the world in education. Our children should be the worlds elite. It is a sin that the richest nation in the history of the world has to settle for mediocrity. When every kid in this country has the shot at a great education, it won’t just be America that is better off, but all of humanity.

If you're a liberal you need to get over your hatred of vouchers, your desire to be "fair" and your ass kissing of the unions. That made me very unpopular with my own crowd, but I stand by it. Teachers should be paid better than they are. They should get more support than they do. They should be seen as the critical cog in the future of our society that they are (and not just by some cheesy Hallmark card on Teachers Appreciation Day). However they need to be open to change too. If a school is failing, I understand that vouchers will cause money to leave the school. I also know that I don't care. I don't go to a restaurant that sucks to support the cooks. The point is getting each kid the best education possible. While eventually an "F" school may get better, how many kids have to suffer until that time?

Bad teachers need to be fired. I went to school in one of the crappiest school systems in the country (hence my grammar and spelling). I had great teachers, and I had teachers that hadn't done more than babysit a class in a decade. I had teachers so bad, that in any other business they would have been fired for incompetence years ago. We need to insist that good teachers are rewarded and bad teachers find new careers. Schools are a business and we are the employers. We do not owe bad teachers a living. We do owe good teachers whatever they need to do their jobs.

It's more than just teachers and paychecks though. We have to find new ideas. I read recently about a school near me that went back to same sex classrooms to see if it had an impact on test scores. The difference was dramatic. When separated, the kids taking their competency test destroyed the kids in mixed classrooms. Does that mean we do away with co-ed learning? I doubt it, but maybe we need to keep experimenting with the idea. At the end of the day, it isn't about equity, but about education.

Another idea is economic integration. Mixing schools not by race, but by income. An example is Wake County, North Carolina where the school board passed a resolution that no school should have more than 40% of its students eligible for free or reduced lunch and no more than 25% reading below grade level. That means busing kids to mix up the schools, but the results are encouraging. Concentrations of low income students in one place is a huge barrier to academic success. Economic integration helps pull kids up that might have been lost.

None of these ideas will fix education in this country by themselves any more than just throwing money at the problem will - but that's not the point. We need to be open to trying things and judge them on their results, not pre-judge them because of the (political) repercussions. When something works, lets expand it, improve it, implement it in other places and see how it does. The heart of the Open Source movement.

How would you solve the problems we face? How would you tackle the Health Care crisis? Social Security? How would you fix the illegal immigration issue? What ideas do you have for cutting down on pointless litigation and corporate malfeasance? What do you think we can do to return religion back to where it belongs - in front of the congregation not the court room? How do we find ways to respect the fact that EVERYONE deserves equal treatment under the law, and the law needs to protect the rights of people we don't like as strongly as it does for those we do. I don't have the answers (contrary to what my wife may say I really think) but someone does. Someone has an idea that needs to be explored. We need to cherry pick those ideas from the Left and the Right. From the Private and the Public.

Then we need to put people in place who are willing to implement the ideas. We need to convince the ones that are there, or find new ones to replace them.

Open Source politics - ideas not ideology. Are you game?

The Cranky Liberal of The Cranky Liberal Pages

I don't think I could agree with someone on either side of the aisle more than I agree with Cranky on this post. Cranky you did a wonderful job on this post and I feel you are welcome back here any time.

Cranky did hit on the frustrations that I believe most of us feel allot of the time. Our options (for those of us who consider ourselves to be moderate) as of late have been the lesser of two evils. If you lean conservative, the republicans are less scary to you, if you lean liberal, the Dems seem to have your ticket. Oh of course there are other parties that may agree with your philosophy more, libertarians for example, but as of yet they are not nearly as viable, and I often feel I would be throwing my vote away. That is a hard thing to do.

I agree with cranky that the solution, at least in part is to vote for a person, not a party, and to make those we elect, accountable. I have been saying that for quite a while.

Zaphriel Michaels of Zaphriel's Blog

What a timely and wonderfully thought provoking piece of reading we have here! *Applause and Accolades*

As most of my own readers know, and many here at BoP know, I am a person that talks about issues, and not partisan politics. I vote for candidates by what they say and do, not by if they are followed by a Pink Elephant or an Ass. *heh, punny of me!* So I find this article more then relevant, more than fair and something that I wish we could disseminate to the whole of the entire nation!

I am in total agreement that we need to use some of the collective intelligence (nay.. brilliance) of persons in this Nation to set it back on its feet and get it moving in the right direction once again. Long and short of it folks…this Nation is going to hell in a hand-basket and the trip isn't a long one!

Partisan politics, career politicians and the big business of "Gub'ment" is destroying us-- destroying the freedoms we've enjoyed for over two hundred years, plucking away the threads that have woven this country together and kept us all brothers and sisters with a somewhat common vision. The back-stabbing and heel-biting has set the precedents for even the younger generation to simply muddle in the mire we've made and the fresh insight and ideas have waned and given rise to another generation that will come up with more of the same. It is time for change.

Sometime ago, Joseph Seals wrote a series of articles about changes and how they could be implemented. He had some fresh ideas! I myself sat and pondered ways that we might reduce or completely eliminate the need for Social Security, Welfare and various other social $'s programs, good ideas too! Here in this article we see some great suggestions for how to set a toppled bowl aright and fill it up with prosperity and kindness again. Point is--there are some GREAT THINKERS out there, so why are they not in Washington? Why does Washington not want YOU to know about them?? Ahhhh--now there's the rub: they don't want you to know about them because *gasp!* they realize that if enough people get together and begin truly problem solving--they might be out of a job in short order!

I won't go into the whole Partisan thing, because we all have heard it before. Redundancy does not serve us well. We have no need to hear more of the same and that is the point of this article and my response. I'm weary of hearing the same old things--the same old arguments, the same old reasons why, the same old excuses, the same old 'day old bread' answers. I mean, I feel the Nation by far and away is tired, no.. sick and tired of the SSDD.

We need a breath of a moment to take stock of where we came from and how we got where we are right now. It is said that people should "take what is useful and keep it and leave behind what is not." I believe this to be true. It's called learning from mistakes and following threads out of the maze of confusion. In all of this, there are common threads that if the great minds would begin to follow them --we could in fact, find our way out of the maze.

Once we've accomplished this, to bring together the collective conscience of the nation, the collective wisdom would help us to pave a way for the future. We must begin to evaluate what is truly NEEDED and what is DESIRABLE. For now, we need to make sure that all have what is truly needed. Perhaps, in the denouement of this cathartic activity we will all find that what we thought we "needed" was only a "desire" and that being humanitarian is a job for us all... not for a choice few. We saw this in this Nation, following Hurricane Katrina. Every day Americans opened up their homes, their wallets, their storehouses to provide for those that were in need. NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! The fact is: it was with great spirit of community and togetherness that this Nation became what it did.

How can we teach our children and future generations what it is to be TRULY American and TRULY a part of a community if we cannot exemplify it ourselves? Children learn what they live… they imitate what they see every day in their homes, their schools, their churches, their peer groups. So part of the change does not involve only the adults of this nation but the children as well.

We have created a Society in which dual income is the necessity to support what we view as our NEEDS (as opposed to what we THINK we need!) Mothers and fathers are by large away from their children the bigger part of the day and reliant upon teachers to teach their children well. News flash! News flash! In order for them to teach our children well...in order for them to desire to be there doing that job they need a fair wage! Our teachers receive a paltry sum for what they do and in most cases they spend a large part of their day dealing with unruly children that come from dysfunctional homes which are by far and away created by a dysfunctional Society and its approaches to acquisition of THINGS.. STUFF.
Schools should NOT have to beg for supplies. The Arts and Humanities classes should NOT be on the chopping blocks for they are a LARGE PART of what creates CREATIVE INDIVIDUALS (ie, which is what we need more of!) The Arts foster the human spirit, the love that is inherent in every heart, the music of people like Beethoven who overcame tremendous physical challenge to become one of the World's greatest composers. These should not be optional and they should not be last in line for funding. Children should be safe in the schools and schools should not have to beg to make that possible.

This nation should not have its people dying of the common cold or flu. With as much money as this nation has and could glean there is no reason why we cannot have some form of social healthcare that is available to all. Before the nay-sayers say NO... remember, not all have healthcare or even the ability to GET it. Social healthcare is NOT about going to the lowest part of shanty town and waiting for seven hours to see a doctor. There are ways to accomplish this, if we could simply get both sides of the table to sit down and think about it and then stand up to the partisan politics and antics that would bash it down on a whim.

Our borders need to be closed to immigration and it needs to be enforced. Not for all time folks, but until such time as the people that we already have here are taken care of and have their needs met. We cannot fix a problem if it is exponentially increasing by the day. Yes, this will NOT make us popular in other nations but guess what? We are already like the LEAST popular nation worldwide as it is. Funny really how that worked out… we have loaned and given more aid to foreign nations than many countries combined yet we are the least likely to be the recipient of equal generosities. And while we are on that topic…how about calling in the debts that some of these nations have to us and have had since time immemorial?? Wouldn't that money help some of our own fiscal woes?? Interesting concept! You just TRY to take out a government loan and then not pay it back! They WILL find you and they WILL get their money… WITH INTEREST… YET, where are the money collectors in the nations that owe US money? Hmmmmmmmmm.....

Religion belongs on the pulpit and in our homes… not in our courtrooms, our school houses, our Local government offices or even in our National government office. More wars and fighting and dissention have been caused by Religion than naught. At this point in our Nation we don't need MORE trouble then what we already have to deal with. 'Nuff said.

My best suggestion would be to create think tanks in our locales. Groups that get together with current National issues. A presenter should be established for each group and then let these community presenters meet. Then these suggestions and recommendations should be brought before State Senators and Representatives for action on a larger State and Federal Level.

Sound hard? It really isn't that hard. Consider for a moment for example... the campaign against Breast Cancer. You get ENOUGH voices to stand up together they will eventually create a din that can be heard in Washington. Enough communities do this it can change the course of the State's voice. Enough State's voices standing up and presenting can change the course of the Federal Government.

Shake things up or shut the hell up - these are ultimately our choices.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Why Conservatives Have Such Contempt for the Liberal Media

2005-11-03T06:38:00.000-08:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

Our guest blogger this week is Craig, from Red Satellites. Now, doesn't his job description make you want to ask a thousand questions? If he told you the answers, he'd have to kill you.

Thank you BoP and Zaphriel for allowing me a guest shot on your show. And Mark at Liberty Just In Case for linking us.

I live by the 3 R's: Repub-litarian, Red Sox, & Rand.
Raised a cracker,
Georgia grad,
Live in moonbat LA.
Program manager for a black Space Satellite system.
Fiercely competitive and loyal. In summary: 49 year old, married with a 2 year old.

And now, on with the show:

Once again, it's time to BITCHSLAP the Main Stream Media. Forever full of themselves, they dispense socialism, secularism, and moral relativism each day- all day. When they speak, or for that matter, clear their bilious throats- we, the American public, must immediately lower our eyes,genuflect, and pay homage to their vast and superior intellect and as a token of appreciation- finish with a Broadway flourish- by kissing their ring.

So, having to put up with their pretentious pseudo-perspicacious blather, I feel duty bound to present what WE- the Conservative voice- face every time we pick up a newspaper or logon to a computer.

To prove my point, I recently went online to look at the Boston Globe, the LA Times, the Washington Post, and CNN- and perused the headlines of each.

Hmmm....what do we have:
Front Page of LA Times.com
(under AP News)

Democrat Urges Rove to Quit Over CIA Leak
Beta Sweeps Ashore in Nicaragua, Weakens
Two U.S. Soldiers Charged With Assault
Rice, Admirers Remember Parks' Defiant Act
Militant-Linked Group Claims India Blasts

Front Page of Boston Globe.com
(under world news)

AFGHAN: 2 U.S. soldiers charged with assault
NICARAGUA: Hurricane Beta ravages areas

Front Page of Washington Post.com
(under more headlines)

Marathon Has Record Number of Runners
Malaria Vaccine Aided by Gates Donation
Two U.S. Soldiers Charged With Assault
Gunmen Kill Iraq Vice President's Brother
Kurds Reclaim Prized Territory
Hurricane Beta Hits Nicaraqua's East Coast
Money Woes Undercut Hopes for Great Lakes
More Reconstruction Work Urged for Louisianans

And finally, from the all-time liberal rag of the century (for any century, actually)

Front Page of CNN.com
(under more news)

Hurricane Beta belts Nicaragua
Police look for answers in New Delhi blasts
Brother of Iraq vice president killed
U.S. soldiers charged with assaulting Afghan detainees
Rice, others pay tribute to Rosa Parks
Holy car! 1975 Escort fetches $690,000
Saw II frightens box office on Halloween weekend
Hundreds arrested during Halloween bash
Four fraternity members sentenced in hazing death

OKAY CLASS, let's review!
Those are 4 headline pages of 4 online newspapers. And lo' and behold: there are only 2 headlines that made all four rags.
Hmmmm....let's see the first: Hurricane Beta....okay, considering the fact we've had our share of hurricanes this season and the havoc it wrecked...reporting on this, sounds reasonable to me. Agree?
Now for the second: Two U.S. soldiers charged with assault.
Two soldiers charged with assault in AFGHANISTAN is worthy of headlines in 4 MAJOR American newspapers? Are you kidding me?
Now, let me reveal a story so horrific, so evil that it literally knocks the wind out of you.
(From the NY Post)

SAVAGES BEHEAD 3 SCHOOLGIRLS

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Unidentified assailants beheaded three high-school girls and seriously wounded a fourth yesterday in a rural section of Indonesia about 1,000 miles northeast of Jakarta.

The girls, students at a private Christian school , were ambushed while walking through a cocoa plantation en route to class, police said. The heads were found miles from the bodies.
Did it occur to anyone at the EDITOR'S desk of those 4 newspapers, that maybe, just maybe- this story TRUMPS 2 U.S. Soldiers assaulting someone? Or for that matter (over at CNN), wouldn't it be more important than: "Saw II frightens box office on Halloween weekend"?
To the Liberal Media, of course not!
The tragic story of the schoolgirls is about Muslims psychopaths beheading Christian children. (The murders were in Indonesia: it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out who the suspects are.) But the liberals PANDER to the Muslims and their atrocities- so reporting this, is out of the question.
The liberal media hates the military, hates the US approach to the Global War on Terror, and will do anything to promote their warped agenda. The disconnect between the Media and conservatives is why we are polarized today. They won't let go.
And the GAP grows with every passing day.

Craig H. of Red Satellites

Thank you very much Craig for your contribution to Balance of Power this week! It's great to see so many guest authors and bloggers becoming involved here and certainly gives a well-rounded perspective on today's current issues.

Now... on with the Show!

I found it interesting that from the onset of the article, the word "Media" was polarized between the "conservative" and "liberal". To me, the media is the media. Sometimes its hard-hitting news that is worthy of print, other times it is stuff that really serves only the point of chucklesome reading in the "Throne Room" as the potty is often called around my folks' house! ;0) But I don't know that I completely buy into the notion that there is a wholly "conservative media" or wholly "liberal media". There is media that is filtered through "conservatives" and "liberals", which of course does not necessarily make it either conservative or liberal per se, but makes it a sort of "for your eyes only" for whatever perspective one might be.

While this particular author seems to show an outright contempt for socialism, secularism and moral relativism to others this IS their viewpoint therefore in a media that exists in a country that is diverse as our own, it has the inherent duty to show all the sides of the contemporary issues, irregardless of if there are a few persons that it might infuriate, irritate and otherwise knicker-knot along the way. It's not so different really, then the moments of nausea that I experience when the local news does their broadcast that is decidedly Christian, Conservative and neither "hard hitting" OR "news" to myself.

I have a choice--as an adult viewer of the local news as to if I will sit and watch it--with an eye to informing myself better –or- changing the channel to say oh..."The Simpsons" or "King of the Hill". I don't sit back and rant and rave and gnash my teeth over it (okay, sometimes I do! *grin*) I simply watch the news as it is reported--take what it is, filter it through my own perceptions, keep what is useful and "File 13" the rest.

I for one am glad that the mainstream media does NOT spend an overtly long amount of time on stories that are wholly conservative nor wholly liberal by my standards, though I do feel that there is a great lot of news that is "withheld" for whatever be the reason and find online sites such as "What Really Happened" rather interesting, thought provoking and informative as well. That's the beauty of a Media that is *NOT* wholly Church OR State controlled. If you don't believe me, ask anyone that had to sit through TASS back during Soviet Union time. A media that is not free to report a little of this and a little of that is not media of the people it is merely propaganda dribbled out in the guises of "news".

I completely agree that the savage beheading of three, school girls IS news. Without a doubt! Would I have liked to know about something like that, without a doubt! However, at the same time, there is only ONE headline that will fit on a Newspaper on any given day. For that day, the newspapers evidently felt that the story regarding U.S. Soldiers assaulting persons in Afghanistan was precedent to its readership. If I had to consider the two stories as an Editor of a National Newspaper or Source, I would have to admit that though both stories are very big, I would have gone the way that they did as well. Why? Newspapers are not funded to state the news that a few particular readers want to read on the Headlines. They are funded by subscriptions and sales. Unfortunately, at this point in time, the American public has become so anesthetized to violence that is brutal (ala horror flicks, action films and violent video games) that it is relegated to a lower news status, I feel. A headline that says "American Soldiers Accused of Assault" feeds the public desire at this time to know what is going on behind the scenes and of course given the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal in the recent past--whether this author feels that it is "news worthy" or not--the Public wants to KNOW THIS STUFF.

Now, since I'm NOT an Editor and do not give one whit about how much the rags earn in a day I can tell you...that of the two stories, *I* would have wanted to know the story behind these brutal acts in Jakarta before reading yet more of the fodder on the military and its inner machinations. But, that's just me. I only spend maybe a buck a month on newspapers.

So while I can totally sympathize with what this Author says in his BoP article--I can also understand that in the high dollar world of Mass Media, what sells--what is contemporary and of interest to the masses--is what is going to be on the Headline of Page One.

Nice thing is-- my knickers aren't knotted up in a bunch over it and I am intelligent and can find the news that I personally seek where I may find it. The LA Times isn't crying because I don't buy it and I'm not crying cause I don't have it.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Hugh Hewitt, in his seminal book, Blog, said this:

Why a discussion of the Protestant Reformation in a book on blogging? The short answer: because the sixteenth and twenty-first centuries share a dramatic element in common-the birth of a revolution in communication technology.

The invention of the printing press spelled the end for the old keepers of knowledge in the sixteenth century. The invention of the new media of blogging spells the end for the old media in the same way. And the MSM, or Mainstream Media, is just now beginning to realize the shift. The fall of Trent Lott, Dan Rather, Eason Jordan of CNN, and in large part John Kerry occurred because bloggers went around, over and under the established keepers of knowledge at the established jounalistic institutions. The days of The New York Times setting the agenda for the current news cycle are over. As are the days of proclaiming themselves "objective journalists."

Brent Bozell at the Media Research Council has chronicled liberal bias for decades now, with volumes of evidence. Bernard Goldberg's two marvelous books, Bias and Arrogance, are required reading on the ongoing liberal bias within the MSM. And, for those on the left open enough to bother, Ann Coulter's book Slander chronicled in detail,with footnotes, the staggering liberal bias that continues to provide fodder for conservative bloggers like Craig and myself.

Yet, like the Catholic Church's reaction to Martin Luther, the MSM is beginning to fight back against the blogosphere. As I wrote on Gun-Totin' Liberal recently, the Online Freedom of Information Act, with would have protected bloggers on the left and the right, appears to have been defeated in the Republican controlled House. If you haven't written or called your Representative about this bill, you need to. The Reformation of the sixteenth century took time, and had massive casualties on both sides. It's vital that we learn from history, and make sure our freedom to write what we want remains protected from those who wish to stifle it.

Mark White of Liberty Just In Case

When Truth No Longer Matters

2005-10-26T18:37:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

In Balance of Power's tradition of bringing you the best of the blogosphere, we have a guest blogger, Jim of Jim-Rose.com. Great job on a great and timely topic.

The MSM and the Blogosphere continue to hyperventilate over the dumbest story of my generation: The Plame Affair. Never before have I seen a news story where truth has been a greater casulty.

We have an investigation into whether a CIA agent's cover was blown by someone from the Bush
administration leaking her name to the media. However, we have learned that she was not an "undercover" agent and regardless, you could find her name in Who's Who.

This was all frustrating enough, but now we have the New York Times and George Stephanopolous going crazy because Patrick Fitzgerald may not issue a final
report. There's just one problem with this: it's against the special prosecutor law for him to do so.
Discussion over, right? No. We're still inundated with lines like these from the New York Times (the paper that sets the media agenda):

"By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury's findings in such detail, Mr. Fitzgerald
appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm."

We are at war, but not with terrorism. We are at war with postmodernism, the school of philosophical thought (or no thought) that there is no right and wrong, there is no truth, it's all relative. I felt like maybe we were winning when George W. Bush was elected and he said things like "It is always and everywhere wrong to target and kill the innocent. It is always and everywhere wrong to be cruel and hateful, to enslave and oppress. It is always and everywhere right to be kind and just, to protect the lives of others, and to lay down your life for a friend." However, stories like the Plame Affair make me think that we're losing, and that time may be
running out before postmodern thought become so embedded in our culture we can't possibly hope to get it out.

Jim Rose of Jim-Rose.com

Many thanks to Jim for delivering a well-written article for BoP!

Yet, he and I take a decided difference in opinion over the Plame Affair. While he feels it is the "dumbest story of my generation" I feel that what happened with Valerie Plame was a travesty. Of course, the fact that the Republican's would prefer that this remain low key and not a huge topic of discussion and with no indictments issued does not seem to be much different then the response to Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon in the 60's either.

If Mr. Fitzgerald finds cause to issue indictments then let us hope that he does so with all due speed, because if the White House, its aides and/or its top personnel have become that sure of themselves that they believe they can lie, cheat, steal to get what they want...then its PAST time for such indictments to occur. (Some would say that it should have occurred in 2000 and again in 2004!)

"It is always and everywhere wrong to target and kill the innocent. It is always and everywhere wrong to be cruel and hateful, to enslave and oppress."

Interesting-- if that same quote is applied from a post-American occupation point of view in Iraq--then some would say that George's own words will come back to haunt him, that the quagmire of Iraq would neatly fit right in with things that should be looked upon as a very gray area and perhaps the motivations for the action should be looked at under the same such microscope.

Less than 40 years ago, this Nation learned to look beneath the surface of Washington's policies and affairs and what that "hippie generation" found was not pretty. It was lies, intrigues, machinations without mercy and moral platitudes spouted from the highest offices of the City of our forefathers while all the while bearing little morality or semblance to the country that they thought it was. It bears looking at again. May we never accept as "truth" what we are told on either side of the spectrum, without seeking fearlessly to discover what is the reality of Washington's affairs in the national and world arena.

The Plame affair may seem small and inconsequential to some--but it was her life's work, it was her life that was splayed out in the newspapers and she deserves to have her day in court and justice administered on her behalf if it was intentional. If it should bring down some Washington fat cats in the process, then so be it.

I agree that there is indeed a right and wrong that there is still always a truth out there. However, who may and should define those rights, wrongs and truths? I do not need Washington to legislate nor dictate my morality or my POV nor do I believe that they are in any way, shape or form up to the job.
Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

"Never before have I seen a news story where truth has been a greater casualty." Jim said it very well, and he's right. As of today, 10/25/05, let's look at what we KNOW will happen from Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case.
First we know indictments are coming. No, wait. We only know the MSM and the Democrats are desperately hoping they are coming.

Well, we know that Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Karl Rove are the main people being looked at in this case. Oops, we don't know that from the Special Prosecutor. We know that from Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, two reporters who actually never even filed stories on the whole affair.

Well, we know that Joseph Wilson was an unimpeachably accurate source, with no axe to grind. Wrong again. In fact, the Senate report on Iraq makes it clear that Joseph Wilson is a liar, with his hands all over this case. Remember the famous Vanity Fair picture? Does this look like a couple trying to avoid the press?!?!? I don't think so.

Well, what do we know from Patrick Fitzgerald? Nothing. Not until he either issues indictments, or does nothing at all. Yet, to read the MSM, or watch your friendly neighborhood Democrat talking head, all you see is a mixture of speculation and premature Snoopy dances.

This story really is about Iraq, plain and simple. The Wall Street Journal made this very clear. With 79% of the population voting for a new Constitution, I think the Left can officially stop using the word "quagmire." It's making them look very foolish indeed, and politically motivated.

But then, that's exactly what the Plame Affair is, foolish, and politically motivated.

Mark White of Liberty Just In Case

In Support of Unions

2005-10-19T00:27:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

At The Balance of Power we are very lucky to know people around the blogosphere that read what we write, and occationally don't mind blogging with us. We are very fortunate this week to have the esteamed Jimmy B of The Conservative UAW Guy with us this week for your reading pleasure.
Z.

I would like to state right here and now what a great honor it is to be asked to contribute to the Balance of Power site. These folks here are awesome, and I am truly humbled to be in their presence. Especially, thanks to Zaphriel who asked me, and who I am sure, had the idea for me to be here.

If this is too long for you, please at least go to the end and read THE BOTTOM LINE.
I need an answer...

Ahem.
Stereotypes anyone?
Lazy, overpaid, simple, slow, pampered, greedy, uneducated….
You get the picture.

An example:
I get home from a rather hard day at work, and make a comment to that effect.
My daughter, all of about years old, says, "Why are you tired, all you do is sit around all day".

Of course, I am immediately incensed, and inquire of her, "Who the @#$% told you that?" (I never said I was a great parent!)

Daughter, realizing perhaps I differ with her on this says, "Well, that's what the kids on the bus told me..."

Rectifying conversation ensues...

#sigh#

Usually I have a sense of humor about this stuff, but it stung coming from my daughter.
I want to be her hero, like most dads do.
Zaph asked me to do a post for BOP on October, 8 2005, the same day Delphi filed bankruptcy.
(Ed Note: yes it takes that long to put together a BoP post, it's allot of work, hope you appreciate it. Z.)
Of course, being very close to Delphi (GM Powertrain), the Delphi filing hit close to home, and I decided that since most people, other than union workers and their spouses detest unions, that an inside perspective from a union guy, and a conservative one at that, might generate some interest and talk. Also, I figured that this is probably a rare perspective in conservative circles on the net.

I had a run of comments about this on a post that had nothing to do with unions or anything like that!!!

Anyway, I, jimmyb, am A CONSERVATIVE UAW GUY.
Really. Honest. No, really.

Fish in a tree, how can that be?!?!?
Here's how:

Who Is This Guy (The Short Version)?

I'm a Midwestern guy, born and raised in Ohio. My parents were college educated, smart, honest, had a good work ethic, and lousy (but noble) jobs. I guess you could say I grew up poor. Not starving poor, but struggling, worrying poor, with 5 kids; and they did a hell of a job.

I'm a husband, a father, and a pet owner (they're part of the family, too).
I'’m a Christian.

I've been a union guy for about 15 years, at two places of employment. I’ve worked at GM almost the last 10 years.
I used to be a liberal. It’s more comfy that way, but critical thought turned out to belie much of what I wanted to believe.

I work in a foundry. F-O-U-N-D-R-Y.
It is very big, very loud, very dirty, very hot, and can be very dangerous.
We pour molten (around 2500 F) iron into molds to make engine blocks, heads, and crank-shafts.
Not all auto plants are clean, high-tech assembly plants (a common misconception).
Where I work is a scary place to walk through the first (several) times.
It's the kind of place that the Gores, Kerrys, and Clintons would love to shut down (ya know, big evil corporate polluters!). The same people the union tells me to vote for.
Talk about a dichotomy.

I have been an electrical-type person since high-school. I work with voltages and currents that most people would rather not even think about, much less work on the associated gear with hand tools. I work with proprietary specialized controls, PLC, CNC, and PC industrial control systems as a matter of course. I also train others how to work on these same industrial systems at my plant, as well as teach at the local college about the same type of work. I'm also in business with my two brothers in a small engineering-consulting venture. Yeah, it sounds glamorous (heh).
Some of it's cool, some is dirty and dangerous.
I have a degree, and I worked hard to get it. I graduated at the top of my class.
I earned it.

I love the work I do. The clean and the dirty. The gravy and the painful.

According to my peers and supervisors, I do my work reasonably well. I love that, too.
Pride is a sin, but hopefully, taking pride in one's work is not.
I write this not to brag (well, not much) but to give background about the type of union person I am.

Most of my peers do great work too. Some of them border on brilliant.
You'll never hear about them. You'll here about a guy that got fired 5 times, or the guy that's late every day for 18 years.
But you'll never hear about the guy that shows up an hour and a half early, and busts his ass all day long, and wears out the 22 year old kids while he's 61.
Booooooorrrrrrinnnnngggg.

I put in a decent days work, I'm fairly educated, I have a good work ethic, I do a job that many won't do, and I try to do it well.

My transformation from fairly liberal - to conservative - happened during my tenure as a union employee. The union way of life helped this transformation in some ways.

I am now a true conservative. I'm pro-gun (if you know anything about me, you know that!), pro-God, pro-life, pro-business, pro-capitalism, pro-states' rights, pro-cop, pro-military, pro-family and pro-marriage (love you, honey!).
I like big business; they sign my paycheck.

I’m a Republican that has been mightily disappointed lately.

I am also pro-union.
But not blindly so.

There are many more like me than most imagine...
I know many Republican and conservative union workers, and many liberal management people. Let's throw out the stereotypes. Most of my Democratic-voting friends are conservative on issues (gun control, abortion, law enforcement, terrorism, environmental, tort reform, etc.), but still vote Democrat.

I'm still working on that.

In Defense of Unions.

Unions, like any business entity, have good points and bad points.
I am going to forgo discussing the bad points for two reasons:

One - Just like with management, I criticize either one at my own peril. I already experience some repercussions as a result of my political views.
Two - there is no shortage of folk who are critical of unions. You can get that line of reasoning almost anywhere. I know there are things the union does that I dislike, as do others. The same is true regarding my feelings and General Motors.

So, let us begin with a question:

Is it wrong to negotiate, or be able to negotiate, wages and benefits with an employer?
At least on the surface, the answer to this question is no.
Indeed, do not people who go job hunting negotiate, or have the ability to negotiate, things like pay, vacation time and benefits?
When GM hires a salary person, that person negotiates for his package of benefits.

So the concept itself is not out of the ordinary.

Another question:
What is a fair wage? Who decides, and under what circumstances?
This is a bone of contention amongst many factions.
I would say that most of us could all agree that paying someone $0.37 an hour to make $200 a pair of tennis shoes is probably not fair, although it is free market.

Is it reasonable to expect a multi-billion dollar company to pay a good wage?
I'm not answering either way, but unions negotiate with the company, and that is part of the logic both sides use. If a company is losing money, however, raises are out of the question, in my eyes. Of course, that means for management and salary both, which has not been the case at Delphi, recently.

I fear that the auto industry is taking a cue from the airlines, and is going to use bankruptcy to break the unions.

While this may be cause for much joy among many, that joy may be short-lived.
Like it or not, auto-wages help communities immensely. Cutting pay by 2/3's will destroy many communities. A recent news report said that 1 out of 6 wage earners depend on the auto industry in one way or another. (I think I heard that on Rush.)

Likewise, there is a very real possibility that a steep decline in wages of auto-workers will cause wage declines in other areas. You think the local plastic factory is going to pay $14 an hour when the Big Three pay $12? The ripple effect could be staggering.

This can also ripple to others in non-manufacturing fields, like engineering for instance.
If Detroit drops engineers pay 25% or 33%, will others not be far behind?

As for my community, if GM filed bankruptcy and cut wages in half, or closed the foundry (which is a real possibility), many businesses will fail in a short time.
During the 7 week Delphi strike in 1998, I was off for about 6 weeks, and saw many businesses close down within the first week or two.

Point, unions help set a standard, a benchmark if you will. Again, maybe that is not the way it should be, but it is what it is right now. I don’t necessarily think that is all bad.

Will breaking the auto unions' backs ultimately be best for the country?
Some say yes, I say no.

The massive wave of breaking unions WILL take a toll on many. People think this type of thing won't trickle down to them, but it has happened before.

What does a union do?

Unions do much for their members and the community.

For the members, the union provides a safety net when it comes to workplace injuries.
GM is committed to safety.
The UAW is committed to making sure that GM is committed, and not just saying that.
Sometimes in the heat of the moment, hourly and/or salary people try to cut corners.
The union keeps that to a minimum.
Regardless of how anyone feels about the UAW, one thing they have done, and continue to do is save the lives of workers. That protection will be lost when they are destroyed.
Remember, I'm a pro-business guy, but this is a fact.

The union insists that skilled-trades (maintenance, tool and die, stuff like that) people get a minimum amount of training before gaining full journeyman status. This enhances safety, and produces a much better (i.e. skilled) employee for the company.

The union keeps people from getting fired due to personality clashes between bosses and workers. Yes, they keep people in that perhaps should not stay as well, but that is another essay.

The union helps people get help. The Employee Assistance Program consists of the union and GM implementing programs to help employees with virtually any type of problem that affects their lives (and of course, their work, as well).
This includes help with marital and family problems, financial problems (yes, it does happen), chemical dependency problems, and other mental health problems.
These programs have helped several people I know personally.

There are scholarships available from the union.
There is money for employees to take college classes (so much for uneducated).

The union holds fundraising dinners at its hall (for no rent) for people that are sick or have family members that are sick, to help with care, treatment, and other medical bills.
Even for non-union members.

The hall is also available for rent to anyone in the community for weddings, graduations, etc.

Our local union helps secure huge sums of money for charities.
They are very active, for instance, in charities like The United Way, Hospice, March of Dimes and The American Cancer Society. Honestly, there are so many I can't even remember them all. The union members give a lot of money to charities, and they solicit donations from others (on their own time) as well.

We recently collected quite a bit for hurricane victims.

This list could go on, almost forever. You get the point...

The union is also active politically. For some reason, I am never involved with these activities.

Synopsis: Unions are incredibly beneficial to their members and their communities.
Yes, their politics leave much to be desired from a conservative standpoint, but that is not all they do, by any means.

But I heard...

Common questions, statements, misconceptions:

Union wages are why cars are so expensive.
Economics 101 time. Automobiles cost whatever the market will bear.
Allow me to reiterate: whatever the market will bear.
If you think that if GM, or whomever, would cut their labor to pass the savings on to the consumer, you're high.
Put the bong down slowly and step away!
GM has been cutting jobs for 25 years. Ever see the overall average cost of cars drop? Me neither.

Here's the deal.
If GM can make a car for $1.00 (not a typo, a buck), and can sell it for $50,000 dollars, that is what trucks will cost.
$50,000.

70% of the cost of an auto is labor.
*sigh* Step away from the bong, again.
Labor cost in an average Big 3 vehicle is around $1600-$1900 per vehicle.
I guess it would be 70% if you bought a brand new care for 2600 bucks or so.
For an average vehicle price of $30K, that's about 6% of the total price.

Haha, you UAW guys are greedy, lazy jerks. Serves you right, you should have to go work for a living.
Been there, said that. This is a pretty common sentiment to hear from people that don't work in UAW shops. I know; I was one of them. I can only speak for myself, but some of that attitude came from being jealous. We feel better if we can bring people down to our (pay) level, instead of trying to get ourselves and others up to a higher level.
Nobody deserves to make (fill in more money than you make here…) for that job.
Actually, this is quite a typical union type statement:
CEO's, Bill Gates, etc. don't deserve to have that much money.

I know whereof I speak. I am a first generation union guy. No inborn sense of entitlement. I've had all the conversations on both sides.

You can't be a conservative and a union guy.
Man!!! I really hear this one a lot. From ALL SIDES!!!
Conservatives tell me that I'm just a hypocrite because of where I work.
Liberals and Dems just say I'm ignorant, or a traitor, or both.

Yes, I can be conservative and union.
Unions have a place and a purpose, especially in the automotive industry.
Do changes need to be made? Yes. On both sides.
We have some free trade issues that need to be addressed, too.
Which president signed NAFTA? Pushed for WTO status for China?
You know.

THE BOTTOM LINE.
Lastly, UNIONS TRY TO KEEP MANUFACTURING JOBS ON U.S. SOIL.

MANUFACTURING.

Here is where I am scared, and no one seems to be able to give me an answer that helps me sleep at night. I love my country, and this is killing me.

Let's play a game.

I'm a Republican. Free trade. Let the market decide. Competition.
Mmmmmmm......that's the good stuff. Hell, I'm a constitutionalist for the most part.
My heroes, Sowell, Limbaugh, Greenspan, Cavuto, Coulter, Walter Williams, etc, etc, etc. tell me the market rules, and other ways drool.

Ok. The majority of that bunch is better qualified than I to espouse on economics, especially because I am a biased union hack. I'll buy that. But I want an answer.
From anyone. A real answer.

I never hear conservatives bring this next foray into reality up, by the way.
And not really liberals, for that matter. They like to ship our jobs overseas, they just want better rights for them out of the deal...

So here is the game, and my questions:

The most powerful country in the world helps business, and lets the market shake things out in the free trade global economy. Honestly, this does not sound bad to me at first.
We become a "service" economy.
We push pencils, ship all our MANUFACTURING overseas, make depraved movies and the rest work at gas stations and Wal-Marts (where I love to buy my ammo!).

Ok, let us pretend that is cool, for a moment.
Now we get in a war. A big war.
And the Democrats aren't in charge and can't whine and surrender.

How do we MANUFACTURE the weapons of war?
Do you know how long it takes to start up a factory?
If your enemies make your machine tools, airplane and tank parts, microprocessors and such, what do you do?
Where do you go?

We have won every war we have ever been in (that liberals didn’t interfere in), because we had A: natural resources, and B: MANUFACTURING capability.

We could make:
Tanks.
Bombs.
Jeeps.
Ships.
Guns.
Spare parts.
Tents.
Guns.
Ammo.
More ammo.
Tires.
Oil filters.
Chains.
Optics.
Petroleum products.
STEEL. STEEL. STEEL.
IRON. IRON. IRON. (Yeah, that's my plant! J)
You get the picture...

So all those who don't work in factories, tell me.
How will that work?
How do we remain a superpower?

I really want to know.

This is one thing where I am 200% with the unions. And maybe you should be too...

Jimmy B (CUG) of The Conservative UAW Guy

I'm the daughter of a Union Man. Operating Engineers
Come to think of it... I'm a granddaughter of a Union Man. Operating Engineers.
My great-grandfathers were Union Coal Miners.

Point: The Union's made sure bread and butter was on my table during all of my growing up years. They made sure my mother ate supper each night and her father and mother too!

Every year here in Oklahoma, the people still celebrate the words, the songs and the vision of Woody Guthrie, a man who had seen the exploitation of workers in America and actively wrote, performed and helped build the melody of America's Union movement in the 1940's.

"You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union..."

"Ants got union and so've these bees
Boss don't want union for you and me."

These are some of his words and lyrics that still live on in Union history and in the music of America's folk singers.

Cesar Chavez campaigned and founded the United Farmworkers, to insure that those that are in one of the most lowly jobs would have adequate food, healthcare and benefits. Albuquerque, New Mexico has immortalized him by renaming Stadium Boulevard to Avenida de Cesar Chavez in Albuquerque's South side, where many humble Mexican farmers still reside.

Prior to the creation of the CIO in 1935, the "unskilled workers" of America took what they could get in work. It was, after all, the Depression. Times were hard, money was scarce and families were going under by the thousands. They wanted simple things really-- shorter working hours, a decent and fair wage and they campaigned for regulation of child labor and fair wages for women and children that were working to support their families.

Today, the Unions still campaign to ensure that the working conditions on the job are safe; the pay for a day's work is fair; the benefits of working your life in a Union job will sustain you should illness or injury befall you and make sure that your retirement years will still yield you enough money to live on. The Union is still providing safe buildings, safe roadways and safe working conditions in America's factories. It’s Union workers that make sure that "Made In America" still MEANS something!

Some say the days of the Unions are over. There are even some mega Wal--*cough* corporations that will not allow their employees to Unionize. Some say that the Unions are corrupted or outdated.

All I know is this:

My great grand-daddy was a Coal Miner. Had he not been safe in that coal mine, my grandfather would not have ever been here. He was responsible for making sure that many a Colorado family kept warm through a Rocky Mountain Winter.

My grandpa was an Operating Engineer and the Union made sure that when he became ill--he had the BEST care that we could give him. I still have his Union pins and am proud to be the recipient of them, because to me... it means that my Grandpa was a man who didn't believe in just himself, he believed in the word "TOGETHER". He taught many of my father's generation how to run the Heavy Equipment SAFELY and most of ya'lls house pads, dams, streets and roads in the states of Nevada, California and New Mexico are due to MY Grandfather... and the Union way!

My dad, when injured on the job... The Union gave him his disability money. When he had heart problems that required immediate and multiple surgeries--yep, the Union made sure he had it. Even though he has not worked now in the past 10 years the Union is STILL putting food on his table and taking care of business.
You like those easy roads and great sub-divisions in the Bay Area of California? How about that Castake Dam? How about all that power generated in the Four Corner's Area of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado? Those great roads in Nevada, in particular around Las Vegas - yep, you can tip your hat to my Papa! :0) cause he and the Union made it possible for you!

I hope that those that spend time Union bashing remember that it was those Unions that made sure that big business didn't get that way on the blood and injuries of your parents or grandparents. I hope that the lessons of standing up together, standing strong together are remembered when times are hard and we are tempted to go back to a dog-eat-dog philosophy. When money is tight and jobs are scarce that we always remember that TOGETHER--WE HAVE A STRONG VOICE THAT WILL BE HEARD.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

First, and foremost.
What a GREAT post that was! I have an ache in my neck from nodding my head so much in agreement. Welcome to Balance of Power, JimmyB. You're a keeper.

I've belonged to unions, in one way or another all my adult life. I've worked with Union families as a therapist, and know first hand the value of the Employee Assistance Program JimmyB talks about. And I've never seen the value of unions championed so eloquently as in this post.

Unions aren't, and never have been, the problem. The leadership of the major unions, and the left wing political ideology of their leaders is a huge problem, and has been for a long time. Folks like JimmyB may be the beginning of the end for the Democrat Party's monopoly of the Union vote, however. Let's hope so.

The issue of American jobs going over seas is an issue for another time. The loss of American manufacturing is a huge issue, and will indeed cause the American empire problems in the future. JimmyB's warning are apt, and need to be listened to by both sides of the political spectrum.

Mark White of Liberty Just In Case

I come from a long line of UAW employees myself and I also understand where you're coming from Jimmy. Sometimes, though rarely, the Republican candidate for an office is more in the corner of the working man than the Democrat. In a case like that, it's sadly ironic that the UAW asks its members to vote Democrat even when the Union knows they are making a mistake. This is why party line voting is a bad thing. We should vote on the issues men stand for, not the money a man is paid to say he stands for an issue.

I also want to quickly respond to your mention of the dangers of manufacturing plants. At my father's plant in Oklahoma City (GM), the overwhelming majority (over 60% at last check) of the plant's employees had major work-related disabilities. These injuries are typically the result of mechanical failures by equipment, general risk-hazard accidents and also irresponsibility of company staff in regards to employee safety. Sure, factory employees may make twenty or more dollars an hour but they are NOT getting paid for being lazy; they are being paid for putting their life on the line to increase the profit margins of a company that doesn't care about them. I understand you there my friend. I disagree that big business is good but as for the laziness people view Union employees with, I hear you.

You asked if it is fair to expect good wages from a multi-billion dollar company. I can only answer emphatically, yes. There is no excuse of value for a large company not to pay its employees well. I am not saying that the company should function in a communistic sort of way by sharing the wealth but they should offer at least decent wages for the work being done, decent insurance and a fair amount of vacation time. If they take care of the employee, the employee will take care of the company. This would be the case if Unions were not corrupt and often in the pocket of the company at both the local and national levels. You are totally correct that breaking the Unions will have a trickle-down effect on wages. If that happens, within a few years, it will be very hard to find good work of any kind. This will truly be devastating to the economy. The question to ask, if you ask me, is this: Are Democrats or Republicans truly dedicated to the people enough to address this problem? The Democrats, I think, are willing to work on it but not willing to put their politics on the line and make a strong stand. The Republicans, I fear, are too much in the pocket of the big companies and will not, as a party, make a true stand for the American people. In effect, I fear both parties will sell us out in the end in their own way.

Your last question is one that I ask myself many times a year. If we send our manufacturing capacity overseas, while our enemies like China are building theirs up, what will we do when we need that capacity and don't have it? Is it ever wise to sell to foreigners your ability to create things you need or may need? Never. In doing so, we are strengthening potential enemies, creating potential threats and weakening our ability to take care of said threats. In addition, by destroying the good-paying job base, we are weakening our economy and in doing so, placing severe financial restraints on the people. If a war breaks out under those circumstances, the people will be so poor that by losing one breadwinner, the very family structure may collapse. What will we do then?

In conclusion, I must tell you, my friend, that Unions must be protected and they must be given aid in protecting the jobs of hard-working Americans from the greed of the rich and powerful. This nation was built on the principal of giving an honest man an opportunity to make his way in the world. Our success rides on that principle. If we take it away, we lose the strength that has allowed us to endure and be strong over time. If we lose that, we lose ourselves and then everything goes. I that the future we want? I can only hope that everyone, Liberal and Conservative, has already answered in the negative.

Joseph Seals of The Independant Liberal

Poverty and Self Reliance

2005-10-12T00:46:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

Over the past month on my blog, I wrote an article that outlined the corruption and greed that occurred both before and after the Hurricanes in Louisianna. The point I arrived at later wasn't so much the corruption, but the underlying dependence on the government. As one of the several comments pointed out, there is corruption everywhere, to that I say true, sort of. But that statement in itself adds to my argument. Why would someone want to be reliant on something that we know to be corrupt? I also heard the argument about "the poor have no "chance" or "opportunity" to be anything but poor, to that I also had to recount my story, for those who are not familiar the short of it is, I grew up poor, and through hard work in my adulthood, I am no longer poor, so I know it is not an insurmountable obstacle. Along the way I also heard other excuses, all of which were just that, excuses.

I apologize for the meandering but my point is, why is it that we have set up in our society, a series of excuses set up like dominoes. It appears to me that we try really hard to keep these dominoes up rather than have one fall down only to reveal that we never needed the dominoes in the first place. Why do we perpetuate the myth that once you are poor you must stay poor? Staying poor in my opinion is the easy path, and from it you get what you put in. It is hard to pull yourself out from poverty, but I know first hand, that if you use welfare for it's original intent, which is as a TEMPORARY hand up for otherwise able bodied individuals, that it is possible to escape the bonds of poverty. I give people more credit than does the government; I know that people left to their own devices and given the chance, will better themselves.

There are two solutions to this problem as I see it, both of which can occur at the same time. We need to reform Welfare, it needs to be more of a training/ well-work program that does not penalize progress, but does have a time limit. Also we as a society need to be more generous to, and reliant on private charities. Believe me the government is not the most efficient charity in the world, and really shouldn't be used as such. I would rather put my tax dollars that are wasted on inefficient government programs and give that money to a more efficient private charity of my choice.

Most of all we need to encourage self-reliance, something that this country used to have in abundance but now is desperately lacking. I know having been there myself, with most of the excuses in hand; self-reliance is the most powerful tool in any "war on poverty" we could possibly hope to win.

Zaphriel Michaels of Zaphriel's Blog

It seemed like such a great idea. The Federal Government would help the poor, and provide a helping hand to the growing lower class, many of them black, many of them unwed mothers. The government would build housing for these people, and allow them to stay there at little or no cost. And the income given to these poor people would be based on the number of children in the home. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Some forty years later, we now have generations living in the same public housing. We even have a name for these places, The Projects. Not a place you go at night, or even in the daytime. The project of the Great Society failed, and we are still paying the price of that failure.

One of the many unintended consequences of this failure was the death of the traditional black family. With the government providing the funds, men weren't required except to provide the sperm for the next baby. After that, the black male was just another mouth to feed, and was more of a burden than a help. This created an underclass of black males with no purpose, nothing to fill their time. Crime and drug abuse was a natural outgrowth of this purposelessness.

With the government doing more and more, another casualty for blacks was the Church. Churches in the black community provided the glue, the stability that had held the African American culture together through slavery, reconstruction, and the Civil Rights movement. But, with more and more inner city families looking to the government to meet its material needs, the church became superfluous, in effect no longer relevant. Why look to God for your needs when the Federal government was providing your daily bread? And if you were depressed about your situation, the government provided a cadre of Social Workers to meet your needs, all taxpayer funded and devoid of religion, of course. After all, we wouldn't to mix Church and State, now would we?

A handout is seldom a hand up. For black America, the slavery of the 1860's was replaced in the 1960's by a different form of servitude, the servitude of the federally subsidized hand out. What slavery could never do in two hundred years, the Great Society welfare system did in forty years. It destroyed the fabric of black society by making both Fathers and Churches irrelevant, and seemingly unneeded.

Seemingly is the key word. For both are needed, as is purpose. When you remove gainful employment, you remove self reliance. When you remove self-reliance, you remove purpose. What you get are The Projects, and generations of servitude. Such is the high cost of the Welfare System.

Mark White of Liberty Just In Case

As I write this, the news just said that New Orleans was second in the U.S., It is a victim of a greedy upperhanded local government. No time limits? I disagree, it should be a progressive program that helps them climb up a ladder.

How many times can it be said that to give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but teach them to fish and they will eat for life. What welfare should focus on is education. I'd rather see a welfare program train people for good jobs, than to just give out free money.

We do need to teach and encourage self reliance. Welfare is straight up abused, and it is in definite need of reform. The way it works now is that it keeps people dependent, and therefore in poverty...what it should do is help them out of it. But it all comes back to the person on the recieving end, and how much effort they put. If you give out free money, people will take, take, take, and they won't give back anything. The reform needs to be designed to encourage participation in society, and to give back to it as it also encourages self reliance.

I'd rather my tax dollars pay for tech schools, temporary daycare while they go to these schools, etc...than to be constant free handouts. Lets train them, and if they go off to be crack heads after this, or if they drop out of the program...they're on their own.

John (Jay) Stephenson of Stop the ACLU

Thanks be to Stop the ACLU for the Open Trackbacks.

A Long and Winding Post ...

2005-10-05T00:07:00.000-07:00

After a two week hiatus to take care of some site business, we are back and better than ever, hope you like it. Z.

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

A Discussion about our Two Party System

Irritated and Dissatisfied...

I have been feeling very disgruntled lately (was I ever gruntled?) and it has causes me to be both introspective and outwardly explorative. Ever since Katrina and the events (both related and unrelated) that occurred around that time, I have felt uneasy. My instincts have been screaming, “Something is wrong here”.

There have been some obvious reasons for this, but most of them I can see and would normally ease my tension a bit. However I have still been very pensive. I’m watching as the country I love becomes more and more divided. A natural tragedy, or any tragedy for that matter usually tends to pull us together, but somehow amidst the fervent Anti-Military protests, and concerted efforts to drive a wedge between people in this country, we are spreading further and further apart.

When did we become a blame first society? When did it become OK to blame America first? When did personal responsibility become passé? Or better yet, why?

There is a trend I have been noticing lately, over the past few years, that I find somewhat disturbing. I personally know of former Hippies, fine classic liberals that have become so disenfranchised by the Democratic Party that they simply redefined themselves, and allied their loyalties to their former adversaries. Their views didn’t change that much mind you, but the people they so formerly aligned themselves with continued to drift, or rather sail full steam, away from the moderate left to the loony communist fringe. When and why did this both become not just acceptable, but even mildly popular?

Why now, when we need it the least does it seem that this type of lunacy is gaining momentum? How does a single woman using a thin veil of grief get so much attention, when she is outnumbered several times over by similarly grieving mothers who feel exactly opposite?

After a bit of reflection, I have come up with a few things to consider. First, one blaring item that I see is that the Far left is being well financed, and well orchestrated, better I think than the much-vilified Karl Rove could have.

Second, I think in times of crisis, people want to place the blame as far from themselves as possible, it comforts them. In this case, doing so meant placing the blame furthest from its source, which the aforementioned orchestrators took complete advantage of by manipulating a willing cohort in the MSM.

Third, and this one is going to sting a little, the party that supposedly caters to a conservative base, has lost sight of what that base wants from it’s government.

Conservatives are generally for a smaller government that spends less. This has not been happening for a myriad of reasons, many out of the control of those being blamed for it.

Conservatives tend to be for Law and Order. The recent indictments and investigations, whether true or false in their focus, are eroding confidence in the party. I personally am most disturbed by this one. If any of these allegations are true, shame on them, and please step aside for the good of not just the party, but also the country. If these allegations are false I say the exact same to those who would allege these things for political gain.

Does no-one see the unity and strength of this country as being more important than partisan politics, or are these individuals so confident in our superiority that they think that they cannot possibly permanently damage the country by getting their own way at any cost. Worse, do they even care?

Forth and this is most crucial, Conservatives tend to be Pro-Troop and Pro-Victory, and I myself have been frustrated at the lackadaisical attitude that both our country's very vocal minority and our leadership has had towards these conflicts. Unlike the loony left, I have often wondered behind closed doors why we have not committed MORE troops, materials, and effort towards victory? Why have we been allowing the PC police and public opinion run this war? Any war that is run by public opinion, or by political forces is doomed to fail. Failure here my friend, given the current situation, is a very real possibility, if things don’t change soon. Does this mean we should just give up? HELL NO. Much like marital coitus, pulling out prematurely just leaves you with a bigger mess. Such action is counter-productive and absolutely defeats the purpose.

I am disturbed by these questions. Why have the leftists become so loony? Why has the Republican Party somewhat lost sight of true conservatism? And most of all, why have the only two viable parties available lost touch with the reality that the rest of us live in? Why are so many people willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

These are all questions that should disturb all of you, lefty and righty alike.

Tell me am I the only one here? Is it just me? Or am I loosing sleep for no reason?

Zaphriel - Zaphriel's Blog

Amen to your rant Zaph. There is a problem with society and its dependent, entitlement mentality. I fear its too late to fix it sometimes. But we should diligently try.

First of all the far left have captured the democratic party completely, and they have completely drifted to the outer realms of what America is about into a socialist system. We are looking more and more like Canada each day.

But the right isn't pristine either. Take a look at our border problem and see that. The world is dividing and people are choosing sides. What America needs is a legitimate third party. A centrist party that cares about the border, will restrict abortion to a rarity, will reform the prison system so innocent people don't end up on death row, will fix the welfare system so it only provides temporary relief and doesn't become a crutch. Will that ever arise? Well, the people do have the power....but most are too busy saying what they are entitled to to care.

Jay - Stop the ACLU

While you see that the country is more and more divided in the days since Katrina, I do not. I saw the country itself bandy together such as has not been seen since 2001-- people have given, helped, shared, opened their homes, their resources to help those in the wake of not only Katrina but Rita as well.

Perhaps what you refer to is that division between the Government and the People... ahh that is a real division I think...getting bigger by the day.

The Anti War protests do go on (contrary to the term--Anti Military which they are not). Yes, there are others that want you to believe they are Anti-Military but they're not. If you don't believe me, go to one and ask the people if they hate the military men and women?
Go ahead... ask em! Really HEAR their answer

I find it interesting that in a "when did we become a blame first society"--that we open in the second paragraph with this comment:

"...Somehow amidst the fervent Anti-Military protests and concerted efforts to drive a wedge between people in this country..."

Well, there is an example of Spin and Blaming right there. Yes, we are all biased to a degree, but to keep saying something that is simply not true will not make it true.

"Hell is Repitition.” So said Andre Linoge in Stephen King's "Storm of the Century". It was an interesting tale of a whole village that had to choose if it would give up one of its own to save them all. On Little Tall Island everyone has their secrets. Seems so nice and tidy for the most part, yet beneath the pretty picture ... things are not so pretty at all. Linoge comes in because "People on the Island can keep a secret". Yes... there are some pretty interesting parallels that could be drawn, if I stopped and thought about it more.

So, I must admit from the first toss of "blame" in this article, I found it rather hard to follow after that. For the article was going against something that it OPENED by doing!

The author asks when did it become okay to blame America first?

Well, it is often said that great Shadows begin within us--that because we cannot face them they become a Group Shadow that winds its way from person to person to person. So as I see it if we are going to ask a question of blame, we must first ask the question: "When did I become a person (or a Nation) that refuses to look at my/its own Shadows?" Often times, through a process of deflection, we blame the larger group, rather than boiling things down to their smallest components first, then turning that to the larger group issue.

If we truly want to know when we came to be a "blaming society", we must look at when did *I* become a blaming individual? What precipitated it? What surrounded it? What is fueling it now? If everyone could do that... then we can see our own personal issues are indeed part of the larger problem. As we deal with the issues, they stop feeding the larger pool and one by one, the problem begins to dissipate.

While the author looks to many of the individual issues of the Nation at this time, I don't feel we are looking at the larger and smaller ones that are feeding it.
When the Nation is perpetrating wrongs both here and abroad in the world, it is quite easy to cast blame. But what are *WE* doing that is feeding that shadow of blame? Do we blame people in our families, our towns, our cities and our states for things that are going wrong? Then *WE* are part of the problem, not the solution.
For example, I re-read this article through this understanding:

When did I begin blaming society first?
Do I categorize others by names? Hippies, Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Moderate left, Loony Communists?
Do I believe that people have flipflopped and aligned with former adversaries? Do I believe they were ever really adversaries at all?
When did I begin to do this?
Why does it make me so uncomfortable to consider these things?
Why does a single grieving woman bother me so?
Why do I respond with anger, rather than compassion?
Why do I namecall?

Question such as these begin to show patterns within us as people, that allows this larger Group Shadow of Blaming to infiltrate Society and become a part of the fabric of our National Life today.

"Hell is Repetition"
"Hell is Repetition"
"Hell is Repetition"
We all have our secrets and we know how to keep them. And while we keep them, we cast the blame off onto others and look outside of ourselves for the "reasons" and "causes" rather than to look within to find where they are well rooted inside of us and merely trickling out now.

It’s alot like those levees in New Orleans. We can only handle so much water. If the shoring is not good, eventually we'll break and it will first trickle and leak then *BOOM* and it all comes rushing in. That is what is happening now-- and believe it or not-- we are not even at the flood stage yet of all of this! Right now, we only have breaches in the levees of our nation. They are oozing, trickling, little by little. Eventually if we don't fix the levees of our emotion, issues, disparities and problems-- it is a guarantee, the levees will break and flood the Society with more emotion, issues, disparities and problems then what we can even begin to imagine at this time. What Zaph says is making him "uncomfortable" right now, is not going to go away by merely turning and pointing at it. It’s going to take some solid work to turn back the weight of it all. It’s going to take people crossing the partisan lines to grab the sand bags and work together. It’s going to take the realization that we are not as divided as we would like to believe that we are. And yes, we do like to believe that because it allows us to be egocentric—that we are all something bigger then what we really are. It’s going to take the great philosophers of our time to reconstruct the whole system. It’s going to take all the people we are so busy name calling to help to do the work. Perhaps, we better quit name-calling and dividing into camps are come to the conclusion that if we don’t stand together, we will most certainly fall together.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Satisfied

Zaphriel feels irritated about the increasing marginalization of the sane in the Democratic party, and the gradual renunciation of the values of property rights and voluntary cooperation the Republican party has stood for. To him, the sight of one political party losing its mind, and the other party offering little more than a slower spin into insanity, is a fearful prospect.

I see a silver lining in this. What is the core principle of social organization the Democratic party represents? Is it not the forcible organization of society through government force according to the plans of one or a few men? Is it not the use of force to achieve equality in results, artificial brotherhood, and the destruction of those entrepreneurs who fuel the technological innovation that keeps us from descending to the Dark Ages? Does it not rest upon the principle that government is superior to men in wisdom, morality, and foresight, capable of the greatest good and only occasionally making mistakes?

What is that which is destroying the Republican party? Is it not the acceptance in part of this principle of social organization? Is it not the renunciation of the long-held belief in the sanctity of voluntary cooperation among men for the pursuit of profit? Is it not the granting of moral legitimacy to those who idolize Che Guevara and Mao?

The Democratic party is proper heir to the Tories of old, who for centuries declared man incompetent to rule himself and destined to destruction, and have in that time proposed innumerable measures to, in the name of the greater good, increase scarcity, reduce employment, increase the obstacles men face in satisfying their wants. In the name of progress they have enacted legislation which destroys the only thing sustaining the lives of the five billion humans who would not be alive if it were not for capital accumulation. In the name of conservation, they have every decade since 1700 screamed about the imminent end of the supplies of wood, coal, and petroleum, respectively. They have sought Utopia in the government, and recoil when in every case it leads to starved peasants grazing hills for earthworms and grass.

The Republican party is proper heir to the Whigs. They once upheld the harmony of the rightly-understood self-interests of all men and the deadly futility of all attempts to turn men's self-interests into the pursuit of coercive gain, the repugnance of all forms of government-enabled privilege and slavery, the importance of a morality of self-reliance to sustain the bonds of social cooperation, the supremacy of the individual's decisions regarding his life over that of the government, the necessity of property rights for the continued existence of any society beyond perpetual starvation and famine, the decentralization of power among local politicians who are easier to communicate with and hang from a lamp-pole if need be, and the justice of toppling monarchs.

For the first time in decades, it is again clear which political ideology is on the side of civilization, and which is on the side of barbarism. It is no coincidence that those who once supported Che Guevara, now yearn for the victory of the "freedom fighters" and the destruction of Israel in a United Palestine. It is no coincidence that those who embrace forced equality of the sexes, are among the loudest supporters of barbarians who without a moment's notice would stone them to death for immodesty. When gays hold parades against a nation which respects the rights of homosexuals, and for a nation which stones them in public squares, it should not be difficult to discern which political beliefs they hold.

It is now easier than ever to observe the disparate results of each political belief. A casual acquaintance with the history of the 20th century is enough to discern which political belief leads to the guillotine and which leads to the iPod. Where Zaphriel sees disintegration of society, I see an opportunity for men to once again recognize that freedom is the only source of peace and prosperity. For the sake of humanity, I hope this lesson is learned soon. For many, it got clear enough on 9/11.

Tom - Hamster Motor

OK...so I have been absent for a couple of months, but I have no real complaints as my absence has been due to the success of my ongoing business endeavors and the greatly increased work load that success is bringing. Also other than being quite hot and humid, Hong Kong is a fascinating place and a good many of the people I deal with in mainland China are as adamantly anti-Communist as I am.

I am still just as busy, but I thought I should put my two cents worth in on this week's Balance of Power post concerning the current political state of our country. There is no doubt that our country is in a rather ugly place, politically speaking, these days.

Back in June, I presented my readers with a question: Do you think it is possible that one or both major political parties could fracture in the next 10 years with the result being a new political party or major movement into an existing third party? At that time, it seemed inevitable to me that the Democratic party would fracture. Since then, I have seen nothing to change my mind. The far left, even after much evidence to the contrary, seems determined that they need to move further to left in order to be successful. Over at Kos and other far left sites, full fledged war has been declared on the moderate DLC.

They are determined to keep the country in an extended state of strife, no matter what that takes. Apparently through their rose colored glasses, this is what the country needs and even wants.

Two months ago it looked as if the Republicans were in a better position, but even then, I warned that a fight was coming. After their long exile from legislative power, the GOP regained power by putting forth the Contract with America. Well I am here to tell you that they are in complete default with the terms of that contract and a large portion of the Republican party is now figuring that out.

With both parties undergoing major turmoil, it is not surprising that they would seek to obfuscate this inner fighting with increased partisan attacks on the other party. What is the citizenry of this country to do when the Democrats have become become so farcical and devoid of rational ideas that they appear almost as a parody of themselves and the Republicans have completely dropped any facade that their goal is to reduce the scope of government rather than to remain in power?

Most other democracies in the world don't just have two major parties, but several smaller parties each of which is unable to get a majority on its own. They form coalitions with other parties that share some basic principles in order to form a controlling government. In many ways, that is what we have as well, but the differing factions first align under the umbrellas of the two major parties. Internal bickering is then settled in house. However, as of late, it is becoming apparent that these factions often has as much in different as they have in common and internal dirty laundry is spilling out for the whole country to smell (and believe me, it is not a pleasant smell).

I don't see the internal problems of the parties going away any time soon, so I doubt that the country will find any type of political peace soon. The more the parties fracture internally, the more they will strike out externally and the more divided the country as a whole will become.

Liberty Dog - One Billion Red Chinese and a Dog Named Liberty

Woman..what price will you pay

2005-09-21T23:58:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

So this week.. finds us looking at the "Kate Moss Scandal". It is claimed by the Daily Mirror in Britain, that they have a picture of her snorting cocaine.

I turned my thoughts back to the post of last week, which was on "Heroes". Is *THIS* what we believe a hero is? An ultra-thin woman who snorts cocaine? Is *THIS* what we want our children (in particular, our daughters) to emulate?

I know that I am not the only member of BoP that has a daughter coming up in the world today. For those of you that do NOT have daughters, let me tell you... it is NOT easy. They look in their magazines, watch their videos and try to BE these women—but at what cost? What are their reasons?

So the topic of this weeks BoP is: "Woman..what price will you pay?"

Certainly not all of us are women, *heh* I think on the roll call here I am the only one but we all have mothers, sisters, daughters, cousins, friends that are women. What price are they willing to pay to be for the world--"perfect"? What does the world expect of a woman, in particular the male-portion of the race?

Turning back the clock a bit, Kate Moss is not the only Supermodel to have fallen into the drug scene. Take for example Gia Carangi, one of the world's top models in the 70's who succumbed to AIDS following a heroin addiction that took her into the drug infested hell-holes of NY's lower east side. Story

These are women that are desperate for the approval of the world-- for the attention and affection of others. It is no secret that many of the world's models are desperately beneath the standard weight for their frame and height. Actresses as well are victims to this ploy. How can we forget the loveable little Mary Kate Olsen who endeared herself to the American TV viewing audience, being treated for Anorexia in 2004? ? The truth is: we don't like fat women. We want women thin, waif thin really and beautiful too-- don't forget the beautiful part! We applaud when people lose weight each week on "The Biggest Loser" while sort of sitting back and going.. "Meh, when they injure themselves in pushing so hard to obtain "the results" the viewing audience is dying to see. We laughed at Mimi on "The Drew Carey Show" as she in her largesse, bounded into a room with her wisecracking and smart a**ed remarks. We laughed. This week on "Nip and Tuck" the story was one of a woman that had grown so large that she had ceased to get off of her couch and it had melded to her skin. The woman died in that episode. All I could do was cry. The ending of the show, showed not one but TWO beautiful women being "attended to" by Christian Troy in his "comeback" from his own attack by "The Carver". But of course, they just HAD to throw in two anorexic thin women in the last 50 seconds of the show, ANYTHING but to leave the viewing audience with the image of a morbidly obese woman dying, while still attached to her couch! Lets face it... we loathe that which is not "beautiful" by the 21st century standard of beauty.

In our complete fixation with beauty, we set up our actresses, our models, our young daughter's heroes as the ultra thin, ultra beautiful, somewhat saline and plastic based PERFECT WOMAN. They in turn strive.. CONSTANTLY.. to be like them. There are some young women who will accomplish it and when they do, they are particularly cruel to those that do not. Taunting, shaming, ridiculing their contemporaries who are less than perfect until they do one of two things: become perfect (i.e., extreme weight issues and eating disorders, drug use (diet or otherwise), obsessive exercise) or they fail and become depressed, despondent and riddled with fears and insecurities. And for what?? So that they can have a boyfriend! So they can be successful! So they can be seen as perfect! Is this REALLY what a man wants today? I ask you to speak then in truth... how many here have dated, loved, married a woman that is large, less than beautiful, less than perfect? Why did you? Or why didn't you? What are the standards you set for beauty? For you ladies.. what has been your experience? Did you ever feel imperfect, fat, ugly.. what price did you pay to deal with it? What price do you pay even NOW?

It’s high time that we take control of this issue in American Society. Women are *NOT* prized cattle. They are *NOT* personal property that must increase someone else's sense of self worth. Its high time we quit setting our young ladies up to be THE NEXT Kate Moss, Gia Carangi or Mary Kate Olsen.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

The night shift admitted her to the locked psych unit. Her parents had called 911, after finding her passed out in the bathroom. She was 18. She was five feet seven inches. Her weight on admission was eighty-one pounds. She was a star athlete, and was headed to college on a full gymnastics scholarship that fall. A National Honor Society member, she was also one the most popular kids in her school. She was active in her church, and by all accounts was a strong Christian influence on her peers.

Her parents reported she didn't smile much, and said there seemed to be something wrong with her teeth. Stomach acid from frequent, self induced vomiting will do that.

She hadn't had her menses in six months. Her lab results revealed skewed counts across the board.

She was dying.

I saw her the next morning. She was wearing shorts and a t-shirt with her high school mascot on the front, standing in front of a mirror. She told me she was looking at the fat on her thighs. I could count the individual bones in her legs. It was like looking at an x-ray.

Over the next few days, she became the life of the psych unit. Bubbly, friendly to everybody, always willing to help in any way. Patients actually started to look forward to group therapy every afternoon. She had a way of livening things up. To tell the truth, the staff started to look forward to the groups she was in as well.

When she left the hospital after a couple of weeks, her weight was up to 95 lbs, and she was eating regular meals. She'd already had a couple of sessions with an outpatient therapist, and would start a specialized day program for eating disorders the following Monday. She seemed well on her way to overcoming anorexia nervosa.

She was my first patient with an eating disorder.

I attended her funeral 6 months later. The church was packed...It was a closed casket.

I thought about my patient the other day, standing in the checkout lane. The woman in front of us was in her late forties, greying around the edges. She was looking at the cover of Vogue. As she looked at the scantily clad model on the cover, her face fell. You could almost hear the woman comparing herself to that air-brushed, Photoshop enhanced model staring back at her. Comparing, and finding herself lacking...again.

Women today, rather they are 7 or 70, bear a burden. The definition of beauty our culture sends is killing women. Seldom as dramatically as my anorexic patient. No, most of the time, death comes slowly, one magazine cover, one message at a time. But, make no mistake, the woman in the checkout line was dying a little bit with each look at the magazine.

Over the years, I've returned again and again to the book of Proverbs as I've worked with women trapped by the messages of this culture. The words of Solomon aren't a total answer, but have helped me judge the distortions our society pours out. One of my favorites is the last few verses of Proverbs. You can find them here.

I'm especially struck by the first part of verse 30: "Charm is deceptive, beauty is fleeting..."
Ours is a culture trapped in deception, pursuing a vision of beauty that seems just out of reach. Perhaps posts like Nariel's can throw some truth on the deception. I certainly hope so. I have no desire to attend another funeral.

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

OK, I'm gonna take this for a twist. No, women are not cattle, and yes our society puts too much value on physical appearance, and material things. Yes this has put many with low self esteem problems to push theirselves too hard into drugs, and eating disorders, but...

On the other hand, our love affair with the entitlement mentality has led to the opposite problem. Obesitity is becoming a major killer in America. Public health education needs to be pushed hard, so people don't get fat, jeapordize their health, and die of a heart attack. Living a healthy lifestyle needs to be pushed in order to keep people from turning to eating disorders, etc.

My marraige is good, because I chose my wife because of her personality. Her weight goes up and down depending on how lazy we are being, or how often I cook and fatten her up. We are all guilty of living it up, and taking the shorcut to McDonalds.

So, I agree...don't make fun of fat people, and choose your friends and partners based on personality. Don't treat women like cattle, etc. But also take care of yourself, and promote a healthy lifestyle to others.

Jay - Stop the ACLU

Heroes in the Modern Day

2005-09-14T00:26:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

This week we are going to try something different, we are going to start to ask guest writters to submit posts for concideration at the BoP, to help open up the discussion for everyone. Our first is Kevin from Wizards Woodshed. Hope you like the change.

First I would like to thank Zaph for inviting me to contribute to the BoP. I enjoy reading it every week, and commenting when time allows.

On (Sunday as I wrote) this of all days, as we remember the fallen in the aftermath of the cowardly attack on 911, I paused to think not only of the victims, but also the heroes of that day.

When we say the word "hero" our minds generally evoke images of the firefighters, police, and rescue workers that serve their community each day, laying their lives on the line for what is truly a pittance of a salary. Or perhaps the image you see is that of the American serviceman or woman, true to their oath and defending our country. In light of the recent tragedy in our southern states your vision of a hero might be the volunteers that drop everything to travel to a devastated area and render aid. In all of the above you would be correct. Each and every one of these representations qualifies as a hero in my book. Blessings and prayers to all of those who fit the above examples. Your courage and willingness to give of yourselves to your brothers and sisters of the human race deserve nothing but the highest praise!

I would like to take our view past the obvious and pay homage to those that might not be the first to come to mind as we think of "heroes".

The passengers and crew of flight 93, the first to make a stand against the 911 terror attack, earned the title with their actions on that fateful day. These ordinary men and women made a stand against armed assailants in a desperate effort to save their fellow passengers. In doing so, they also averted another disaster planned by their attackers.

In the case of Katrina, hats off to those hurricane victims who risked their lives to help others trapped by the storm and the floods. Every time I see the footage of the people pulling boats with other survivors to safety and out of harms way, I see a hero.

Once again, ordinary people becoming extraordinary people in a situation that is anything but ordinary.

You, the reader and contributor to the blogosphere, giving your opinions, your expertise, your knowledge, and most importantly-YOUR VOICE! Right or left, republican or democrat, cranky liberal (gun toting or otherwise*lol*) or staunch conservative, your voice is heard and probably by a lot more people than you realize. Environmentalist wacko, conspiracy theorist, right-wing nut job, or conservative cretin, it is your voice that brings to light issues of the modern day. It is your voice that holds accountable those in power that abuse it. It is your voice that draws attention to the issues facing our society and keeps the attention there until it can speak for itself. YOU have become the watchdog of justice that the media was once toted to be.

Heroes.

Ordinary people becoming extraordinary people in a situation that is anything but ordinary.

So take your stand hero, fight the good fight and make your voice heard. I’m listening

Kevin - Wizards Woodshed

First, welcome to my husband as a guest post of BoP! I know that right now busyness keeps him much and so I honor that he took the time to write something here for us, definitely something that causes us all to look not only around us at a world filled with heroes but also challenges us all to look at what kind of hero are we? What kind could we be if we dared to be?

Many heroes have come and gone from our world, yet they never really leave--not as long as their stories are told in their honor, they really do live on! It has been our great National Treasure I feel, that we as Americans produce and are home to so many heroes in the world today-- people that are able to 'pull out all the stops' and do what to others might seem impossible, even at the cost of their own lives, their own feelings, their own reputations in many instances.

Heroes are found most everyday if we have an eye to look for them.

They were (and ARE) in the Gulf States--breaking down doors to find survivors, wading through waist deep toxic soup to bring them to safety and they are across that nation--those that are taking the chance to open their doors and their hearts to people who are 'strangers' refugees from Louisiana and Mississippi too!

There are those that are taking stands on human rights issues in organizations like the Red Cross, the ACLU and others--organizations that believe in the common dignity of every person in the world no matter their gender, nation of origin, color, handicap, creed, sexual orientation, ...etc. These too, are heroes in their own way.

There are those that are taking stands on environmental issues in organizations like Greenpeace, NewDream.org, scientists, climatologists, sociologists, environmental sciences, etc.--organizations and people that believe that protecting the environment is critical to sustaining humanity upon it at peace and in good health and circumstance.

There are those that are taking stands on health, basic human dignity in places like Rwanda, Tanzania, Kosovo, Afghanistan, India and many other places. Doctos Without Borders is made up of medical personnel that are heroes every day, bringing better health and medical care to the most needy in the world. The Sisters of Charity began as a Religious order founded upon these types of heroism by their Foundress, Mother Theresa of Calcutta.

There are those that are taking stands in school houses across the nation, children and teenagers that mean to make their places of learning better for all--working towards peaceful resolution by becoming student mediators, organizing days of prayer, opening up the doors to tolerance by stepping up and openly expressing who they are--even if it is less than popular. They are mentors, study partners, prayer partners, athletes...all learning to step outside of their own condition and give to the whole--in short living community.

There are those that are taking stands for the simple life and simple values. They are homesteading, learning to live self-sufficiently, learning the tasks and trades and joys and sorrows of farming, livestock raising, homeschooling, chopping wood, etc... They daily consume less in a consumer driven society then some of us would ever dream of. They are leading by example the call to simplify and to ready for economic uncertainty and peak oil. People think they're nuts.. I think they are heroes of the first order!

We can find heroes everywhere, if we look around us.

I find heroes right here at the BoP. We don't always agree on things, but I feel it is in their open stating of things and in their own blogs that heroes are being born every day! This past week, one of my heroes was Mark's daughter Lexi. This week, two of my heroes are my husband and my "twin soul" Terri. People who give of themselves selflessly to others, with little in the way of complaint and at the same time they strive to be their personal best--reaching towards goals, ever striving yet doing so with such grace and dignity.

I think, heroes are found in every country of the world, every moment of every day. Funny thing about heroes though, to SEE THEM it necessitates taking our "eyes off of ourselves" and seeing others for what they do and not what we would have them do. See them as they really are, hear them as they speak from their hearts and view their actions without judgment--to see and hear and experience the fullness of what heroism is really all about.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

When we were kids, our guest blogger Kevin and I used to play Superhero. He was always Lightning Lad, and I was usually Cosmic Boy. We fought interstellar crime on our bicycles in our small town in Oklahoma. Later, our heroes became Kirk and Spock, Han and Luke. Our heroes taught us to stand strong against evil, to fight when we had to, and to do what was right. It's nice to see that after all these years, our heroes still teach us those things.

Now, our heroes are real. They are the firemen that ran into the World Trade Towers while others were running out. They're the men and women serving around the world, fighting enemies at least as evil as those fought by our childhood heroes. And like those fictional supermen, they are laying down their lives for what they believe.

Some of my heroes fight evil from a keyboard these days. Like the men running the first printing presses, Bloggers try to publish the truth. We try to get around the spin from left and right. And we are succeeding. By publishing the facts, regardless of spin, we too contribute to the War on Terror.

Heroes all, left and right. The Legion of Superheroes would be proud.

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

Heroes.

We all must find our heroes.

I see my heroes every day in the common citizen who says, "Thank you" at the lunch counter, just because I am in BDU's.

I see the guy down the street that runs the Neighborhood Watch, and the members of the PFA (PTA) at my kid's school, who volunteer their time for nothing more than wanting a better community, to be involved.

I see it in the guy who works across from me, who goes to every city counsel meeting, and the guy who runs the charity golf tournament every year, simply because they want a nice place to live. I see heroes in the teachers who work long hours for too little just to see the look of discovery on our kids' faces.

And I see one in my next-door neighbor, who is risking it all to follow a dream to run his own restaurant, and who would give it all up in an instant if his kids needed him to. These are true heroes, everyday heroes, which we often overlook because their secret identities are right out in the open.

The heroes we have are all around us, we just have to look, and occasionally say, thank you.

Zaphriel - Zaphriel's Blog

Enough: The Blame Game and Katrina

2005-09-06T11:50:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

I honestly am not ready to do this. It seems somehow...inappropriate...to engage in the blame game over the greatest natural disaster of our time. But those on the left appear to be itching to blame Mr. Bush and the Federal Government for Katrina. I would ask my friends on the left the following questions from Hugh Hewitt's latest post:

What is the "police power?"
Where does it reside?

Is there a federal "police power?"

Can the federal government order the evacuation of a city when state and local officials have not done so?

Who has first call on a state's national guard?

Who controls a city's police department?

Can a federal official order a police department to deploy in strength to specific points within a city such as the Supredome or the Convention Center?

Can a federal official commandeer a city's supply of school busses, city busses, and city personnel?

I would strongly suggest (that's a therapist's nonjudgmental way of saying, "If you have half a brain in your head you'll do this.") you seek answers to these questions before making any more comments like my friend Joseph's. Hugh gives some remedial help for those of us non-lawyers who need it:

For starters, the police power resides in the states. There is no general federal police power. It is the power to take care of a citizenry's health, safety and morals. It was described by Chief Justice Taney in the Licensee Cases this way:

But what are the police powers of a State? They are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty to the extent of its dominion. And whether a state passes a quarantine law, as a law to punish offenses, as to establish courts of justice, or requiring certain instruments to be recorded, as to regulate commerce within its own limits, in every case it exercises the same power; that is to say, the power of sovereignty, the power to govern men and things within the limits of its dominion.

"To the extent of its dominion," is the key phrase. For the federal government to act in the face of a natural disaster, it's help must be requested and its guidance accepted by the state and local officials.

"States are accorded wide latitude in the regulation of their local economies under their police powers," the Supreme Court wrote in the 1976 case of New Orleans v. Dukes, and that wide latitude extends to every aspect of disaster planning (or non-planning.)

That sound you hear is the door slamming shut in your face as you try to gin up another attack on President Bush. This time, the door you are trying to open is standing on the thousands of dead across the Gulf Coast. The left should be ashamed of themselves. But they aren't. Nor will most of those on the left even come close to an apology when the truth comes out of how inept, and politically corrupt the Democrat Mayor, and the Democrat Governor, and the Democrat administration of New Orleans really was, and is. Oh, and don't leave the Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu out of this. Her hubby is the Lt. Governor, actively involved in emergency planning and disaster relief.

The hundreds of drowned buses stand as silent testimony to where much of the blame should reside for not getting people out of New Orleans. There will be plenty of blame to go around, and some will reside in the lap of the new, unwieldy bureaucracy (unwieldy and bureaucracy are what's know as an oxymoron) known as the Dept of Homeland Security. We are now seeing that President Bush should have followed his conservative instincts, and not agreed to the Left's wailing for a new government agency. Conservatives stand for limited government. Each time President Bush forgets this maxim, our nation pays the price. And who says I never criticize the President?

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

During times of crisis--we really simply must learn one basic principle.

DO NOT MAKE MAJOR DECISIONS (THIS WOULD INCLUDE PERSONAL STATEMENTS) WHILE IN THE POINT OF CRISIS.

I learned this long ago, that anything we do in those moments of extreme duress, emotional and physical times of suffering, will be based on that suffering and not on right responses and thought patterns.

In this one, I must say... I have to agree with Mark in that the blame game is going to buy us a whole lot of heartache and headache that we are going to be CHOOSING to accept and take hold of. In the context of who I am as a person, I won't be dealing in my comment with the politics and the rhetoric but with right reasoning and right response.

As a person who is familiar with both Mississippi and Louisiana it is not a hard thing to know, that this situation was coming. Any person could walk through the bayous, by the levees and the ocean and know that someday a catastrophe of a water kind is going to happen at some point. Could they have shored up the levees? Was there more that could have been done? There is *ALWAYS* more that can be done to prepare for a disaster. The work of preparations of things is *NEVER* done. Could money have been channeled for better preparation for such an event--perhaps. It is hard to know the exact nuances and needs of a country and a world that is so interconnected. Perhaps there was money that should have been put to better use, but how will this CHANGE where we are at now?? Not hard really, it won't. NOTHING we say or do will change what has already happened. But it can have a GREAT IMPACT on how we respond now. Are we simply talking, growling and screaming to make our OWN SELVES feel better? The question bears a little contemplation because all of it is probably not helping the victims. Its no longer really about the victims at all—its about us and our incessant need to have something important to say, some pearl of wisdom that only we can give!

Should we fall into a pit of "because", a blame game of "he said/she said", "they did/they did not" what we will be doing is taking away all of the love, commitment of time and good will from where it is MOST needed, which is in the ravaged areas and to the people that have been most traumatized. If they are angry and hurt--how will throwing more fuel on the fire possibly help them to heal? Not hard really, it won't.

While I believe we certainly could have mobilized better response times, could have certainly done better jobs of evacuation and relocation, feeding, housing, sanitation...I also recognize that the entire country was in a state of shock for the first few hours. Following that shock came the desire to HELP--yet overloading an area that was inundated with people (the old adage of too many cooks in the kitchen.. applies here) would have created yet more chaos.

In this great time of sorrow and shock we definitely need to mobilize the great minds to promote better education and better response patterns for just such a national disaster. However, how will the wailing and the gnashing of teeth NOW, make the plight of the survivors any easier? Not hard really, it won't.

Right now it is imperative that we remember what is and is NOT helpful to these people. Our physical support and assistance--is a help. Our infighting--is not a help. Our emotional support and access to counseling for grief and post- traumatic stress--is a help. To constantly replay their images on TV and harangue the medias with angry rhetorics--is not a help. Our spiritual support, prayers, replacement of bibles and spiritual reading, access to ministers, rabbis, enlightened teachers--is a help. Our B.S. of "God punished them!"--is not a help.

We simply MUST do what is helpful and refrain from doing what is not.

There are many things we must sort through, analyze and criticize. To everything there is a time to do that work. Recognizing that THIS is NOT the time and recognizing when the PROPER time to do this, will be a question we will face soon. The GREATEST question we face in THIS moment will be knowing what it means to truly love, to truly empathize and to truly live as compassionate beings in a nation that has been wracked with grief. Folks, it’s been 7 days since the Levee broke, 8 days since the hurricane hit. For some victims it has been only hours, even minutes since they returned to a clean bed, clean clothing, food, drink, medicine. How thoughtless have we become as a Nation and a People that we would so quickly turn our thoughts to placing blame and throwing partisan rhetoric? It is the greatest plight of our time, that we no longer give people the time to grieve, to heal and to move on, Seven days folks… one week and may we ALL THINK BEFORE WE SPEAK.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

I can add nothing of value save to ask for everyones help here. This is not the time for partisanship. Please pull together, and don't complain, but rather do something, anything, to help, if you have the means, please consider giving to the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, or Feed The Children. If the opportunity exists, open up your home, there can be no greater gift. This did not just happen to the Gulf states, this happened to us all, please put aside partisanship for a while, and help.

Zaphriel - Zaphriel's Blog

The Sheehan Exploitation

2005-08-31T00:33:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

This is a subject that I only briefly touched on in my own blog. As with allot of things I reserved judgment on this issue until I knew more about it. At first it appeared that Cindy Sheehan was a mother, grieving her son's death and acting out during the grief process. Having been through this process myself a few times I understand this, and I empathized. For a while I defended her actions in my mind and felt for her, prayed for her.

I have been in the military for over 13 years, and for most of us we feel that there is no higher sacrifice on this earth than to loose your child in the defense of our country. So my heart tugged at me for her grief. I also know that the activities she is engaging in make our job in the military even that much harder, and from someone in such a revered position as she holds (Mother of a fallen soldier) that is hard for me to compute. So I said nothing, but I continued to listen. As I listened I started to hear things that just were not fitting.

It soon became apparent that this Gold Star Mom was using her son's death as a springboard, a way to get herself heard. Not a bad tactic, if it wasn't so reprehensible. You see the worst thing one can do in the military community is dishonor the fallen. Casey Sheehan knew what he was getting into, and did so of his own free will. I would venture to say that he knew what he was fighting for, since most of us currently serving have known from day one, there has not been any new news that we did not already know.

We in the military are in this thing with our eyes wide open. Most who have been to Iraq, such as myself, come back with even more support for the war, not less. We know that finishing the job is what needs to be done, not pull out and leave things in shambles so that our dead will have died in vain.

I am all for a good protest, hell I fight for everyone's right to do that every day, I swore an oath to it. But I'll tell you what, the people who need to be protested are not the honorable upstanding soldiers, sailors, and airmen who fight for us all each and every day. What we should protest are the morons who try to demean and demoralize or troops and then point out how demoralized they are. What we should protest are the idiots that aid and inflame our enemies with rhetoric and half-truths and then tell us that they hate us because we are there now, even though they have hated us for decades.

What we really need to do is stop protesting the piddley things and unite once again as a country and get the job done. What we really need to do is stop protesting about things that we assume to be true, even when it is apparent that we don't have the full story. What we really need to do is stop asking for information to be made public that is either classified or damaging to our own country. Then we can talk about how we could have done it better later. Then we can talk about how people lied, when we know that someone actually lied. What we need is constructivism, not destructivism. The military has a hard enough job without feeling as if they are fighting a loosing war for an ungrateful nation. It's a sad state of affairs when the Iraqi's are more appreciative of us than our own countrymen.

How dare you Cindy, and all you Cindys out there, exploit your honorable child's death for you own gain. How dare you. Somehow I think you never really knew why Casey served, did you?

Zaphriel - Zaphriel's Blog

Cindy Sheethead is a leftwing moonbat to the highest degree. It is hard to have any sympathy for her anymore. She has disgraced her son's noble death with her liberal whining.

And the media is worse. Its a complete freak show! When is it going to end? I don't know how much sicker I can get of it. She is a freakazoid on parade. Can we get Michael Jackson to do a freakshow grand finale show?

You are right Zaph! All this crap does is divide the country. The least thing we need. We need some patriotism and pride. Like you said, we need to unite!

Jay - Stop the ACLU

I've thought and written alot about "Mother" Sheehan and her fellow travelers, camped in the ditch in Crawford. She has become the symbol for the manufactured anti-Bush, anti-Iraq left. The Daily Kos provided the marching order's two weeks ago:

1. We should call her "Mother Sheehan". We should never call her Cindy; I don't know her. "Mother Sheehan" is her title, and expresses her ceremonial status as a bereaved mother, calling forth over the dead body of her son. She is not a person now, she is a mother, which is not an expression of her individuality, but rather the expression of her eternal character: the mother, the bringer of life who has been wronged by state power.

We should use the word "sacrifice". She has sacrificed the most precious thing a mother has, the life and promise of her child.

We should use the word "useless" frequently. The death of her son is a useless sacrifise, done for the vanity of the ruler.

We should not use the name of her son. Her son is a symbol of all sons who have been sacrificed for this useless and criminal war.

The term "vigil" should be used to describe the persons and their patient petition to the dictatorial ruler. It is a vigil over the body of the dead son, killed by the ruler for his own purposes.

The right will try to INDIVIDUALIZE and SPECIALIZE her complaint. We must try to make her cry the UNIVERSAL and ETERNAL cry of all mothers whose children have died at the whim of the tyrannical and dictatorial ruler, who has made the decision to push children to the front of the army for his own, useless purposes. We must seek to make this like funeral vigils over all time. This is not Mother Sheehan's vigil, this is a vigil over the dead son, killed by the ruler for his own selfish reasons.

If there are any persons who are theatre professionals at the Sheenan vigil, they should arrange things much more theatrically.

If I was there, I would not let Mother Sheehan talk to the press, but I would have her talk only through a spokesperson. In particular, I would not allow her to argue with critics, and would allow no critics to approach her. Her dignity must be preserved. If lesser emissaries from the ruler arrive (C Rice, etc), these should not be allowed to speak to Mother Sheehan

Is your stomach turning at this exploitation yet? It should be. We should use the name of "Mother" Sheehan's son, Casey, who re-enlisted for Iraq, and gave his life volunteering for a mission he didn't have to go on. He went anyway, willingly. He was a hero who should be remembered for his sacrifice. The only thing useless in this sad scenario is a mother willing to use her son's sacrifice for her own political ends. Cindy did not "give up" her son. A man named Casey Sheehan sacrificed his life for his comrades, and for a grateful nation. Well, most of us are grateful anyway. I've not seen much gratitude going in that West Texas ditch.

But then, as number 7 so eloquently states, the ditch in Crawford is theatre, pure and simple. It provides an opportunity for the leftist fringe of this nation to act out its hostility toward a whole host of demons; the military, President Bush, Christians in general, Israel. The list goes on and on and on.

The marching orders above are right about one thing. They really shouldn't allow Cindy in front of the cameras. Here's a medley of her more inane comments:
She said her son "was murdered by the Bush crime family."
She said "You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana . . . You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine."
And, the coup de grace:
"America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for." That was part of her warm-up act for a speech by Lynne Stewart, the "activist" lawyer convicted of conspiracy for aiding the terrorists convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

And how does Cindy feel about other Mothers who lost their sons or daughters in Iraq?

I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these "continue the murder and mayhem" moms to see the light.

Yes, number 8 should have been listened to. For myself, I'll throw my support behind those mothers who do support this nation, and their sons who gave their lives to protect it. As for Cindy Sheehan, she provides great propaganda value to the very killers who struck down her son, Casey. You remember him. He's the one we aren't supposed to talk about, except as a symbol. He's a symbol, all right. A symbol of all that is right about this country. The terrorists in Iraq understand that. It's sad that his mother, so wrapped up in her hatred of President Bush and the country she doesn't think is worth dying for, can't understand it as well Zarqawi and his murderous thugs.

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

**Sorry for the late entry...Z.**

Many people have many things to say about Cindy Sheehan.
Zaphriel's opinion here, is just one of them. I believe that Cindy Sheehan has taken a bad situation and made it something that can rally the voices of the nation to one voice that says "Enough! Bring our sons/daughters, mothers/fathers, sisters/brothers HOME!"
Over 60% of the Nation no longer supports the war in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan is one of the voices that is openly and publicly admitting that she's one of them.

I do not see, how her protest and the protesting of others in the nation are making ANYONE'S job in the military harder. What has she personally done to make the Army's day harder? The Navy? The Air Force? The Marines? The National Guard? Has she stood in front of your vehicles and kept you from departing to your allotted posts? Has she cut off your food rations? Has she given you rubber bullets to use in your wars and operations in foreign countries? NO she has not. She may have been a pain in the patootie to the people in Crawford, TX but other than that, how can anyone else say that she has made their job more difficult? Unless of course, you mean the job of recruiting more warm bloodeds to fill body bags, or because she is turning up the spotlight and making this nation look closer at what is REALLY happening in the world.

Allowing her son's death to be a catalyst for change is not a bad thing, it is not,IMHO, reprehensible as some feel. If he, in his dying changes one life anywhere along the way, then he will have had a good death. Honor belongs to him and the many that have died in the course of serving the Nation in both war and peace.

Some say that Casey KNEW what he was getting into when he signed up: perhaps, perhaps not. Many join the military with the goal of college afterwards, with the eye to seeing the world. Many did not join the military realizing that the nation would become embroiled in a war started by li--, lets call it “misconceptions and faulty intelligence”. They did not join to serve hidden agendas. Many did not join the military to become pawns in the Machiavellian machinations of Bush and all of his Capitol Hill Cronies and Yes men.

While you say that most who have been to Iraq, come back with MORE support for the war-I can personally provide that I have spoken to military persons recently, who feel the exact OPPOSITE of how you do. It would appear that the military is as divided on the war, as the Nation is.

I simply don't get how we have made it a patriotic duty to support this war. I don't understand how some can say that if you protest, you do not support the troops. Many a protestor, many a pastor, many a voice will say they are protesting BECAUSE of their love for the troops, their lives are WORTH something more then bleeding and dying on foreign soil in a war that is estimated to be an 8 year long (or longer) war. I find it difficult to believe that the Pope is against the troops. I find it difficult to believe that Rev. Sharpton is against the troops. These are two of the religious voices that have added their own to the "anti-war" movement.

It is said that we can "talk about how we could have done it better later." I believe that those that died for the cause of Civil Rights here in this nation, would say differently. They knew something, we seem to be forgetting: There is a time to stand up against oppression. There is a time to voice and make our voices heard. LATER, we cannot fix it. TODAY, we can. What we do today makes all the difference in the world.

While Zaph believes that Cindy Sheehan is exploiting her son's death, there are thousands in this nation that believe she is allowing her son's death to speak to the Nation's heart and call it to find a greater truth then that of war, torture, death and omnipresent fear.

Before we go condemning Cindy for "exploiting the dead", perhaps we should remember that it was the "exploitation" of the 1,000+dead and the Nation's grief and mourning following 9/11 that PUT us in Iraq to begin with. Not to mention of course, the "exploitation" of these by Mr. Bush in rallying a second term in the White House.

Now, let me be clear about something: I do not, support the immediate removal of our troops from Iraq. I believe that we are THERE now and we MUST see it through. However that does NOT mean that I support this War or that I will not speak up my feelings regarding it. It also does not mean that in doing so that I have ceased to support our Nation's military personnel. I am the grand-daughter of grand-fathers that served in World War 2. I am the niece of a career Navy man that served on the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk. I am the friend of a former Marine, an Airforce Pilot *AND* an Army Ranger. Believe you me I am as patriotic as the next person. But in my patriotism I have not become blind, deaf and mute. I have eyes which see, and ears that hear and a voice to use regarding what I see as issues. This is one of them.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

And Now... For Your Viewing Pleasure…Who Controls the Media

2005-08-23T19:27:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

I’ve noticed that in the course of my 32 years of movie and television viewing, that things have greatly changed from the way they used to be. The old innuendos of yesterday’s TV shows and movies have been replaced by pretty graphic language, nudity and sexuality that leaves very little to the imagination.

There have been for some time now, raised voices asking the following questions:
Have movie and television producers and writers gone too far?
Are the ratings reflecting the viewing audiences level of acceptability?
Do we need more culpability in this arena?

The March 28 copy of TIME magazine said as much with its cover story:

“Has TV Gone Too Far?”

Parent’s Television Council believes that it has. They also quote a Poll of TIME Magazine that said:

53 percent of respondents said that they think the FCC should place stricter controls on broadcast-channel shows depicting sex and violence. 68 percent believe the entertainment industry has lost touch with viewers' moral standards. 66 percent said there is too much violence on open-air TV, 58 percent said too much cursing and 50 percent said there is too much sexual content on TV. 49 percent say FCC regulation should be extended to cover basic cable. -source

Now, here are my thoughts:

First, when going to the movies we are told at the door what the rating of the movie is. We have a choice. Do we want to see that? Can our children handle that?
It takes being conscientious and keeping up to date on what is permissible in each of the ratings schedules. Do we need the FCC and other agencies of the Government to tell us what is “morally proper”? NO. I am an adult and full well capable of making that decision for myself. It is up to the theatre to card the individuals that are attempting to gain admission to movies that are PG-13 and R and even X.

Second, what is acceptable and proper on broadcast TV is for the majority of viewers. If parents are offended by what they find there, it is their duty as parents to TURN IT OFF, OR CHANGE THE CHANNEL.

Third, Cable TV is a paid subscriber service and as such those that pay for it should be able to have a wide spectrum of viewing available. If there are those who are easily offended by “Over There”, “Nip and Tuck” “Lost” or “Medium” here is a piece of advice: DON’T WATCH THEM.

The LAST thing we need in this country is for people to dictate what we may watch on Television. That is the great thing about the POWER button, you can turn it off as easily as on.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

There was a new technology sweeping the world, and most especially the United States. It allowed common people access to information, entertainment, and opinions in ways no one dreamed possible. New sources were popping up daily, and the market for devices to receive and send the information was rapidly rising to the millions of dollars.

Sounds like the internet, right? But the time was the 1930's, and the new medium was radio, and soon it's more precocious cousin, television.

Government can't stand new forms of communication they can't control. And the Roosevelt administration, staffed by avowed socialists, most assuredly could not allow such a medium to block their agenda. So, in 1934, they pushed through a department that is with us to this day, creating The Federal Communications Commission in the bargain. The Roosevelt Administration in true socialist fashion, declared the government "owned" the airwaves. They decided that they, and only they, had the wisdom to bring order to "the chaos" of so many stations stepping all over each other.

And in establishing "decency" standards, they took responsibility that should belong to The People, and put it in the hands of The Government. But, then, that's what the Domestic side of the Roosevelt Administration did best, time and time again.

I always get worried when I find myself agreeing too much with Nariel. It forces me to think through the argument again and again. But this time she is dead on. The marketplace will determine what gets put on TV, and when. The FCC, that relic of last century, has no place on today's information highway. They can't lead, they can't follow, and really should get out of the way.

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

In a political discussion forum, one can find themselves in no better, and no worse position than agreeing with your opponents. I wish in this case I had something profound to say, something that Nariel had not covered already, but I think her point is valid and I actually agree with her whole heartedly.

We as a whole are responsible for what is on the TV today, and we are the ones that control it. I have beaten desks and jumped up and down when arguing this very point to my contemporaries. IF you don't like what is on, don't watch it.

Guess what? if enough people also don't like it, it will go away. Enough Said. Great post Nariel.

Zaphriel - Birth of a Neocon

The Legalization of Illicit Drugs - Yes or No

2005-08-17T01:04:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

Recently at my blog I posted on the subject of drug legalization or decriminalization, of which I received much flak from the normally supporting libertarian readers. They viewed this as an issue of liberty. An argument to have the freedom to do whatever one would want to ones own body, much like the argument the left have for abortion. However, I view drug addiction not as liberty, but as a form of slavery, and cannot see how one could equate the avocation of legal drugs with liberty at all.

If they were legalized they would have to be controlled by the government. In debating with many of them, several points were established. One is that despite the government being put into the business of regulation and distribution, the black market would still exist.

Another point is that drug use does not just affect the user, but in many cases those around them including family and friends. An estimated 100,000 babies are born each year addicted to cocaine. So don't tell me that drugs only affect the user!

Many of those that debated me on this subject kept going back to comparing it to alcohol and cigarettes that are legal. They ask what the difference is between someone blowing their check at the bar and not being able to feed his family vs. someone blowing it on crack.

While this is a good point, I don't see how advocating putting more dangerous substances on the street and making them easily available just because one dangerous substance is there makes any sense.

Another part that kept coming up was that the war on drugs is not working. The war on drugs uses enforcement, education, and treatment. I think many of these people who support drug legalization either want taxpayers to pay for rehab, or just let the people die for their own negligence. I'm not sure if either of these are real solutions to a real problem. So, I bring it to the BOP crew. There are obvious problems with the concept of legalization/decriminalization, and there are flaws in the war we are waging against drugs now. What is the solution to the problem?

Jay - Stop the ACLU

I do not believe that legalizing drugs is the way to go. Much of that is based upon my own personal feelings though, and I readily admit that. Drugs damage lives from what I've seen. They anesthetize, mesmerize and then traumatize those that fall into their grasp. Once again though, that is solely my opinion.

So aside from my personal opinions on them.. should we look at legalizing drugs (this lumps them all together from marijuana to all of the new-wave drugs)?

The narcotics industry is a multi billion-dollar industry that profits only those that are in the business of trafficking. Were laws instated that made them legal, would any more of the populace gain financially from the doing so? I don't believe they would. There would still be the big time dealers, the small time dealers and in that industry it will ever be that the sharks will eat the guppies, as in any other capitalistic venture.

Some will say that we would spend less money by not having to police it as much. I do not believe that that is true. While we may not be making routine drug stops along the roads there would still be the sociologic issues of drug use: fighting, loitering and the general misdemeanor crimes that go along with the intensified personalities of the users. There will still remain the felony crimes of theft, domestic abuse, rape and violent crime as well.

To me, the only thing that we gain in the legalization would be tax revenue and no matter what you do in this nation, there will still be those that will not pay the taxes that are due and so the revenue that might be generated is based upon the honesty of the drug dealers. I'm sorry, but all things analyzed, I can't see that they are the most honest of individuals anyway--why would this change now?

Now, when taking solely the issue of marijuana, a different logic might be applied. Marijuana has proven to be addictive but not anymore so then cigarettes, alcohol or medication such as prescribed by a doctor. It has been shown to have mood altering qualities as well as a reduction in reaction time, not unlike alcohol. If these be true, then should marijuana be legalized it should be tested for as with alcohol. For example: A man is pulled over for slowed reaction time, or erratic driving pattern. The police officer might ask "Sir have you had a drink or a joint this evening?" "Yes, officer I had a joint." The officer might use then a breathalyzer test similar to that of an alcohol breathalyzer and if after finding that the person has passed the point of "impairment" (much like the legal limits of blood alcohol content) the person would be hauled in for driving under the influence of marijuana. This would be the only logical way that I can see that would reduce the chances of impaired drivers being on the road.

In the end, I can only say that I do not believe that legalizing drugs is the way to go in our nation. I think that the drawbacks to legalization far outweigh any gains that we might make.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Before I start, I want to say that I have never done any illicit drugs what-so-ever in my life. In fact while I was growing up I was a very active member of the Friend to Friend/Youth to Youth organization. As a matter of fact my senior year in high school I was the regional director for the San Gabriel Valley USD Counter Drug Task Force. I continue to this day to be involved in state and national counter drug missions both domestically and abroad.

From what I have seen, balanced with what I believe in, I think that the legalization of most illicit drugs would always be a mistake. There is only one drug that is currently illegal that I would support being legalized and treated that same as alcohol and tobacco, and that would be Marijuana. Studies have shown, paired with my own experience, that Pot is no more addictive or destructive than is alcohol, and spending millions of dollars to fight a weed is just stupid. Now that being said.

I am against all other illicit drugs being legalized, for one simple reason, hard core illicit drugs, such as Crystal Meth, Speed, and Crack, can and do kill on the very first try. There is nothing through regulation or any other type of control, which can change that about these drugs. They are lethal and HIGHLY addictive. I have seen PhD's become homeless crack heads after just one hit (so to speak), because they could not stop. I have seen upstanding people become criminals over night, because the addiction was so strong and over-ruling. There is no benefit that can come to our society through their legalization.

It would be better to legalize pot, regulate it and tax it, and use that money for drug treatment facilities. This would decriminalize an otherwise mundane drug, and lower our crime rate. Legalizing the other drugs however would have the opposite effect. We would see a sharp rise in addiction and addiction related crimes. People would be apt to "experiment" more often because it is legal, and end up dead or severely addicted. This would lead to problems that would plague us for decades. We can never let this happen.

Zaphriel - Birth of a Neocon

Jay, my friend, in my opinion, you deserved the flak from your civil libertarian guests.

We spend BILLIONS of dollars chasing after potheads, trying them, and incarcerating them. By FAR the largest percentage of people who are incarcerated for "drug crimes" are there because they were involved with POT, not some other drug that has actually been proven to be dangerous.

In fact, I believe the Constitution DOES grant us the freedom to grow something on our own land, dry it out, then smoke it for enjoyment. Just ask the Marlboro Man, or Joe Camel about that one. Studies have PROVEN BEYOND ARGUMENT that tobbacco is FAR more dangerous than pot is, so if you will not throw tobbacco growers and smokers into prison, how can you even begin to justify imprisoning so many pot heads? You CAN'T, nor can you justify jailing smokers of fine tobbacco products.

YOU said:

"However, I view drug addiction not as liberty, but as a form of slavery, and can not see how one could equate the advocation of legal drugs with liberty at all."

And *I* say:

Jay, thank you very much for your concern for my well-being, but please stop ENSLAVING Citizens to the typical right wing opinions on such things as drugs and pornography by threatening to throw them into jail if their opinion differs to the point that they just ignore you and look to the Constitution for their bottom-line Truth. Your point of view expressed above, to me, means you are deciding that since somebody might be "enslaved" by drug abuse, you might as well enslave them to your own sense of morality and right or wrong. See; I believe this is simply WRONG-O.

I'd like to see what you guys will do if there ever comes a time when somebody tries smoking some centipede grass, or Kentucky blue grass, or wheat, or hay, or whatever; just some common type of lawn grass; then learns it will make you higher than pot will. What would you guys do then? Drive all up and down the neighborhoods, mowing peoples' lawns and threatening to toss them into jail?

Jay, people have been finding ways to get high since the "caveman days", bro. Your own children find ways to get high as you watch them, and smile at them as they twirl around in little circles until they fall to the grass, all dizzy and smiling. You can call it what you want, Jay, but (gasp!); that child is learning how to get "HIGH"! It feels good, they do it again, and again, until they're tired of it, then they'll come back to it a week, a month, or a year later and do it again. By your reasoning, this child should be confiscated from the home of the parents, sent to a foster home, and if they continue doing it, we'll just toss them into a juvenile detention center until they become adults.

See how silly this is? That is how I see you guys when it comes to your little "wars" on drugs, prostitution or porn, or whatever "eveal enslaver of people" exists out there to be declaring a "war" upon. Fair enough, I guess; but hey, what makes it hurt even worse is that you make the rest of us PAY for it - billions, and billions, and BILLIONS of our own, hard-earned dollars!

The right wants to save us from ourselves while they booze down and eat fattening foods and smoke their cigarettes. BWAHAHA! "Society" is the victim of your "self-pleasing, immoral actions" they tell us as they chomp down on their bag of chips and wash it down with their 12th beer while a cigar burns in the ashtray.

I'm sorry, Jay. I respect you TREMENDOUSLY, and I hope you do not take this as a personal attack, because it's NOT intended that way. When I say "you", I'm not singling you out, I'm simply attacking the ideology that breeds this point of view, which I'll just come right out and call "far right". I'm not saying YOU are "far right", because I know differently, but this point of view IS a "far right" point of view in my not so humble opinion.

I say, no victim, no crime! And society is NOT a "victim". And if you say it IS, then I want all smokers, all obese people who are obese due to eating habits, all uninsured and underinsured risk-takers, and all heavy drinkers tossed into jail right beside your evil potheads. Then I want YOU guys to pay for it instead of making ME pay to jail all your little make-believe "villains".

You guys may think it's fine that most of the rest of the free world laughs at our draconian laws and our world-leading, high incarceration rates for these victimless crimes, but I don't think it's funny at all. I think it's a VERY EXPENSIVE, very unconstitutional attack upon your fellow Americans who have different sets of moral values than you guys do. It's a TRAGEDY, and I certainly wish you (this time, you personally, Jay) would rethink your point of view on this matter.

But, you asked for a solution, so I'll give the standard one. You legalize recreational drugs, you regulate them like you do your alcohol, tobbacco, and other dangerous items. You TAX it, and spend some of those taxes to educate people on the dangers of drug abuse. You use some of the billions of dollars you've been using to keep potheads on the lam and in the jails to help treat them, then you give us the rest of the tax money you've taken without permission to fund the "war on drugs" back to us. See, it's really a simple solution actually, and it remains pretty much, "Constitutional".

Regardless, if we must simply agree to disagree on this one, that will be okay, too. Blog ON...

Carl - The Gun-Toting Liberal

Three Stories: Have You Heard Any of Them?

2005-08-05T01:01:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

Three huge stories broke last week. Here's a brief rundown on each one:

First, The Salem Broadcasting Network, home of such conservative talk show hosts as Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt, was accused of shifting funds from a Boys and Girls Club to its own coffers, to the amount of well over nine hundred thousand dollars. There are allegations that both Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh may also be involved in the incident. This shifting of funds apparently caused the bankruptcy and closure of the charitable facility. To date, there has been no apology from Salem, or any of its on air voices. Also, there is no evidence that the amount has been paid back. The scandal appears to be widening.

Second, Senator George Allen (R-VA), often mentioned for the Republican Presidential nomination, loaned $470,000 to a Union President with whom he was having an affair. Reports indicate that Senator Allen forgave the loan recently, while toying with the idea of running for Governor of his home state. The same Union has recently endorsed Allen for Governor. Both Allen and the female union President deny any connection between the forgiveness of the loan and the endorsement...

And finally, a significant report on voter fraud, intimidation and suppression in the 2004 election was released on August 2nd. The report, released by the bi-partisan American Center For Voting Rights, shows widespread intimidation of Kerry voters in the days before the election, including paid Republican operatives slashing the tires of Kerry's "Get out the Vote" vans the night befor the election in Milwaukee. Also reported was the fire bombing of a local Kerry Campaign headquarters in Philadelphia. The report details multiple convictions in many states of Republican operatives related specific voter intimidation charges. There is little evidence of the kind of widespread voter suppression and abuse charged by either the RNC Chairman at the time, or the current chairman however.

Why have you not heard of any of these stories, unless you read the much maligned alternative media? How could such scandals not be on the front pages of the New York Times each and every day? Why have there been no "special reports" hosted by Peter Jennings, Brian Williams, and whatever Dan Rather replacement is at CBS right now? Because each and every one of the scandals involve Democrats, not Republicans.

The radio network involved in the ongoing scandal is of course Air America, the left's answer to conservative talk radio. And the Senator involved is not George Allen, but Jon Corzine, the Democrat Senator from New Jersey. You may have seen them together last year on the Sunday morning talk shows. Both Senators Allen and Corzine ran their party's Senate re-election campaigns in 2004. And, the widespread voter fraud, intimidation and suppression was done by Democrats, not Republicans. Let me repeat that, since you won't hear it anywhere else. NOT REPUBLICANS. Or conservatives, to be more accurate.

If any of the above scandals involved the Conservatives I mentioned above, does anyone seriously question how much coverage it would have received? Had the report found Republicans engaging in organized voter fraud, wouldn't ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBC have wall to wall coverage of the horror? They don't, though. Because it isn't Republicans, but Democrats convicted. Over and over, across the country, Kerry supporters engaged in active voter suppression and intimindation of Bush supporters.

Who hasn't heard of Rush Limbaugh's drug problem? It was story number one for days. Yet the Air America story has yet to be mentioned by the MSM. Any question why?

If you need more evidence of Journalism's left leaning bias, go here. The page chronicles poll after poll showing the ongoing lack of balance in newsrooms across the country, and the increasingly out of touch journalistic community.

But bias occurs on both sides. Everyone knows that. I mean the conservatives have FoxNews, and The Washington Times, and talk radio, right?

Wrong! If you combine all the so-called "new media" sources together, they don't hold a candle to the coverage, or non-coverage, provided by the MSM. The reality remains that a vast majority of Americans get their news from the very MSM sources that are most biased while claiming to be objective.

Well, so what? Does it really matter? Oh yes, it matters alot. A free press is the only non-governmental industry specifically named in The Constitution. The Founding Fathers understood clearly that the only way for a people to remain free was to remain informed. Journalists are supposed to fulfill that promise. As you can see from the three examples above, they are failing miserably.

Aren't you really just whining about life being "unfair?" Whining? Nope. For years, conservatives have known the bias of the MSM, and the control they had over the national agenda. Conservatives were forced to the back of the Journalistic bus, brought out only as token talking heads when needed.

That control is threatened today, threatened by the very forum you are reading. Blogs, and their older companion Talk Radio, have begun to shift the agenda. Dan Rather and CBS found that out the hard way, trying to influence an election with forged documents. Jordan Eason and CNN found out the same thing when Mr. Eason tried to run from some foolish, anti-American remarks. And most recently, my very own Senator Dick (D-IL) found out that the agenda had changed when he compared American soldiers at Gitmo to Nazis and Stalin and Pol Pot.

Yet, the biased agenda, and the denial, by the MSM continues. But it no longer continues in the darkness. Thanks to the power of the blogosphere, The Media Research Center , and such books as Coloring the News, Bias, Arrogance, Weapons of Mass Distortion and Blog, the MSM can no longer get away with their bias unchallenged. And the denials of such MSM journalists like Eric Alterman can't sweep away the reams of documented evidence. In fact, such denials in the face of the truth of liberal bias only make "journalists" like Alterman look increasingly out of touch with the "fly-over" country that used to buy his paper.

Three stories. Thanks to the New Media, they can be kept hidden no longer.

Updates:
Here's an update on the Air America scandal since I wrote this post for Balance of Power.
The Corzine scandal, and the deafening silence of the MSM on the voter report continue.

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

Well, I must begin by saying these HUGE stories seem to have eluded me in my sometimes 3x daily viewing of the news! *insert tongue in cheek laughter here* Wow... that one time you miss the news, three huge stories break?!?

I agree with Mark, in so far as the media is no longer portraying the full of the news but spinning with bias. That is as far as I will go with it however, because the problem is NOT a new problem and it was NOT contrived by the liberal media either. The ability to 'create history and have it say what you would have it say' is nothing new my friends. "History is written by the victors"

I must be missing something in this article Mark, because while your links supported your claims, I did not see the original news story links that were misinforming?? For example: You said that The Salem Broadcasting Network was accused yet the only links were on the Air America. Where was the accusation involving Salem Broadcasting Network--do you have an additional link that I am not finding here? You said that it was reported to be Senator Allen (R-Va) but your link showed it being a different Senator?? Where is the original that reported Senator Allen? Or was that a bit of sarcasm and tongue in cheek humor?

Anyway, back to these three HUGE news pieces:

Regarding the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club/Air America scandal:

Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club is a United Way funded Agency in New York. As such it is responsible for the appropriate use of funds and for making accurate report of all expenditures.

While there are those that might "zone in" on Air America and their lack of repaying funds--perhaps we should be looking at why in the WORLD was a United Way funded agency giving away money to anything or anyone that had nothing to do with the Boys and Girls of the Borough that they served? If this funded agency has been closed then good! GOOD! Obviously they are in desperate need of closure as they have lost site of those whom they are to serve and the proper usage of the funds that were allocated to them. The bigger problem here is (to my eyes) not that Air America got the money as it is--where was the oversight of allocations in a United Way funded agency? Where was the President or Accounting Dept in all of this? Once again, it is yet ANOTHER case of big business and government making sure that the disadvantaged of America get a bit more disadvantaged by the closing of an Agency that was meant to serve.

As to if a Senator bought a house for his mistress who happens to be a Union President--whoop de doo--its not the first time that its happened and it won't be the last I'm sure. Without the Unions in their corner, no candidate has much of a chance in an election. That has been going on since near the turn of the century when the Unions began. Once again, not a huge story and nothing new really.

The third story as to Voter Intimidation, I did take the time to read the report and was very sickened by its contents. I don't care WHO the candidates are: Republican or Democrat--tampering with the vote is an offense that should be punishable to the MAXIMUM. But... I would like to add the following to the dialogue:

http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm

This might be of great interest to some, who would like to believe that it is "impossible" to tamper with voting machines. Either way it only supports my own thoughts that we need to get back to a true vote, by secured ballot and/or election reforms.

Now, in my view, the news is to report what is news. Who will determine what is news? Who fact checks? What news agencies are willing to go to the line to report the news, even when Washington is attempting to censor the news? Those are the large questions in my mind. The Media is far too controlled by big money and personal agendas to accurately report much of anything anymore. The Mom and Pop Newspapers did and are still reporting the news in what I consider to be a more ethical fashion.

Why are we not hearing more about things like plans being made for war with Iran?

http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1981

Why are we not hearing about those that want to repeal Amendment 22 to our Constitution?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HJ00024:@@@X

Why did Halliburton sell nuclear reactor components to Iran if we are so worried about their nuclear capabilities and production?

http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=919

Why are we not hearing about how the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force is going against organizations like the Colorado American Indian Movement and the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center?

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18862&c=206

The news is slanted right now to the extent that whomever has the highest $$ and he who has the most powerful friends wins the cover-stories. Those that report the news as it is—well-- they end up printing retractions or cooling their polished pumps in the pokey for saying what the higher ups don't want to hear.

And "history is written by the victors" my friends... that is why the blogging has a huge responsibility to report it as it is, without fear. Because it is obvious that the mainstream media and those that are apparently 'vertically challenged' (i.e. leaning way left or way right) have their own agendas to follow, and reporting the ACTUAL NEWS is not part of that agenda.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Let me start by saying, I share Mark's angst over the lack of coverage of stories that had they been perpetrated my Conservative, would have lead the evening news. Anyone that thinks the Media does not have bias has not been paying attention. I really can't blame you though if you do, when I was a liberal I didn't notice it either, the news always seemed to agree with me, and I got allot of what I thought from the news. Only when I stopped doing that and started to think for myself did I become a conservative.

I found an article the other day that illustrated my point very well.

Sometimes liberal bias reflects a conscious choice by the reporter or editor. Sometimes it stems from mere laziness; it can take a lot of work to produce balanced news stories on a consistent basis. And a reporter under deadline pressure may just not understand the conservative viewpoint well enough to explain it in his story. So if the conservative expert he called doesn't call back in time, that perspective won't make it into the story.

But none of these are valid excuses. A reporter's job is to present a balanced story. (Of course, the reporter who tries but fails because he's just so rushed and can't get a conservative to comment deserves more understanding from you than the reporter who never bothers to call a conservative and regularly writes or broadcasts biased stories.)

As you read, listen and watch news stories you probably already notice stories that you think are biased. To see if they really are biased, you need to determine if the story falls into at least one of several forms in which bias occurs:

Types of Bias: Descriptions and Examples of Each

Bias by commission
Bias by omission
Bias by story selection
Bias by placement
Bias by the selection of sources
Bias by spin
Bias by labeling
Bias by policy endorsement or condemnation
More Than One Type in a Single Story
What Isn’t Bias

It goes on to quite fairly show what bias is and what causes it, both ways. Allot of what I read though leads me to believe that most bias is unintentional in nature and simply boils down to fast passed sloppy journalism. Enough intentional bias does occure however to be conserned about it. These biases are plain to see, and the main way to combat them is to admit it exists and to get your news from more than one source. Watch / read a conservative rag (Foxnews) and then a liberal one (CNN), and maybe throw in a foreign one as well (BBC). After all of that, think for yourself what sounds reasonable, because the truth lies somewhere in between.

Zaphriel - Birth of a Neocon

Playing the game of partisan politics: good for America, or an irresponsible practice?

2005-08-04T00:37:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

You see it on TV, and you see it in the bloggosphere; a clearly divided America where the right-wing bloggers and talking heads are all saying the same thing, day after day; and of course the same goes for the left-wing bloggers and talking heads. There are somehow always two points of view represented ONLY on each issue and everybody's on the same page, playing the "game" together; echoing their party's talking points of the day. It's freedom of speech, but is this good for our country?

Well, I don't think it IS good for our country; I think it's irresponsible, and I believe it harms America terribly. You cannot convince me that 200,000,000 Americans all believe one way on each issue while 200,000,000 other Americans feel exactly the opposite way. Yet, in the bloggosphere, and in the Mainstream Media, that is exactly how it is portrayed to be. Why do we allow the MSM and a small group of people in the RNC, and a small group of people in the DNC have their say with an automatic "Yes, we agree with you!" from the most outspoken from within their bases? We shouldn't, but we do.

So, why DO we give these people this much power? What entitles these people to be held to such a high level that we must sometimes violate our own common sense to echo their words day after day, week after week, year after year? In my opinion, it's all smoke and mirrors and the outspoken amongst us are wasting our true speaking and writing talents to promote the thoughts and ideas of so few people at the political "top".

The bloggosphere is full of extraordinary talent. People who are capable of reaching, and relating to every walk of life within America are selling the extremism of a rich and powerful few instead of simply voicing their own, independent thoughts and ideas. All the former does is continue our enslavement to the two-party system that has grown corrupt and a slave to big oil, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and other monopolies. Why do we bloggers fall for it when damn near NONE of us really want to see this Governmental "status quo" root itself in any more firmly than it already is?

I just do not GET it. Are we really THAT easy to manipulate? As I surf though the bloggosphere, if I didn't know any better; I could easily come to the conclusion that 90% of the political bloggers out there are nothing but a bunch of "Sean Hannity's" and "Howard Dean's" out there who are incapable of independent thoughts and ideas. The only thing I can figure out is everybody's afraid of getting "de-linked" by their buddies and buddettes if they voice an indepent point of view on a political issue. I refuse to waste my time reading their drivel.

In my opinion, we bloggers have a responsiblity to clean up the two-party system if we're going to keep it. Either that, or give voice to some of the third parties out there if they're correct in your own PERSONAL opinion. The DNC, and the RNC are NOT such perfect organizations that they deserve ANYBODY'S blind support.

Why is it asking too much for me to challenge the bloggosphere to remain as a place for fresh ideas to be expressed? We have collectively, both left and right, made a great impact upon our Government and the MSM to this point. But now, if you read the newspapers and then surf through the bloggosphere, you pretty much see the same issues and the same points of view being mirrored by both. We're getting complacent at a time when we were STARTING to take this country back. We cannot sit back and rest on our laurels. We MUST continue to put the pressure upon our Government, the RNC, the DNC, and the MSM. This is NO time to let up!

I appeal to ALL of my fellow bloggers, regardless of your BASIC ideological leanings, to remain INDEPENDENT and to express your individuality on your blogs. Please have the courage to speak out against your party if you disagree with the particular issue, or with one of your party's leaders. When a blogger DOES have the courage to do this, I appeal to the rest of you to encourage them to continue voicing their independent opinions on the matter, and do NOT de-link them. Independence and individuality are what our Founding Fathers were all about, and exactly what makes America so great. Do not just toss it into the garbage so you can remain popular within your small circle of bloggosphere influence.

We bloggers have made a difference. We can continue to make a difference. We can fix the problems in our country. We can put the power of the major parties back into the hands of the People, but it won't be easy, and it WILL take courage. You have the 1st Amendment at the tips of your fingers, so exercize it. EXERCIZE it! There is no "exercizing" going on if you are simply cutting and pasting, and putting your own "in-harmony" spin to your favorite party's talking points memos.

Just say "NO" to being a "talking points memo zombie".

Carl - The Gun-Toting Liberal

I could not agree more with GT's post. Anyone who has been over to Liberty Just in Case knows that while I'm unapologetically a Christian conservative, I'm no one's talking point zombie.

I began blogging as a way to not get fired for sending emails at my job. It worked, up to a point. I missed The Great Internet Purge, in which several employees were fired. I got off with a warning, sort of a bad mark on my "permanent record" right there next to kissing a girl named Sharon in front of the whole Kindergarten class, but that's another story...:-)

Blogging was fun, and I didn't take it seriously. It was just a way to keep my friends up to date on stuff I read. No big deal.

Then came September 11th. Watching people jump to their deaths rather than face a burning hell. Watching the towers fall, and the Pentagon attacked. And realizing, for the first time in my adult lifetime, my country was at war.

Blogging is still fun, but now its also deadly serious. Bloggers have changed the nation. Bloggers have uncovered media scandals. Bloggers have influenced elections. And bloggers have held the MSM, and both political parties accountable...perhaps for the first time in our history.

Hugh Hewitt, in his book Blog, compares the rise of the blogs to the invention of the printing press. I believe he's right. For the first time, people don't have to trust good 'ole Walter Cronkite for their news. They don't have to believe Peter Jennings, or Brian Williams, or Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else about what's happening in the world. You can go to a blog from Iraq, written by an Iraqi. You can read a blog out of Iran, written at great personal risk to the blogger. There's even a blog, specifically designed to protect fellow bloggers in totalitarian countries.

The world has changed. And its changed because of folks like us, sitting in our basements typing away. And I believe the world is better for the change. The folks that have controlled the keys to the information kingdom, aren't real thrilled. But their discomfort is part of the fun. As GT often says, Blog On!!!

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

Partisan politics is perhaps the greatest evil of political thought. In
ancient Rome, it divided first the Republic then later the Empire along
economic lines, forever driving a wedge between true compromise and fringe,
biased policies in government. Today, the same stands true of the politic
Americana. Will we compromise or will we suffer the torrents of government
by indignant disagreement that brought low that ancient society on whose
institutions we base our government?

In modern America, both citizens and politicians alike have forgotten or
choose to ignore the teachings of history, even those of the leaders who led
us into the gift of independence from tyranny. George Washington said, "They
[political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and
extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the
nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising
minority of the community." He warned us so because he knew that political
extremism is the only true fruit of partisanship. After all, such
partisanship was much more obvious and prevalent in those days. The
Revolutionary War was a war between Loyalists (to the crown) and Separatists
(those loyal to America). Sadly, even the warning of our greatest leader was
not enough to make us do right.

As if to add insult to injury, the Civil War should have reminded us once
and for all why partisan politics is so deadly. It wasn't a war over slavery
as soo many believe. It was, if we are honest, a war between Democrats and
Republicans over two opposing lifestyles. While Republicans today take
potshots at Democrats for being the "Party of Slavery", they were themselves
no less guilty of immorality in their then northern lifestyle. After all,
the industrial north was the land of massive factories, low wages,
relentlessly long work hours and infamous child labor. In effect, both
parties went to war with one another to fight each for a cause that was not
pure. This should have shown us once and for all that political parties are
an evil blight upon the land. Yet, even this was not enough to wash clean
our land of justifying blame by placing it on the opposition.

There really isn't much more to say about partisan politics. It's wrong and
it shouldn't be allowed to continue but what can we do about it? Too many in
our country are more loyal to their Party than to even their local sports
teams. How do we combat that kind of fanaticism? The answer is that we must
fight with every bit of resolve we can muster. We must not be afraid to
ridicule both parties for their fallacies and place the blame for their
mistakes firmly where it belongs: in the laps of the parties' leadership and
those voters who support them. Why should we allow ourselves to fall under
the control of Communists or Fascist-Reactionaries? We shouldn't, that's all
there is to it. Honor George Washington's wishes and we will honor
ourselves. God bless!

Joseph - The Independant Liberal

I agree with Carl. Speak your mind. Don't follow blindly. Stand for something you believe in. I will disagree right now with Bush's stance on border control, and I'll say he could do more for the environment. I have a few qualms with the Patriot Act, etc. I believe in the possibility of evolution. What else would you like me to say that strays from my party line talking points? I'm divided on stem cell research. I identify with a lot of libertarian ideas. I don't like big government. Both parties are corrupt. I think I appear a rightwinger just because I oppose almost everything the left has to say. Not always, but more often than I disagree with the right. All in all however, I'm an individual that speaks their mind. I'm an independent that will base my decision on the issues that matter to me, and not on talking points.

Jay - Stop the ACLU

I agree with Gun Toting Liberal that partisan politics is a real problem in our society today. When the large groups- the RNC and the DNC- conspire to think for a whole cross-section of people (largely whom they are out of touch with for the most part) the problem only grows larger and persons like myself, find that they are part of a minority of independent voices that are rarely heard in the rabble of the nation's political arena.

It used to be so simple really: If you were a business man or part of corporate America, you pretty naturally voted Republican. If you were middle class, blue collar folk, Union folk, you were Democrat.

When I entered the voting portion of America at age 18, I was Democrat because my father was. My father was a Union man and I remember well Reaganomics and how it shut down a large part of northern New Mexico's building and mining and forced us to leave our home to find work to keep our family afloat. A stark lesson I learned then about Big Government and its trickle down lesson to the "little guys". I remember being beneath voting age but actively campaigning for Mondale/Ferraro in the first election that I really sat up and took notice of. Ferraro was a woman that supported the right to choose and it was the first time I was confronted with the question:
"What do you do if you really like a candidate but one issue they stand for you personally oppose?" To me, I figured it this way: You can't have it all. You have to look at the majority of what you stand to gain and the minority of what you might stand to lose and ultimately choose. It was however, an election to remember for me.

When I registered to vote for the first time I registered as a Democrat. Why? It had little to do with partisan politics but because I learned early on that the Republicans were not for the blue collar man and I didn't want to see MORE families go through what mine went through in the 80's. It was fairly simple back then.

Now.. I look at our elections and political processes in a whole new way. I don't see it from the partisan ideology that I once did. Nothing is as cut and dry as it once was. I look at the bickering and squabbling and elections that seem to not 'jive' and I think to myself that the voice of lil ol' Mr. and Mrs. America just isn't being heard anymore. When the polls say one thing and the end results come out totally different, we have to stop and say.. okay... WHY? Why if over 1/2 the nation says "NO" to something, is it going on anyway?

I agree that "partisan think" no longer works and I believe that the voices of the people once again need to be heard in our country. I believe that the independent thinkers, problem solvers, dreamers and believers need to retake this nation and move it away from the Big Voices of Big Money and put this nation back on track, because I believe it is going astray.

The DNC and RNC do not speak for me. In truth, they probably never have! When a Bill can be passed that limits MY freedoms, has the potential to change time and seasons, to remove my ability to purchase natural supplements and herbs, to track me in my own homeland then I know that neither party in Washington is speaking for me or even LISTENING to me. When I write to Congressional Leadership and receive back form letters without having ever been truly recognized for my voice to them, its time to ask ourselves “Why are these persons even IN Washington? They don’t care about my opinion, they are not public servants—they are servants of themselves and their own personal agendas!”

I believe that we need to limit these people in their ability to serve us for such long periods of time and we need to get some fresh people on Capitol Hill, that still have the courage and tenacity to speak and be HEARD. I believe we need to get away from the Big Partisan Politics and move back to the real counts of the real voices. Old fashioned election by ballot system and a hand count. It may seem undoable but nothing is undoable if we apply the stick-to-it initiative that this nation once had. We need to come back, America—back to our roots. And as for me and my blog—we will continue to speak the truth as we see it.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Won’t You Be My NeighborReligious Diversity and Tolerance in America

2005-07-30T18:16:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

I was raised Italian Roman Catholic. It was these values and beliefs that shaped the early portion of my life. It was what I knew and it was all I knew, as a long time ago I remember being taught by the nuns:

“Don’t ever date or get serious with anyone who is not a Catholic. It could never last.”
“Do not attend a church that is not Catholic because it is a sin.”

Yet, I remember well the Romany Gypsies that lived up the street from us in Southern California. Their ways, beliefs and very bohemian life style was something that I appreciated even as a small child.

I was about 11 when I first stepped foot into another church. The first was the Baptist church in our small town, where I had been invited to attend Vacation Bible School with a friend. I remember thinking, how wonderful it was to be able to play games and color and create things and not be doing what was “normal” to my religious way. The next one was a Pentecostal church called “The Lighthouse”. These too were very welcoming.. UNTIL they learned that I was Catholic, at which point I was pointed directly to the book of Revelations (Apocalypse to me, it was!) and was told that I belonged to a Church that was going to send me straight to hell. It scared me so bad I didn’t sleep that night wondering how, when or why I had warranted such a punishment. At that moment, the nun’s advice didn’t seem like such a bad thing anymore.

Later in life, I traveled throughout the country doing Youth Ministry for the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and then later took a job as the Office Manager and Youth Minister for the Renewal in New Mexico. It fit, like a comfy slipper UNTIL the day I divorced my first husband and for all practical purposes it appeared that the Church that I served no longer had much use for me unless I was willing to remain unmarried for the rest of my life. This began what I would consider my “spiritual education phase”, in which I came to study and get to know many spiritualities and belief systems.

It was in my spiritual walk as it is now, that I have found a great wisdom and solace and balance that my life needed, though it resembles not –anything that had ever been my path or teachings prior. In this spiritual walk, I have encountered many who have taunted, criticized, shunned and otherwise been hurtful in many ways. I have also met some of the most brilliant minded persons as well—persons that I would not have otherwise have had the good fortune to meet, had I not been willing to open my mind and heart to those that believed outside of the “Big Three”. Some of the most wonderful people that I have known are: Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans, Atheists and even a few CoS members as well!

Thus the point of this topic for the Balance of Power: Can we not get along, though we believe differently in this Nation? Must we constantly banter, pick, squabble and condemn others to a hell (that many don’t believe in, anyways) and if so—what do we GAIN personally from such carryings-on?

Does the fact that Pagans do not believe in nor worship Jesus mean that they cannot freely wear their pentacles in full view in their workplace or school? In many cases…it is exactly what it means! They are accused of myriad things that are simply untruths and forced to remain in what is commonly called “The Broom closet”.

Must all followers of Islam now bear the stigma of a few bad eggs and now become open game to anyone who would ridicule, misjudge or look at them warily due to 9/11? Must their children be forced to file suit in court because they choose to wear the head covering that is traditional and part of their religion because the schools find it “distasteful or distracting”?

Must Jews be made to have their holy days of Channukah overshadowed by Nativity Scenes and Christmas Trees on public property and in public schools?

But it is not only the “other religions” but also Christianity is today, suffering staggering blows in the nations’ courts and taunts of those that are not Christian to remove all traces of the Lord’s Prayer or the Sermon on the Mount?

What do we really gain, by attacking one another’s Spirituality? I submit that we must begin to open our minds and become knowledgeable first in what others believe and why and second in how we might accommodate and be peaceful neighbors in the United States in the 21st Century. We must cease to point fingers and begin to close our mouths if we will remain closed minded.

While many of the Nation’s Forefathers were Christian not all were. They found a way to get along peaceably while not brow-beating others. Their way was Freedom of Religion for all. If we will allow the Ten Commandments in the classrooms, we must be also willing to give equal time to others belief systems. If we cannot find a compromise then we have no business establishing the preeminence of one while disallowing the others. What would be our issue with the sayings of Jesus on a wall, as well as the sayings of the Buddha, or Mohammed, or the Dalai Lama? Are we that easily threatened by the possibility that the Heaven’s might embrace us all and that there might actually be room in this Nation for all?

So let’s talk about being neighbors, about being open-minded and see if we can put our thoughts and hearts to work on a problem that needs solving in our Nation today.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Growing up in a broken home I went to a Southern Baptist Church one weekend, and a pentacostal Church of God on the other. I hated going to Church. It was boring to me as a kid. But I didn't have a choice in the matter.

In my teen years I studied the Bible, especially the book of Revelations deeply and dilagently. I was probably more well versed and knowlegably as the average adult at 13.

It became a passion to study the deep questions of life. I found it fascinating to study all the religions I could get my hands on. I've studied mysticism, Buddism, Hinduism, Satanism, Wiccansim, etc. What I found most interesting was not what they differed on, but on the basic principles they all shared.

So, you don't have to worry about religious tolerance from me. I could be defined as agnostic, because while I believe in God, I don't label he/her. I believe there is a God, but I also know it is beyond human understanding. I know how I was forced to go to Church and how I'm sure some little Buddhist boy is being treated in a similar fashion. So, we grow up with our values instilled, and for many religions told if we believe any other way we will burn in hell. I can't imagine that personally. I can't imagine an all loving, all forgiving God to burn someone who lived a good life as a Buddhist, from day one having those morals instilled and told it is the ONLY way to the truth. Then again, I'm open to all kinds of possibilities, I'm even open to the idea of reincarnation, which doesn't contradict anything in the Bible.

I am a Christian, saved by the grace of God too. I believe that Jesus was a man that was one with God. I believe he sacrificed his human life and shed his blood to save the soul of mankind.

I also believe that our founding fathers intended for us to worship as we saw fit. And I also believe in evil. I see it every day. And one of the evil intolerances we face today are those far left groups and individuals that want to supress our freedom of religion, especially if it is Christian. I believe in tolerance, but only to a degree. I will not tolerate a religion that imposes on MY rights or the rights of others. If there is a religion that promotes killing, I will not tolerate those teachings. If there is a religion that tolerates rape, I will not tolerate it. And if there is a religion such as secular humanism, that wants to supress mine and your rights to worship where and when we feel like it, be it school, work, or whatever....I will not tolerate that evil either.

Jay - Stop the ACLU

If all those on the Left believed as Patricia does, there would be far less to blog about over at Liberty Just in Case. I firmly agree with much of her post.

Sadly, since 1947, when Hugo Black unearthed an obscure letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists, the Supreme Court has not. As Justice Renquist said in his dissent to Sante Fe School District v Doe, the Court "bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life."

This hostility has flowed from the highest court in the land to all sections of our society. In fact, it appears the one group it is politically correct to attack and lampoon in this culture are Christians. But the hostility to religion affects all faiths, including, according to Patricia, Pagans.

This hostility must come to an end where it started, at the Supreme Court. The horrendous decisions made by this Court, with the aid of The American Civil Liberties Union, must be stopped. The only sure way to stop it is to encourage President Bush to nominate strict constructionists to the Court, and for Republicans, and the few remaining Conservative Democrats, to support these nominations.

I have great concerns on both counts. I worry that President Bush will follow in his Father's footsteps, nominating a supposed conservative who becomes one of the most liberal justices on the court. In effect, nominating another Souter. The reams of documents released on John Roberts have gone a long away toward relieving my fears, but the fears remain. And for a conservative, the concerns about liberal Republicans like Snow, Chaffee, and the rest is always there. Just because Republicans control Congress does not mean Conservatives do.

Ronald Reagan said it best:

The Constitution was never meant to prevent people from praying; its declared purpose was to protect their freedom to pray.

This freedom remains under attack, no matter who or what you pray to. And the attacks begin in the lofty halls of The Supreme Court.

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

Where Is The Balance of Power?

2005-07-28T00:06:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

The only tool available to the political process is the application of force toward ends desired by the governing body. There is no political action that does not involve such an application of force. These ends universally lay in peace and prosperity; no political movement has ever promised its followers abject poverty and misery. It is on the application of force that each party disagrees.

All political parties descend from the acceptance of one of two contrary (as opposed to contradictory) propositions: either men possess harmonious rightly-understood self-interests in the action of which all benefit, or there exists a fundamental discord between the rightly-understood self-interests of men in the action of which all benefits must come at the expense of harm to others. Either peaceful social cooperation is possible and necessary for life, or men must be forced like repulsing magnetic poles to interact.

Consider the implications of both propositions. I will list a few, and we'll see how they relate to our political scene.

1. A party founded on the first proposition will seek to limit the function of government to the suppression of those pernicious self-interests which can only be expressed through force. The law is seen as having one function: to protect the innocent man from the criminal. Government is seen to exist to apply force toward those who would violently dissolve social relations. Government is seen as a "night watchman."

A party founded on the second proposition will seek to extend the function of government into the realm of social relations and the suppression of those rightly-understood self-interest upon which men act peacefully. The law is seen as having two functions: to protect the innocent man from the criminal, and to protect the innocent man from himself. Government is seen as a nanny.

To some degree both major parties in America have adopted a little of both propositions. As Bastiat said, those who would mold mankind in their own image at some point, different to each, realize the implications of their beliefs, and then spend the rest of their lives trying to backtrack; hence the infinitely varied plans of the utopians. Yet it should be easy to see which proposition a party is most heavily influenced by. There are some advocates of each party who will point out policies of the opposing party as examples of the latter's expanded powers over peaceful action, and some who will publicly acknowledge which proposition they uphold. Look to the aggregate, however. In the course of the 20th century, which American political party has upheld the most policies influenced by the second proposition? It is quite easy to see that the Democratic party has been the driving force behind the expansion of government action into social relations.

2. A party founded on the first proposition will hold that the individuals in government, possessing rightly-understood self-interests identical to the rest of the population, can no more justly suppress those interests than any member of the population. These individuals in government are limited to the protection of the rightly-understood self-interests of the population, this protection being synonymous with rights. The function of government is seen to be the protection of the equal rights of the population from individuals both within and without government. A party so founded will hold that government must be limited in its actions, and that the individuals in government be held accountable to the rest of the population. A government so founded will be a constitutional republic, which possesses democratic processes so that the will of the majority, limited by the equal rights of each individual, is expressed.

A party founded on the second proposition must hold that the individuals in government be of a qualitatively different caliber than the rest of men. They cannot be held accountable to the public, whose natural inclination is the destruction of social relations, and so must exist as a separate and alien class of men. They must possess self-interests different than the majority of mankind, and cannot properly be said to be given permission in their actions. A government so founded cannot be held accountable to the public, cannot be limited in its functions by the public's will, and inherently cannot possess democratic processes.

In this implication, more than in the previous one, it is seen more easily which American political party has sought gradual delegations of power from elected assemblies into unelected positions. To broaden my focus, I will point out that the only conclusion possible from the second proposition is the complete consolidation of political power into a single unelected governing body.

3. A party founded on the first proposition will, holding that there exists by the nature of man equal rights common to all humans, see no issue in international trade. International law, as with domestic law, will be seen to have as its only function the protection of peaceful social relations against violence. The foreign policy of such a government will focus upon dictatorial nations, nations which oppress citizens, and will have no say in peaceful international relations.

A party founded on the second proposition will hold that there exists, even more than within a nation, an inherent discord between the self-interests of the inhabitants of each nation. International law will, as with domestic law, concern itself not only with violent actions but with peaceful social interaction. International trade will become an issue, and the government will concern itself with the level of imports and exports and other trade relations.

In this implication, there is a much finer distinction between the major American political parties. Whereas both accept the implication that international trade relations falls within the domain of international law, it is possible to determine to what degree each acts toward the regulation of international trade. I will leave it to the other posters to decide which party embodies in a greater degree the regulation of trade.

4. A party founded on the first proposition will hold that education be placed within the solid jurisdiction of the people closest to the children, people who have the least latitude for the expression of pernicious interests. The goal of education is seen as the expansion of knowledge, not an institution of social change to remodel humans. There is no need seen to suppress the rightly-understood self-interests of students through education. A party so founded will seek to decentralize as much as possible a public education system so the decisions are made as close to the parents as possible.

A party founded on the second proposition will hold that education must train youth to suppress their rightly-understood self-interests and adopt different self-interest identical to that of government officials. Education will be placed within the hands of a centralized governmental body, as it cannot be left to the decisions of parents whose pernicious self-interests are destructive of social relations. The goal of education is seen as the protection of society by remolding students to the correct morality. Public education becomes an institution for social change.

On this implication, it is also clear to see which major American political party has influenced more heavily the public education system in the 20th century.

From this brief list, it should be apparent that the driving force of the Democratic party has been the expansion of governmental power over the sphere of voluntary social relations, and that to a large extent this drive is also behind the Republican party. To the extent that both have been directed by the second proposition, they have expanded the powers of government to interfere with peaceful social cooperation. A compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans will most likely occur in a dispute over the degree to which government may encroach on social relations, not over whether such a power is just. I hold that most political debate now is a matter of degree, and not a matter of two opposing principles. In many political issues, it is the second proposition that is at the heart of both sides. What then, does political moderation mean? In practice, it now means a compromise between two policies both of which seek the same immediate end: the expansion of government power into peaceful social relations.

Observe the tenor of political debate. Much of it concerns quantitative issues: how much welfare is justified, how much of a course must be taught in school, how large a tax ought to be imposed on cigarettes, how many import tariffs are proper, how old should one be to recieve welfare benefits, how much control over telecommunications should the government possess, how many months after conception does abortion become illegal. Few issues are now framed qualitatively. Such a qualitative debate can only occur when there is a difference of opinion regarding principle. Only then, is there a meeting of two minds; otherwise, the debate is more of a stuttering monologue. A political debate which devolves upon a matter of degree, only offers an opportunity to slow down the direction of a political movement. It is a compromise of the same sort an executioner gives when he offers the convict a decision between death by hanging or by guillotine. A political debate which devolves upon a matter of principle, however, offers the opportunity to achieve a real difference of belief. The outcome of such a debate is qualitatively different than the outcome of a debate over degree. It also, incidentally, makes more visible the political differences between the two parties.

To that end, I propose the following. In most political discussions, the first question one asks is of quantity. "How large should the minimum wage be?" or "how many people should be eligible for this medical aid?" I ask that those seeking actual political moderation, a meeting of opposing minds and principles, ask first a qualitative question. Ask not how much of a policy should be implemented, but whether it should be implemented at all. Only then can one begin to delve into quantitive issues. And, it makes debaters far more honest about the origins of their politics.

Tom - Hamster Motor

Hmmm. Since I do not have a thesaurus handy, let me see if I can get this
straight before I begin.

Tom is basically, pointing out that there is no longer a TRUE Democrat
Party, or TRUE Republican Party to represent the original idealogies of the
founders of both parties today in America. He is saying the country is
being run by "Republicrats" and "Demicans", and that all people in either
group are "socialists" of varying degrees in the end. Then, it seems the
point of his post is for all of us to admit that before we engage in a
discussion.

Okay, Tom; I admit it. We're all a bunch of socialists to varying degrees.
Now, with all due respect, what was the point of your post today? You've
left me grasping at straws, my friend.

Are you calling for more weight to be given to the arguments and ideologies
of 3rd parties? If so, I agree, which is why I am no longer a died in the
wool Democrat, but a proud independent voter. I am able to see the line
between the two major parties has become blurred, almost beyond the point of
distinct recognition.

IF this was the point of your post, then I am in FULL agreement with you.
The problem with 3rd parties is the fact that their voices are suppressed by
the mainstream media and the Government. When is the last time a 3rd party
candidate was given a fair voice in a major campaign? Look to the last
Governor's race in California, where nearly EVERY ideology was represented
in the debates. It was a beautiful thing. As for a Presidential race, look
to the year where Ross Perot was given fair voice and was able to take
nearly a 5th of all casted votes, and was even able to win the electoral
votes of a state (Alaska). We need more of this. It *used* to be the
"American Way", and it helps keep the Government honest.

If this was NOT the main point of your post, please clarify for the sake of
the benefit of "lesser minds" such as mine, please.

Carl - The Gun-Toting Liberal

Wow! This is a deep one. I don't even know if I fully understand it all, but I'll give it a shot. There were many issues touched upon. The main question asked were whether certain things should even be done, instead of the question of how much they should be done. What can one say? The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind.

In the better angels of our nature there is a human quality of soul that shines in its goodness like the sun, and pierces the darkness deep within even the most evil. It struggles against the greed and selfish evil in our nature. We stand there grey in the middle.

A little poet came out there, and is trying to say that our human nature is divided, and it is reflected in the bigger self of society. Both of these parties exist in the experiment of society, the left and the right. Both have portions of our nature. Democracy should enable us to use our collective concioussness to decide where this society meets in the middle. However, both parties are corrupted with the evil temptation of power.

One party has the power, and the other desires it. One seems to have lost its mind in its tactics to regain it. Political moderation can not exist when both parties are obsessed with power instead of policy. Our founding fathers put the checks and balances in to balance this power. Thank God the true power is really in the people. Sadly too many don't fully realize this.

One party puts itself on the empowering of the individual, and the other believes in the power government guided society. One relys on competition, and the other on compassion. Both of these are within mankinds nature, and a functioning society needs a balance of both.

It all comes down to Reason and Passion. I may have missed the entire point of this discussion, but I will end it with one of my favorite poems.

Reason And Passion

By Kahlil Gibran

And the priestess spoke again and said:

"Speak to us of Reason and Passion."

And he answered saying:

Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against passion and your appetite.

Would that I could be the peacemaker in your soul, that I might turn the discord and the rivalry of your elements into oneness and melody.

But how shall I, unless you yourselves be also the peacemakers, nay, the lovers of all your elements?

Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.

If either your sails or our rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.

For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.

Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion; that it may sing;

And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.

I would have you consider your judgment and your appetite even as you would two loved guests in your house.

Surely you would not honor one guest above the other; for he who is more mindful of one loses the love and the faith of both.

Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows - then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."

And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky, - then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."

And since you are a breath In God's sphere, and a leaf in God's forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion.

Jay - Stop the ACLU

Global Warming - Science or Science Fiction?

2005-07-23T11:12:00.000-07:00

"A team led by University of Maine scientists has reported finding a potential link between changes in solar activity and the Earth's climate. … The researchers' goal is to understand what drives the Earth's climate system without taking increases in greenhouse gases into account, says Mayewski. 'There are good reasons to be concerned about greenhouse gases, but we should be looking at the climate system with our eyes open,' he adds." - source

Their research suggests that climate changes are cyclic and the sun effects these changes in drastic ways.
They are backed up by other research from around the world.

"Since the middle of the last century, the Sun is in a phase of unusually high activity, as indicated by frequent occurrences of sunspots, gas eruptions, and radiation storms. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Katlenburg-Lindau (Germany) and at the University of Oulu (Finland) have come to this conclusion after they have succeeded in reconstructing the solar activity based on the sunspot frequency since 850 AD. … The temporal variation in the solar activity displays a similarity to that of the mean temperature of the Earth." - source

Hmmm, global warming could be a natural cycle?

Several other articles and sources exist that explain that while we contribute to global warming we have not appreciably speed up the cycle, and that it is a cyclic effect, not a permanent change, that occurred well before man modernized, and likely will continue to occur without our presence. Has anyone here heard of the multiple ice ages? They occurred with out us. Weather shifts, the environment shifts, we are making little to no dent in the overall picture.

The solutions to the "problems", treaties like Kyoto, are having little positive environmental effect, and possibly huge economic effect.

"This report is the annual submission of the greenhouse gas inventory of the European Community to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It presents greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2003 by individual Member State and by economic sector. The report shows that, between 2002 and 2003, emissions in the 15 old member states increased by 53 million tons, or 1.3% and total EU emissions increased by 1.5%." - source

"…Relying on numbers from the Clinton Administration, the chairman of the White House Council of Environmental Quality recently told Congress that if the U.S. ratified the Kyoto Protocol it would cost our economy up to 400 billion dollars and cause the loss of almost five million jobs." - source

So there are those out there willing to spend 400 billion dollars and lose 5 Million jobs over a natural cycle of the earth? Talk about being out of synch.

I am not willing to take such radical risks over something that has very little steam behind it, and that more and more we are finding occurs with or without our interference. Mother Earth is much stronger than we give her credit for. We are finding more and more that God's crown jewel creation is more miraculous than we ever thought. She self heals and self corrects. While we must be mindful of what we do for our own comfort (most animals don't like to sit in their own waste), and we should be mindful of our own resources (there is a limited supply of fossil fuels), we should also not loose our heads and have knee-jerk reactions to long-term science.

So to answer my own questions, is it real? Yes it is, it has been around however for millennia.

Can we change it? Yes, but only slightly, we should be much more concerned about our own air quality and limited resources.

Is it our fault? No, not really.

Zaphriel - Birth of a Neocon

I have seen studies that claim its the end of the world coming, and other scientist prove it as false. Back and forth. Personally, I think the liberal cry that the sky is falling is overexaggerated. On the other hand, I don't have anything against efforts to improve the environment. There really isn't much we can do about it, but hey, lets fight it...I'm all for it. However, lets always carefully weigh our priorities. Start riding your bike to work before you point fingers at me driving my car.

Jay - Stop the ACLU

Is the Earth getting warmer? Or is it getting colder? Will we run out of fossil fuels in the next ten years, the next hundred, or, as some environmentalists confidently predicted in the 70's and 80's, did we already run out as of the year 2000? And what about the rain forests? Supposedly they are being destroyed faster than we can replenish them. In fact, if you listen to the leftist environmentalists, they may already be gone. And the oceans? Dead, or dying, with no hope of recovery.
No hope.
All gone.
Oh, and one more thing.
It's your fault. And mine.
And only through your generous contributions, or tax money, given to your favorite radical environmentalist lobbying group can the planet be saved.

There is a vested interest in pessimism for the special interest group known as environmentalism. The radical environmentalist agenda is a buisness, and a profitable one for groups like GreenPeace, The Sierra Club, and others on the left. And the only way to keep the contributions coming in is to ratchet up the fear, to increase the panic. Even at the cost of telling the truth.

But, like Chicken Little, the cries of the leftist environmentalists are wearing thin, as some scientists are beginning to break free of the politically correct shackles that have kept them from examining the facts without bias. The following is an incomplete list of a few of those scientists and think tanks that have decided to look at the facts, rather than the fear:

The Pacific Research Institute releases a yearly study, examining the lateston the environment, and the hype that keeps the dollars flowing to the leftist extremists. Their most recent report can be found here.

NewEnvironmentalism.org is a think tank dedicated to exploring free market solutions to real environmental problems, rather than the over-hyped ones created by the left. The links section is worth reading in and of itself.

Of course there is Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, who systematically takes apart the scare stories of the leftist environmentalists in a way few others could.

And one of my favorite sites is JunkScience.com. They not only take on the leftist environmentalists, but much of the mythology of the nanny society being thrust upon us all.

Few topics raise the hysteria level more than the mythos of Global Warming and environmental collapse. And even fewer have so little basis in real scientific inquiry. The first rule of a healer is "First Do No Harm." By allowing the Left to control this issue for so long, we run the risk of ignoring real environmental problems in favor of those issues that can raise the most hype, and contributions, for the leftist organizations dependent on the hysteria. And in so doing, hurting the very planet we are trying to save.

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

Great topic Zaph. There is much too much blind hysteria surrounding what I believe to be one of the great canards of our time. Indeed, those scientists in Europe are not alone in their skepticism:

At a news conference held in Ottawa, some of North America's foremost climate experts provided evidence demonstrating that the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed; a problem that continues to be ignored by the Canadian government.

Some of us have been pointing this out for years. There are so many problems with the theories produced that it is almost incomprehensible that so many governments, pseudo-governments (UN) and environmental groups ran with this.

Carleton University Professor Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist) explains the crucial importance of properly evaluating the merit of Canada's climate change plans: "It is no exaggeration to say that in the eight years since the Kyoto Protocol was introduced there has been a revolution in climate science. If, back in the mid-nineties, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

Hopefully more scientists will see this as a call to come out of the closet, so to speak. The "global warming" hysteria has had far too many truly objective scientists afraid to speak out for fear of losing government grants and unwarranted hazing from scientists riding the GW gravy train.

Contrary to claims that the science of climate change has been settled, the causes of the past century's modest warming is highly contested in the climate science community. The climate experts presenting in the video demonstrate that science is quickly diverging away from the hypothesis that the human release of greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide, is having a significant impact on global climate. "There is absolutely no convincing scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gases are driving global climate change", stated climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball.

In the halls of Turtle Bay and the streets of Paris and Berlin, people would have you believe that human caused global warming is as much a fact as gravity. Perhaps more bravery like that shown by these scientists will bring those people back to reality. Hell, who am I kidding, people treat environmentalism like religion.

Indeed, the effects of signing on to Kyoto are already taking their toll on countries such as New Zealand which is estimated to account for about .2% of global greenhouse emissions:

The cost of a Government Kyoto Protocol botch-up could soar as high as $1.2 billion, more than double that estimated by the Treasury last month, a new report claims.

The Government last month admitted that it had miscalculated New Zealand's greenhouse gas growth, for which it is liable under the Kyoto Protocol, resulting in an embarrassing $500 million bill rather than a $500m credit.

But the situation could be even worse, accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) says.

The PWC analysis shows the company believes the $500m bill estimate is also wrong. It believes the liability will be more like $1.2b to $1.7b above the original estimate.

That is just one country, and a small one at that. My guess is that we will soon start hearing about more and more of the negative impact ratifying Kyoto is having on world economies.

Liberty Dog - One Billion Red Chinese and a Dog Named Liberty

I want to be short and to the point about global warming because I've blogged on the subject so many times before. Here it goes.

Global warming is supported by both evidence that points to a human connection and also evidence that points to a cyclical explanation. It is or should be obvious that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Humans DO influence global warming, though the specific amount is not as yet determined. On the other hand, geographical and other data shows that ice ages come and go and have continually done so for the last few million years at least. This fact suggests that the majority of global warming may in fact be part of a cycle. However, it does not explain why global temperatures are rising at such extreme rates; In nature, such widespread changes are almost unheard of. This evidents that humans, while not the root cause, are in fact speeding up to some degree the natural process of global warming. This fact is glazed over by too many corporate researchers, GOP-oriented scientists and even many who simply don't understand what they are talking about. These individuals seek to downplay the human side of global warming in an attempt to justify the continued allowance of unrestricted or poorly restricted pollution into the environment as a method of saving profits. This is not, should not and by me, will not be tolerated. While we may not be the only or even the main cause of global warming, we ARE making it worse and we ARE destroying the environment. The more we damage the Earth, the more we weaken its ability to sustain us. Anyone who is willing to risk this all for profits shouldn't be in elected office and shouldn't be running a company.
That's all I have to say on the matter.

Joseph - The New Oklahoma Democrat

Genetically Modified Foods

2005-07-18T19:35:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

The topic that I have chosen for discussion is the development and usage of Genetically Modified Food, or GM foods for short.

While some scientists have heralded these products as a method to bring nutrients, immunities and antibiotic properties to the world, there is a large debate in the scientific community as to the safety of these products over the long haul. Some people feel that the "chemical cocktail" of GM additives with hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and other chemicals that are already in our foods could pose a threat to humans.

Many of us, may remember the movie that starred Lily Tomlin in the 80's called "The Incredible Shrinking Woman". In the movie, Lily's character is inadvertently exposed to large volumes of products that interact to a toxic level that causes her to shrink, shrink, shrink. At the time-- who would have thought that our foods and products could have such adverse effects? Yet that has BECOME the reality.

So what is Genetic Modification?

A short course on it is that seeds are stripped of their original DNA that governs their immune and reproductive systems. Then an additive is applied to it to make the seed germinate, it is immunized and added to and then comes to fruition. All of the additives become part of the plant. The effects of these additives and our ingestion of them and also the ingestion by birds, bees, insects, other plants and animals has not been tested for a very long amount of time, yet the technology has been approved and is in widespread usage.

Traces of the "growth additives" have been found on every organic farm in the United States and are expected to be found everywhere in the world over the course of time.

At this time there is very little legislation that governs Genetic Modified foods. Most companies do not even TELL their consumers that they are using genetically modified ingredients. To my knowledge there is also no legislations saying that they MUST divulge this information. There is no legislation that requires Genetically modified crop farmers to tell other local farmers that they are using this particular type of crop. The ramification of this is that in the pollenization of plants, the GM crosses over to other farmers’ crops.

Following is a brief list of some genetically altered and non-genetically altered products that are currently in use in the United States:

http://www.truefoodnow.org/shoppersguide/guide_printable.html

I personally find it reprehensible that the list of infant products is as long as it is. What are we giving to our babies from the first moments of their lives?? What could be the ramifications of the ingestion of them?
Could there possibly be a link in the surge of ADD/ADHD, Autism, etc... that we are seeing in children relating to the ingestion of these products??

Well.. that is part of the problem! They have not been studied long enough to really KNOW.

And before people begin with the: "But if it is cleared through the FDA for consumption it MUST be okay" debate--let us remember that the FDA also cleared products that have later proven to be detrimental for human consumption: Vioxx, Celebrex, Aspartame, Phen-Fen, just to name a few.
The limits of BIG business seem to be very vague, when the potential to make money is in the multi-billions of dollars!

In the United States approximately 80 million acres are raising genetically modified crops yet while we are consuming these products on a daily basis other nations have very stiff laws and penalties for those producers who do NOT label and comply with the laws regarding GM foods. Some of which are: Great Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, Belgium-- virtually ALL of the European nations have taken very STRICT action regarding GM foods and Latin America and Asia are beginning to catch on in the banning and restrictions on these products. So where are WE in our knowledge of what we each consume three times per day, 365 days per year?

I hope that this article will challenge you all to look into the evidence on GM foods and make informed choices. Also, that it will inform your conscience to making good choices at the Polls and in the dissemination of information regarding GM foods to all those that you love.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

This is very alarming indeed, Pat. Of course the FDA is notoriously famous
for jumping into bed with big biz every time a buck can be made. To think
they are looking out for our welfare and safety is a JOKE… and a sad one at
that. Any time you have a Government so tightly in bed with super corps
such as Bayer, and DuPont, you’re going to have a case of the foxes guarding
the proverbial “hen house”.

Call me a “conspiracy theorist” if it makes you feel better, but I do not
for one SECOND put it past this Government to make BILLIONS of “big
business” dollars at the expense of human lives, including those of their
own countrymen.

Now that I’ve gone there, I am not convinced GM foods are bad. Neither are
some experts. But that is not the point! The point is, there is credible
evidence to suggest there are dangers associated with the consumption, and
production of these organic products. That should be enough in itself to
force the placing of those “Government warning labels” on these foods when
they enter the marketplaces. After all, this IS a country where there are
some growing demands for warning labels on twinkies and soda pop.
Additionally, strict Government regulation and a lot more research are
OBVIOUSLY warranted in this field.

Yes, I know I just condoned the “fox guarding the hen house” after
suggesting it’s not a good idea. But this is ONLY the case because of the
fact that THIS Government is bought, sold, poisoned, and PAID for by big
business. GM foods are only a tiny symptom of a HUGE illness; a corrupted
Government that has become separate from it’s People. The only cure for
this is to take our country back out of the hands of the corrupted
businessmen and lawyers and start putting regular, everyday, middle-classed
and lower-classed Americans like ourselves back into power - in a massive
shakeup of the government, too; not just one American at a time.

Too many people forget that we COMMON folks still hold the great ability to
wage a peaceful, Constitutional coup, and as soon as ’08. Why do we have to
let the media present two choices for us and say “pick one”? Answer: We
DON’T. And do not forget, the “big media” becomes less and less significant
with every passing day. There is still hope for America.

I’m sorry if this seems to have gone off-topic to some, but to me, it is a
very ON-TOPIC response to the GM foods debacle. Thanks for alerting us to
this, Pat. I find it appalling, and alarming.

Carl -The Gun-Toting Liberal

Organic foods are the way to go. Society allows this, and has promoted it by their acceptance. We all eat all this processed crap. Its our own fault that we allow these companies to produce all this junk. We are an obese nation that consumes in a gluttonious fashion.

Laziness has gotten us here. I don't think the convience of injecting cows with hormones is worth it. Corn feed those suckers. Again its our own fault for allowing it....start checking your foods, and only buy organic if it bothers you so much. Don't sacrifice convience for whatever health risks may be there.

I do agree they should label them all so you can make that informed choice. Thanks for making me think on this one.

Jay - Stop the ACLU

Wow, I didn't think it was possible, but this is another one of those issues I just cant get myself excited about. While I do like to know what is in my food, it really does not concern me way too much.

The move towards genetically enhanced foods, has allot to do with the attitude of it's consumers. We all want more orange oranges, and juicier cuts of meat, and redder tomatoes, that are not overly ripe nor under ripe. We want Bananas that last forever on the top of the refrigerator, and we want milk that both tastes good and lasts a really long time.

The farmers and AgCorps are just providing us the product we demand. Maybe, in the interest of choice, they should label modified and un-modified, heck they can even make it a marketing technique. There are enough people out there that would buy off on it. But lets be realistic, we can't have our red tomatoes and eat them too. If we demand something, in a free market economy, someone is going to supply it. Be careful what you want, you may just get it.

Zaphriel - Birth of a Neocon

Judicial Activism - Eminent Domain

2005-07-17T11:54:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

With the recent political atmosphere, what better subject to pick than judicial activism. The left are poised to attack whoever our President appoints, even though he hasn't even picked anyone yet. GWB says that there will be no litmus test, but that is just what the left wants. Their big stance is held up on abortion. They are ready to oppose anyone if their judicial philosophy differs from theirs. This IS judicial activism that they are seeking.

I see it happening all the time. The judicial branch of our government goes un-checked. They are there for life, and from both sides of the political spectrum they legislate from the bench. One particular case that I think all of us will agree that they overstepped their boundaries was Kelo V. New London in which they decided that city governments could take YOUR private property if it were deemed something more lucrative would be more beneficial to the "common good".

To be frank, this decision pissed me off. I fumed for quite a few days about this one. However, I did take some comfort in the fact that Jusice could be served to those who serve justice. Ha! Judge not lest ye be judged.

I see it happen all the time. Judges creating laws instead of interpreting the Constitution. Even some trying to use foreign law to help in its decisions. There has to be a solution to fix this. But what? I'm not sure. Thomas Jefferson proposed term limits that would be reviewed for reinstatement by a Congress committee. But I'm not sure that would work either. Whatever it is...something needs to be done. If judicial activism didn't exists it wouldn't be such a huge fight over them, and they would be hired, as our President says, without a litmus test.

My friend Lee Ellis has a great summary about this Here

In closing I'll let him sum it up.

Yes, Congress does advise and consent with an up and down vote, but not with a filibuster or a refusal to allow a full vote. The choice of a federal judge appointee has always been with, and should remain, the domain of the Executive branch of government led by the President of the United States of America.

Will our Supreme Court once again be a Constitutional one, or will it rival Congress as a new Legislative branch? It is up to us to back the President's choice of Supreme Court judges who will defend and protect the true meaning of our most revered document, the American Constitution!

Something needs to be done to stop the judicial tyranny we face in today's America. It needs to be brought to the forefront of American conversation.

Jay - Stop the ACLU

I can think of no better explanation of the stupidity of the Supreme's ruling than the final paragraph Justice Thomas' dissent:

The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court’s prior cases to derive today’s far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8—12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham’s high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O’Connor’s dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners’ favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

"We should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning." In the end that statement sums up the issue of Judicial Activism, of which Kelo v. New London was but the latest casualty. Original intent was considered for most of the history of the courts. Today, for at least 4 and sometimes 5 of the Supreme Court Justices, that venerable standard is ignored. In a recent death penalty case, it was ignored in favor of international laws far removed from the Constitution and precedent of our own country!

This ignoring of Original Intent in favor of a "Living Constitution" puts the American people, and the other two branches of government, at the mercy of whatever five unelected men and women may "feel" at the time. In doing so, they violate the very foundations of our Republic.

One last quote, from Chief Justice Warren Burger, as quoted in Mark R. Levin's groundbreaking book, Men in Black:

The Constitution does not constitute us as "Platonic Guardians" nor does it vest in this court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, "wisdom" or "common sense"....We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role.

This court has time and again assumed a policy making role, usurping the authority of the Legislative branch, and at times even the Executive branch. This trespass must be brought to an end through the appointment of Justices who will hold to The Original Intent of The Constitution. This is what President Bush has promised to do. Nothing is more important to the preservation of our Republic than this.

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

I firmly believe that no one should be able to make a career out of politics of any kind. The ability to have new blood in office or places of power would be an advantage to the American Public. New times, call for new leaders and as we all know, our world changes by the day.

I do believe that the choice for the Supreme Court should be based upon the strictest interpretation of the Constitution and Laws of the Land. That will not be a popular view for many, but yet—is that not what a Supreme Court Justice is to do?

Personally, I think that all of the judges and politicians should have to leave office at a set date. Much like the Presidency, two terms should be as long as any of them can serve in one office.

In so doing, we allow new blood, fresh ideas and vision to come in and have a say in the government of the people.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

The Kelo Decision , in my opinion, is the worst decision by the Supreme court in my lifetime.

Eminent Domain was meant to be used for the communities good, something everyone would use, like a highway, or a school. But now Simple Taxation is enough.
Now any politically well connected developer who can elude to the fact that the city could make more tax revenue from their venture, on your land, can make a case, and the city can take your land from you (as long as they compensate you) and give it to the developer. This is just wrong. Our land is one of our most cherished assets in this country.

Oh , of course this has happened before, but it was always in the shadows, a shady set of actions, no-one ever really heard about. Just before this horrible ruling, we had a case just like this in Reno. A smaller casino called "The Old Reno Casino" was "condemned" by the Reno City Council and sold to a larger casino conglomerate. The worst thing about it, the property owner was "compensated" one dollar ($1.00). That my friends is the real danger, other than just loosing your home, you could loose everything, because compensation is determined by the same people that would take your home in the first place.

We can't let this one go quietly, or judiciary has to much over reaching power. I don't have a solution, but I sure will back anyone who has a reasonable one.

Zaphriel - Birth of a Neocon

Social Promotion in Public Education

2005-07-14T00:00:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

As I was reading this post at shadesofgray (hat tip GM Roper), I was reminded of one of the many problems with the public education system in the US.

That problem is social promotion, the practice of advancing students to the next grade even though they are academically unprepared for such a move. One of the main arguments in favor of this plan is that a child could be "emotionally scarred" by being left behind as his friends move forward. Of course there in never any mention of the "emotional scaring" likely to be experienced by a student in high school who is still unable to read, let alone the more tangible effects of lacking the skills to be a productive member of society.

Back in the late 90's early 00's, there was a swing of the pendulum away from this practice towards retention, i.e. failing a student (or the more PC term, holding back). Naturally, there was a big uproar by the supporters of social promotion. There was a flurry of studies stating that retention didn't work and was "emotional scaring" for children.

Groups like the National Association of School Psychologists took positions against retention. The old stand-by was of course pulled out: "retention unfairly targets poor minorities.

Interestingly enough, most of these studies (at least the ones I have seen) also clearly stated (usually in passing) that social promotion does not work either. This didn't stop the screeds against retention though. I believe this is because the social promotion movement is merely part of the much larger movement in our country to completely remove all forms of personal responsibility from those currently burdening under its heavy yoke.

It has been a goal of those on the left to systematically remove the entire concept of personal responsibility from the sphere of existence and replace it instead with victimology. Nothing is your fault and any failures you have must be caused by some unjust system (usually Capitalism) or action working to hold you down. The benefits of accomplishing such a feat would, of course, be a public more malleable to ideas of increased government control.

Those that have followed my blogs for some time will be aware of the fact that I homeschool my 5 year old daughter. Due to the demands of my profession and the fact I am a single father, in a few months, when the new school year starts, I will probably have to enroll her in a regular school, though it will be a private school rather than public (at least assuming I am able to get her in one without the usual 1 year lead time required).

I attended both public and private schools growing up and I tell you, the thought of having to send her to a public school scares the hell out of me. So much so, that I may be forced to hire her a full time Nanny/Governess instead so that she can travel with me instead of being "institutionalized" at her Grandparents.

The public school system in this country has become a national disaster and regardless of the ever-increasing billions being flushed away, it is getting worse. Government has proven itself to be completely inept in the field of educating our youth to become productive individuals with the necessary critical thinking skills necessary to succeed. Logic has been replaced by calls to emotion. Perhaps this is fine if a parent wishes to indoctrinate their children into the nebulous of groupthink that now casts its shadow over this country, but I want something a little better for my daughter.

Thanks to the bastardized mixture of wide scale leftism and the worst ideas of conservatism that has taken grasp in the schools (at all levels), kids are forced to wade through their school years with an almost complete lack of clear direction. Of course, what else can be expected when the schools are run by those with no direction and no good ideas themselves. If they think you can just sweep the kid under the rug and promote them regardless of whether they are grade level competent, they will never see my daughter and hopefully never see your children either.
to ideas of increased government control.

Liberty Dog - One Billion Red Chinese and a Dog Named Liberty

Yes, the red ink pens to give grades might leave a negative mark on their psych. LOL! I'm definitley with you on this. Deep down it resembles socialism. My son came home from kindergarden with a medal. I was proud! I asked how he won it. He won it throwing some little bean bags into something. Then he told me that every kid won, and every kid got a medal. What is this saying? No matter how you perform you get equal distribution of the reward. Ridiculous. Whatever happened to fostering competion...the capitalist way? Our schools definitely need to go back to the basics of actually educating. If someone isn't trying yet still pass...how does that prepare them for society? It doesn't. Another reason so many are going to homeschooling

Jay - Stop the ACLU

I worked in a large city school in New Mexico and during that time, worked with the school system’s “throw-aways”—you know the ones, the behaviorals-- the ones that NO OTHER TEACHER wanted in his/her classroom. When I took the job working with ED/BD, it was by CHOICE. I believe that it is in these students a teacher will make the greatest difference and indeed test the very edges of their abilities as both educators and as humanity. In my tenure of working with these students, not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM was promoted based upon social norms. They were promoted based on having satisfactorily completed the benchmarks that were necessary for the grade level. The area of the city where I worked was the “barrio”, the south-side of the tracks, the lower income persons of a very wealthy city. Contrary to what many believe, what I saw in the lower-income section of town was the PRESS FORWARD mentality of a great many of the parents and students, in the effort to ensure that the students would *not * remain in the same life that their parents struggled through. There was a great deal of work with the Character Counts program in our district and I saw wonderful things happen through it, along with the DARE program. These would be those very people that some would say are the “lefties” the ones that do not want to take responsibility for themselves, that live off of social systems and blame the larger world. This is NOT what I saw at work there, not at all.

In moving away from the inner-city I have seen a greater lack of ambition on the part of some that many would consider to be “well to do” children. Many times, those children whom so much is given to hand over fist, are unappreciative of the hard work that is involved on their behalf to HAVE those luxuries. Many times I have seen the apathy in them prevailing greater then in the disadvantaged. Many times these children are sponsored by parents into sports, activities and groups that cost high dollars and many times has little to do with their desire to be involved at all and is more a vicarious living of the parents through the children. It all really does balance out, when you look at it with a critical eye. It is not a right-left issue and it crosses all political and socio-economic lines. As an Educator, I did not see what I would consider to be quantifiable evidence of a large volume of students being passed on basis of their age, rather than by ability. I saw a larger emphasis being placed on the basics in the elementary schools and I believe that educators are doing their very best in most instances to find and to help those that are not meeting the benchmarks of their grade. There have been numerous programs established to ‘zone in’ on a school district’s weak areas and if there are areas that are deficient, then it is the job of the Administration to find creative, exciting and innovative ways of challenging that deficit and bringing it forward, allowing ALL students to excel in all areas. Of course in order to do that we must stop paying teachers the paltry sums that we do, reduce their classroom sizes and provide more materials for the educational experience. Many of the problems that students face in the classroom today stem from the lack of resources, overcrowded classrooms and behavioral issues, all of which are addressable things.

The real problem with education is not “pass/fail” but is a matter of WHAT are we setting as the benchmarks for passing and failing? Why do we expect so little? Why do we no longer foster giftedness and strengths and use these in creative ways to overcome the difficulties in weaker areas? Why do we no longer promote apprenticeship and self-sustaining mechanisms that would benefit ‘at risk kids’ in our world today? Most importantly is the question also of: What involvement do parents take in the education of their children? Do we read to them every day? Do we have them read to us? Do we check over homework for accuracy? Do we involve our children in discussions of current affairs and foster public speaking abilities? Etc… etc… This is where the Home-schooling is growing in its popularity and why the trend is to excellence in home schooled children. More and more colleges are stating their OVERWHELMING WELCOME to home-school students because of their drive and ambition and self-starter mentalities.

As a home-schooling parent, I relish the return of the educational season in August. I have two children that will continue to be home educated this year. My eldest child will have completed the requirements for graduation, nearly two years in advance and will enter college/tech school far ahead of his peers. My youngest, will enter not as a High School Freshman but as a Freshman/Sophomore because in a home-school environment you can go with great strides in their strong subjects. In weaker areas, I do not FAIL my children. Failing is NOT AN OPTION. We work it as long as it takes to master it, no matter how long that may be. We are not re-learning what they have learned in previous years nor are hours lost to the school bells, lunch bells and other Pavlovian systems that are pit and parcel with the Public Educational System. My children will learn Latin, where it is no longer taught. They will learn World Empire Histories. They will learn advanced algebra and mathematics of society and business – something that public school no longer teaches. They read classic literatures along side of the contemporary works. They apprentice in trades and work, they volunteer and myriad other things that the System, as it is set up at this time, cannot and will not do.

If we would consider Education, I wholeheartedly support parents and others to look not to the Pass/Fail conundrum but to look to what is lurking beneath the surface of the Educational System: It matters not if you pass or fail if there is no heart or value placed in what you are “diplomaed” in at the end.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

First, I want to welcome Liberty Dog back to the blogosphere; I hope his trip went well. Second, I want to say that for years I've felt that the American education system is a very volatile place for a child. It is hard for a student to be passed when he/she shouldn't be, pushed ahead a grade or two even if he/she is academically prepared and equally damaging for him/her to be held behind given the emphasis placed on rushed progress in our system. For these reasons, I am personally in favor of home education and/or sending kids to private schools when possible. With that in mind, let's attack this issue of social promotion, shall we?

Liberty Dog is absolutely correct that sending a kid to the next grade level simply to prevent his/her scarring is wrong. I can tell you from personal experience that it is even more harmful to send a kid ahead when they are not ready than to keep them back. In 5th Grade, I had a friend who while not stupid, was a little slow to grasp some things we'll just say. I took it up as a personal project to try and help him out. Over a period of about 6 weeks, I tutored my friend in math and history and other things. In the end, he was still behind so his parents and the teacher decided to bump him back to 4th Grade. I can tell you that he was far more stressed by a feeling of embarrassment in the 5th Grade class than he was at being a 5th Grader bumped back to 4th. He thrived in class after that and the last I knew, was making A's and B's. For the same reason you do not send an untrained recruit to the front in Iraq, you do not send an unprepared student to the next grade level.

Now then, Liberty Dog reported that the National Association of School Psychologists had decided that retention was (is) bad. I personally never had a lot of faith in these folks. These were the people who decided, after all, that it was (is) appropriate to punish all kids involved in schoolyard fights, even those who are innocently attacked, for the simple reason that it is a good lesson to teach them that being involved in violence is wrong. The reason I point this out is because it is representative of our education system at large. The American education system, while having pumped out good work in the past, has become a box factory, trying to get untrained minds in and out as fast as possible. It is a factory focusing more on quantity than quality, which is the reason I no longer support it to the degree I once did. If I had kids, I would rather teach them myself or send them to a private institution than leave them to their own devices in the factory school system that is our public education program. Is this not a growing sentiment?

Ok, LD places the blame for this problem firmly on the Left. That is, in layman's terms, a pile of rubbish. There have been, I would like to point out, Republicans in control of our government for over a decade. The problem that he is mentioning has grown far worse under their watch. Besides that fact, Republicans have been present in government since the inception of public education and therefore are at least a part of the problem, as much as anyone. The truth is my friends that this problem is not a Left or Right issue. This problem we face is a complex problem born of multi-faceted contexts that have grown up because of our social dynamics. While that is the problem, however, we are the ones who must resolve it. We can either rework the public education system, by which the Left wants to pump more money into (a bad idea until the problem is fixed) and the Right wants to allow companies to have some control of public education (another bad idea as companies focus on their agenda rather than on truly prosperous education.) The problem is complex and so must be the answer.

In closing, I would like to mention that while our public schools are suffering, our universities are in great shape. We have, I believe, the best universities in the world. That is one reason why so many from overseas want to come to America for their college education. They believe rightly that we will train them the best. The problem is our lower education system, which is leaving too many behind. That is the main reason why our universities accept such high rates of foreign students compared to domestic ones I think. Liberty Dog is right that there is a problem in our lower education system. While I don't agree with all of his views on the matter, it will take all of us to fix it. The longer nothing is done, the longer our students will fall through the cracks. Should we point blame or work to fix it?

Joseph - The New Oklahoma Democrat

I don't have a whole lot to add here, this is a great post. Liberty Dog, you covered, I think, what allot of people are feeling nowadays. Our schools have been reduced to bastions of mediocrity, all in the name of "Feeling Good". I think it speak to the core of what is wrong with this country now. We have muddled ourselves down so much and been beaten by the acceptance stick so hard, that the opposite effect than intended has occurred. Rather than making our children more prepared to meet the world, in the name of protecting their feelings we have made them rather ill prepared. It is starting to show in our daily lives. In the military, we are having to make our training schools longer in order to teach our new recruits some of the basics they missed in High School, additionally, in order to fill the seats, we have had to lower standards repeatedly. Costing society more money just to have a ready force worth keeping, and I am sure there are parallels in the business world as well.

The answer here I think is to get involved in your child's education and stay involved. I have been told over and over that I am my child's greatest advocate, and I think that is true. Parents have to demand better, and not allow passing for the sake of passing, it does not do anyone a service.

Zaphriel - Birth of a Neocon

War: What is it good for?

2005-07-10T00:01:00.000-07:00

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

We've all heard the song. My favorite version is Bruce Springsteen's, but you may have heard it done by the Temptations, or more likely by Edwin Starr himself. The driving beat, the power of this 60's anti-war hymn is beyond compare, and represents the music of a generation.
But is the song true? Are all wars good for "absolutely nothing?"

There are many on the left who would cheer and say war was always bad, and should never, ever be fought.

History speaks against those folks. It speaks with the voices of those who gave their lives in WWII, Korea, and yes, to help the Vietnamese people too.

I would ask the folks who voted in Iraq in January, or the thousands joining the Iraqi Defense Forces in spite of the terrorist bombs if the US invasion was good for nothing. I would ask the free peoples of Afghanistan if they want to go back to life under the Taliban.

I would ask you, in the minutes after you watched the 2nd plane crash in to the World Trade Center, if war was good for something. In those minutes, when war had come to our shores, your answer may have been different from what it is now, almost 5 years later. Why is that? What has changed?

As a nation, we've been here before. Doubting what the war is really all about, wondering if all this bloodshed was really worth it, and beginning to question our purpose as we see the dead come home in body bags.

The time I'm describing is not 1970.

It was 1943, as Japan won victory after victory, and Hitler stood astride Europe. Things didn't look hopeful for The United States and her few allies. France was gone, Japan appeared to be in control of the Pacific, and the bombs continued to fall every night in London. From our perspective decades in the future, we have trouble grasping the very real fact that an Allied victory was not a foregone conclusion. The people of that time, our grandparents, understood clearly that we could lose the war if we lost our purpose.

It was at that time that then Maj. Frank Capra began releasing Why We Fight, a series of films explaining exactly why we were fighting WWII. Hard to believe they needed it, having gone through Pearl Harbor so recently. But they did. The men on the front, and the people back home needed those reminders of what was at stake if they quit fighting.

We had another "Why We Fight" moment this week. Bombs were once again going off in London. War had come to the British Isles, just as it came to our shores on September 11th. And the war is most assuredly not over.

We've had numerous arguments about the current war, most especially the Iraqi Front of this war. I believe the time has come to put those debates to an end, and prosecute the War. We are reaching a place where the Left's insistence on protest is detrimental to the war effort, to the ability of this nation to fight.

"Bush lied, people died", Downing Street Memos, and all the rest need to be put aside. The War is against Islamo-Fascism, in all its forms. It is not against George W. Bush, or Conservatives, or Christian Fundamentalist or any of the other demons the Left has decided to fight instead of the terrorists. And this war is not against oriental men in black pajamas across an ocean. That war, for better or worse, is over. Let it go.

I'm not calling for censorship. I'm not calling for any rights to free speech to be taken away. I'm calling for a ceasefire while the War continues. I'm calling, as they did in those dark days of World War II, for sacrifice.

We are in World War IV. We can't back away from Iraq, or Afghanistan. You may not have agreed with going in to one or the other of those countries, but we are there. And the reality is that we we will likely be in other countries before this war ends. Iran, Syria, and North Korea are all likely targets. Anything that detracts from winning is harmful to the War effort.

And we must win. Look at the faces of the victims of London. Those could just as easily be New Yorkers, Chicagoans, or Oklahomans. If you need another reminder, click on the link in the Title of my post, and understand why we can't cry hard enough to bring back the victims of terrorism. We can work together, left and right, to ensure there are no more victims in the future.

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

Mark, my friend; I'm going to be "un-liberal" here, and just say... I agree. 100%.

It is partially, because of my pro-Military stance on Iraq, that I find myself in almost more "right-wing" blogrolls than "left-wing" blogrolls these days.

In Iraq, we have created a SCUMBAG MAGNET. The jerks who hate freedom and our nation's wealth are attracted to Iraq, vs. New York City. Better on their desert than in our own backyard.

But forget logistics, and look at the other facts involved. MILLIONS of Iraqis have been freed from tyranny. It is the "liberal" in me that cheers this fact. ANYBODY who rejoices over the freedom of the oppressed has a "liberal" side to them, PERIOD.

We need to stay the course in Iraq, and we need to look toward helping our brothers and sisters in Iran, and North Korea, as well as China, and other communist states achieve their freedom and liberty. It is the very fact that I *am* a "liberal" that helps me to be willing to fight, and DIE (if necessary) for such causes. After all, the root of "liberal" is "libre", which means to liberate.

I'm all FOR it, and I'm ready for the game. Blog ON.

Carl -The Gun-Toting Liberal

I really can't say it any better than Mark did. Appeasment is just something that has been proven over and over to not work. World peace is for some highly evolved alien race on planet utopia. We are human, and we have evil in the world. I would like to add however that this war we are fighting right now is more than just a physical war against madmen...it is a jihad. It is a spiritual war. What we are fighting is pure evil. I want to ask everyone to continue to pray. Prayer is THE most powerful weapon we have to fight evil.

Jay - Stop the ACLU

I took the time to really read through Mark’s article on War today and to consider carefully the implications therein. There is much here that bears looking at with a careful eye.

It is in our nature as humans, to timeline things by events that stick out to us. Those things that draw our attention, stir emotion are those “highlights” on the timeline that gives us a base for where we “were” and where we “are” and where we are “going to”.

In the timeline such as what Mark has given we see just a few of those “highlights”: World War II, Korea, Vietnam, 9/11 and with these highlights we are expected to draw a timeline of “Reasons Why war is Right—Reasons Why Americans fight”. I however, do not see the timeline as the same, nor the events as coalescing to a common reason of why War is “right”.

War, is at times an unavoidable necessity. War is an unfortunate event in which diplomacy has failed us. But that does not, in my opinion make war “right”, nor will it ever do so.

WWII and Propaganda
In World War II, propaganda was a great tool that was used to rally persons to a common cause. Before we go about eulogizing Frank Capra’s work on Propaganda Films in WW II, let us remember a few things:

1. For all the hard work of the members of Hollywood, a great many of them became fall guys in the later part of the 40’s and into the 50’s to the ‘red scare’ and communism hunt of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) that took a huge toll on members of Hollywood and this nation at large. Even Hollywood’s greats were called to testify in committee: Walt Disney, Ronald Reagan. (http://www.bergen.org/AAST/projects/ColdWar/Philo/hollywood.html)
2. Hitler used the same propaganda tools to amass his forces and to rally his subjects to arms as well. Same tool, same methods, same agenda, different country.
(http://www.historians.org/Projects/GIRoundtable/Propaganda/Propaganda_Intro.htm)
3. The Propaganda films, posters, handbills etc of the 1940’s were the cause of a great lot of racial hatred both here and abroad. They were designed to strip away the humanity of those that they portrayed and in so doing , we (and our military) were expected to no longer look at the Japanese or German peoples as human but as nearly “sub-human”. It makes it easy to make strangers your enemies, with hate speech and propaganda in your face all the time. (http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/propaganda/top.html)

Really, IMHO and with all due respect, this article could be construed as a tool of propaganda. It is designed by its onset, to lead us to the one conclusion that “war is right—war was justified” in Iraq. However, by virtue of the fact that this position is supported by a great amount of documentation of WWII would indicate that it is an attempt to connect the emotions and patriotism of a time gone by with the current military action. We have here connected unrelated events (9/11 and World War II) in an attempt to rally emotion and patriotism for the current military action. What do Iraq and 9/11 have in common? Answer: Nothing. What do Iraq and World War II have in common? Answer: Nothing. We were directly attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor and we answered that call with what was necessary. Though, even now the questions remain of was there more we could do to preempt the strike on Pearl Harbor. Iraq had nothing to do with the events of September 11, therefore they cannot be seen as connected.

By the same token, I do see something incredibly important here and quite inspiring too! Not ALL propaganda is bad propaganda. When it is media used to inspire people to keep faith and to keep working then it is a good tool—it crosses back from the line of propaganda to the side of Inspiration. Which is what I think Mark was trying to convey from the center of a very compassionate heart.

We ARE there now and we must finish the job we began. It is too late now to him-haw about if we were right or wrong in going, that job will be left to the historians in a time that is not ours right now. Right now we DO have an objective: Finish what we started.

To finish what we started in Iraq should not however mean invading other countries and further stretching out an already overwrought military force. We must watch carefully for propagandized connections of why we simply must invade Iran or other nations. We must watch carefully to NOT be propagandized into further actions that are unrelated.

One final comment: We are not in World War IV. The Cold War was not World War III. To use terminology that places either of these on the level of World War I and World War II is yet further a propaganda device that I will not accept and neither should the populace at large. When we are in World War III… I think there will be no denying that we are, the World will know it.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times