Bo Knows . . .

Say anything, but say something!

2008-08-20T13:51:00.001-05:00

I suppose it's only fitting that my "return" post has a lot to do with current national politics...

I see that the Saddleback appearance was quite unkind to the presumptive Democratic candidate, Barrack Obama. I actually agree with the sentiments of some of his supporters who have observed that, in the environment of an Evangelical Christian church, Obama wouldn't have garnered much applause for defending his belief in a woman's right to choose, but at least he could have given a reasoned, solid opinion on the topic.

I tend to think, though, that his evasive answer on that question (and others as well), is symptomatic of a larger problem that, unfortunately, isn't limited to Obama.

The question was worded such that the request wasn't for scientific or theologic facts, but rather for a personal opinion. I dare say that even an "I don't know" answer would have been better for Obama, but he, and countless other politicians are apparently lacking the nerve to present any opinion whatsoever.

I personally think abortion is a bad thing. I also believe that life begins at conception. Do I think I'm right? Well, I suppose I could choose to believe something I think is false, but that's somewhat counterintuitive. Am I open to that opinion changing? Sure. Do I think that I have enough knowledge to intelligently argue the point scientifically or theologically with an expert in either field? Probably not.

But I can still tell you what I believe. I can also, particularly when I'm in the company of several people who I know have differing opinions, express that I don't have an authoritative answer, and although I hold deep-seated convictions about the matter, I still respect your viewpoint. I can paint myself as an opinionated, but not necessarily dogmatic adherent to any principle in which I believe.

I will not, however, be afraid to give my opinion.

I sincerely wish we had more politicians with the same attitude.

Damn, what a year!

2008-08-12T12:25:00.001-05:00

A new job, a new baby, a lot of new acquaintances...

The past year has truly been a rollercoaster. I realized when I logged back into blogger today that it's been more than a year since my last post. Many triumphs and tragedies have befallen me and those around me in those months, but it's been a fun ride all the way.

I started pondering investing time into this blog again a couple months back. My lack of posting I typically excuse by having nothing to say, but that's simply an excuse. I usually have too much to say for most people's tastes, and I likely sell myself short by dismissing it as "nothing worth saying." Still, my mindset of late has needed an outlet, and resurrecting this blog seemed the logical thing to do.

I'm going to make a concerted effort to post every day or two, if it's regarding nothing but my take on the day's news. Hopefully, I'll get started with that goal this afternoon or evening.

In the event that anyone's been checking with any regularity as to whether anything new has been posted here, hopefully your search will be more fruitful from now on.

Losing a brother...

2007-05-07T10:57:00.000-05:00

Though there are some who would take exception with my reference to him as a Brother, due to the fact that I do not wear his colors, I learned today of the death of Bandido Gunner 1%er. Please know I intend no disrespect to his Brothers, if any should read these words; I do not attempt to count myself among your number, just among the number of people whose lives Gunner enrichened.

My heart truly grieves today. Gunner was a true brother to me during my association with the club and after that association ended. He recruited me and was responsible for some of my fondest memories of that time.

I sincerely doubt that any of the handful of folks who look at this blog will understand what I'm talking about, but that's ok.

This post is for me.

Gone but never forgotten...

Bandido Gunner 1%er

Rest in Peace, Brother.

Would the real conservative please stand up?

2007-05-01T08:05:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while I get so completely disgusted with politics I ask myself why I even try to keep up with the news. While the current Democrat leadership is positively laughable as they go through the motions of various posturing to satisfy the nutroots, the Republicans are equally pathetic as they seem terrified to disagree with the nuttiest supporters of either party.

Part of this comes from the fact that the more high-profile political causes seem to be totally "poll driven," as one media outlet or another try to discern the "will of the people" through taking a cross section of 100 or so people. I won't get into the intricate analysis of who's in charge of deciding what area is going to be targeted for the "random" polls, nor will I go into the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" that make up so much of reported news.

What I will address, however, is that neither party is offering a conservative candidate for president, and neither has shown conservative leadership at all. In my opinion, while I tend to agree more with the basic values espoused by the Republicans, they seem to want to push their agenda in the very same manner as the Democrats: MORE GOVERNMENT.

That's not conservatism.

I am a staunch believer in democracy and capitalism. I think that the free market economy will bring about the changes in society that are really needed, in the sense that while only about 30% of the American public votes in the poll booth, more like 98% vote with their checkbooks every day. I have yet to see any problem that the Government actually solved with society.

As a conservative, I believe some pretty radical things. I believe that I have the ability to make the determination what lifestyle, activities, and foods are right for me. I believe that I have the responsibility to live with the consequences of my decisions in those matters, and have the obligation to not expect a "bailout" from Big Brother even if those consequences are catastrophic. I believe that I am capable of deciding how my money best serves me, and that I can accept the risks involved in planning for my own financial stability later in life. I believe that what I do in the privacy of my own home is nobody's business but mine, and that it would be hypocritical of me to expect special recognition or privilege as a participant in those private activities. I believe that I, and fellow members of my community, should be able to decide what marriage is (or isn't) and that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, letting people assign survivorship, inheritance, and power of attorney, to whomever they choose. I believe that healthcare should be affordable because of competition, not because of regulation. I believe that guns should be legal for purchase and possession by anyone of legal age who has not had that constitutional right revoked through due process. I believe that schools should be funded, guided, and regulated by their respective communities, and if those schools don't measure up academically, that they should dry up and die. I believe education is a privilege, not a right, and should be regarded as such. I believe that Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Jews, Asians, American Indians, and every other such racial and ethnic group, should be allowed to work, play, go to school, go to church, and interact in any way they want; and in no way they don't.

In other words, I believe in the liberties guaranteed by the constitution, and in freedom from the encumbrances of big government.

I am a conservative.

On Imus and Language...

2007-04-24T10:34:00.000-05:00

First and foremost, I won't even try to defend Don Imus's comments as anything but contemptable and inflammatory.

I will, however, point out that saying contemptable, inflammatory things sorta goes with the territory when you're a self-proclaimed "shock jock." His job relied, to no small degree, in offending people, and people's sensibilities. Folks tuned in to see what he'll say next to leave the listener with the thought, "I can't believe he said that!"

What's unfortunate in the turn of events, is that somehow, somewhere, the proper perspective on words have gotten lost. I was taught as a child that words, no matter how hateful, are not the same as actions, and can only affect their target as deeply as that target chooses to be affected. Much different than, say, a 9mm pistol (yes, this IS a direct reference to the VA Tech tragedy). I would have been quite supportive of the Rutgers University Ladies' Basketball Team making a statement to the effect of, "he can say what he wants, we're a fantastic team, and we prove our mettle with actions on the court, not with empty words over the airwaves."

But they didn't. They made a conscious decision to play the victim. They spoke about shattered dreams and neverending pain, as if they had been physically assaulted. For that, they came across as weak.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that there was a cry for a similar response when the same words Imus used are uttered in the context of rap albums and "urban" entertainment. I personally think that's an idiotic position. I do recognize that consistency is needed; in oversimplified terms, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

But this drives "consistency" the wrong direction. The consistency we should seek is a consistent attitude that words are just that...words. Words can be used in a variety of ways, and whether "ho," "bitch," or even "nigger" can be used in a "positive" way is irrelevant. Words carry meaning, but their impact lies within interpretation, and it's time that people took steps to minimize their impact.

Consider the social environment we'd have if "the n-word" (a designation that makes me chuckle...surely George Carlin is amused at the power of a word that just can NOT be uttered) became totally nonoffensive. For that matter, imagine all "racial slurs" were just accepted pieces of our vocabulary. I personally think their use would decline, not increase, and when someone wanted to utter something derrogatory, he would be forced to be a little more specific to make his point.

Words such as that are powerless if those at whom they're directed CHOOSE to simply ignore their intent. It does, however, take a conscious choice to not be a victim, and to establish that one's own self-worth is not dependent upon another's perception.

I think much of the "victim" mentality is rooted in our sheltering of our children from any hurt feelings in everything from grade school to little league, to the degree that when these children get out in the real world, with real "mean people" they simply don't know how to shrug off such insults. Admittedly, insults derived from the essence of a person's being (i.e. race, religion, etc.) can be more hurtful, but I consider the fact that in my (and previous) generation(s), many "fatsos" were encouraged by the taunt to trim up and enjoy a happier, healthier life, instead of being comforted by mom utilizing the healing power of a half-dozen jelly doughnuts.

In summary, folks need to grow up. If someone insults them based upon things beyond their control, shrug it off, and attribute it to the ignorance of the source. If an insult strikes home and calls attention to a real problem, fix it. Either way, move on!

Back into the groove

2007-04-24T10:31:00.000-05:00

After several months of being on hiatus, I'm finding the time to (hopefully) blog regularly again. I hope I can revive this first attempt at blogging, and maybe say something meaningful from time to time.

Now on to my "return post" on one of many recent events about which I have something to say...

Back to business...

2006-10-19T09:04:00.000-05:00

It's been nearly a year since "Bo's" departure, but I think it's time for him to return. I initially dropped out of political commentary on this and on other blogs because I had become so cynical, but I've found in the meanwhile that my cynicism wasn't rooted in my direct involvement, but rather within the intrinisic lunacy that permeates the political climate of the day.

I guess I figure I'll feel better with an outlet for my thoughts and observations, and perhaps I'm waxing a bit nostalgic about the "good ol' days" when I had time to compose meaningful essays and commentaries, but for the moment (and hopefully for good).....

"Bo" is Back!

Bye-Bye Bo...

2005-12-29T12:22:00.000-06:00

Even though few people read this little blog, I feel a need to explain what's about to happen.

"Bo" is going away. It was the product of an endeavour between me and a friend who had his own ISP business. I won't go into the specifics, but he had a knack for some really creative domain and server names, and I thought the moniker "BoDiddly" would draw from that creativity and look pretty cool on the domain name he originally gave me. At any rate, my homage to the rock & roll legend essentially limited my presence on the internet, as I took particular exception to some who imagined it to be a slanderous use of his name.

For those of you who do read me regularly, allow me to introduce myself.

I'm Jamie.

Pleased to meet you.

Now, on to other things.

"Bo Knows" will essentially be defunct after this post. Don't look for new stuff here, as I'm now developing my long-term blog presence in the theme of something that's really a passion for me: tornadoes and severe storms. My "new and improved" presence on the blogosphere will be located at http://chasin-the-wind.blogspot.com/. There, I'll blog a bit about politics and philosophical/theological points, but it will be more of a blog about severe weather, and my experiences and exploits in that field.

Thanks to those of you who have helped me achieve the success I've had with this blog, and I humbly ask for your support as I shift gears.

On Rob Zombie Movies...

2005-11-15T11:36:00.000-06:00

Watched The Devil's Rejects this weekend.

I really liked House of 1000 Corpses, though I wouldn't rank it as my favorite movies in that genre. It would, however have a place somewhere in the top 20. It simply had elements of other movies that I liked, coupled with a surreal feel that really made it shine. The best scene, without a doubt, was the "I Remember You" sequence with the impossibly long crane shot.

I also loved Blair Witch, though, so maybe that tells you something about my taste in horror flicks.

So I attempted to pursuade the cashier at Suncoast to sell me The Devil's Rejects on Monday before it was released on Tuesday, but to no avail. The "collector's edition" DVD finally made it home on Saturday, so with the children all snug in their beds, I cranked the surround sound and descended back into the world of the Fireflys.

The real magic in the movie is how Rob manages to completely blur the line between antagonist and protagonist. At no time is there any clear character you want to come out victorious. Everyone is doing things that are, well, just sadistic, but their actions are so ingrained into the characters that you quickly realize that there aren't any "good guys" here. Some will praise Rob's "round" character development, others will criticize his decision to make all the characters equally vile, but as with the first film, people will generally either love this one or hate it. If, however, you hated the first one, you still may want to give this one a try. It's truly a completely different feel.

I suppose there will be those who loved House that won't like this one, but somehow I doubt there will be many.

One thing that distinguishes this film from many other horror movies is that much of the action takes place in broad daylight. There's something about a scene that can chill you to the bone that's shot in stark natural lighting that really makes you realize (if only in retrospect) how much you've allowed yourself to be drawn into the story.

This isn't a film, by the way, that depends upon cheap "startle" value, nor does it really try to shock the audience with it's (substantial) gore factor. Many of the more brutal events are left mostly to the imagination. Not content to merely scare you, it truly, deeply, disturbs you.

Another thing that is of note. Contrary to reports that surrounded every media mention of the movie when it hit box offices, there is NOT a rape scene in this movie. I'm trying to avoid any real spoilers, but the scene in question has to do with some "do this, say that" at gunpoint, with distinct sexual overtones. Though "violation" may be accurate, it is not a "rape scene" by any but the broadest definition. The scene is, however, very disturbing, and you will be (and should be) very uncomfortable watching the scene. In that way, it achieves its goal, not being gratuitous at any level, but rather instrumental in really getting into the viewer's psyche.

The defining moment of the film, however, is the ending. I have never, in any movie, been so drawn into the ending of a film as I was this one. Seriously, it's the single best ending to a movie I've ever experienced.

We're talking an Oscar quality ending for a film that won't even be seen by most of the people interested in the Academy Awards.

It also leaves you with a mix of feelings that you'll be weeks sorting out.

The Devil's Rejects is a movie that deserves more recognition as a horror masterpiece than it will probably ever receive. As more and more films in this genre are produced (presumably to fill the void of new ideas in Hollywood), it will likely get lost in the shuffle, only remembered by a handful of fans. Before this one gets away from the stores, though, it's definitely worth a look.

And a final thought to those who have seen the film: Free Bird

The Assault Continues...

2005-11-14T11:11:00.000-06:00

I learned today of a lawsuit in New Mexico in which the plantiffs are seeking the removal of the crosses from the official insignia of the City of Las Cruces.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but since the direct translation of "Las Cruces" is "The Crosses," doesn't it follow that it's not nearly so much of a religious symbol as a representation of the history of that name? Wikipedia has an entry that gives an overview of the predominant story of how the name came to be (link here). In brief, an Indian attack led to the burial of some early settlers (who happened to include some clergy) in the fledgling community. The graves were marked with crosses, the customary gravemarkings of the day, and the community came to be known as "El Pueblo del Jardin de Las Cruces" (translated literally, The City of the Garden of the Crosses), and later shortened to "Las Cruces."

Now, in the name of eradicating every reference to anything that may be of significance to the Christian religion, these two people claim that the crosses in the city's seal are somehow violating their civil rights, and that their presence in the seal constitutes a breach of the Constitutional barrier between church and state..

The plantiffs are, predictably, athiests.

A quote from this article:

"The crosses serve no governmental purpose other than to disenfranchise and discredit non-Christian citizens," said the lawsuit filed by Paul F. Weinbaum, who lives in the Las Cruces area, and Martin J. Boyd of Las Cruces.

I will point out, first, that "disenfranchise" is not a word (it's like saying "uninhale"--the correct word is "disfranchise"). I would also call attention to the fact that one of the plaintiffs doesn't even live in Las Cruces.

The article goes on to say that the city, by its use of the seal, is in violation of the Civil Rights act of 1964, by forcing applicants for employment by the city to sign papers bearing the infernal symbol.

Spare me.

I suppose this should come as no surprise, considering the zeal of the current crop of anti-Christian crusaders, but in this situation, the crosses in question are not particularly indicative of any religious endorsement. If the shape alone is grounds for a lawsuit, I'm anxious to see how the athiests would have us redo highway intersections, which symbol should replace the current mathematical figure for addition, and how we should address the nagging problem of perpendicular lines in archetecture.

There's also that pesky letter "X" that's been used as a symbol by the Christian church.

For a moment, ignore the historical basis for the crosses. It's ironic to some degree that the accusation focuses upon the alleged imposition of the Christian religion upon nonbelievers, when the effect of their efforts is an effectual ban upon religious symbols in public. The fact that their sensibilities are somehow offended by the presence of those symbols is a direct product of their own religious beliefs (defining "religious" broadly, but an active nonbelief does indeed constitute a religion of sorts). The government's complicity in furthering their cause, then, is essentially an endorsement of their own "nonreligion."

But particular to this case is the fact that the crosses in question are historically tied to the city. There is one theory that indicates a potentially different origin of the name (that it's simply a Spanish equivalent of "crossroads") but it's a weak theory, because there are scores of towns that could have inherited the name according to that notion. The city leaders, however, have the burdensome task of arguing the historical aspect of the name's origin in the absence of any hard-and-fast documentation of that early history. This is not unique, as the origins of many cities' names aren't a matter of historic documentation. That may be the ultimate finding, however, by the courts--that absent any verifiable record establishing the origin of the name, the city must back down from their claim of historical significance.

Or in other words, presumed guilty unless proven innocent. Not exactly the axiom in which this nation's legal system is rooted.

I realize the right to challenge such displays exists at the most basic level of constitutional law. I also realize, however, that the judicial system has lost touch with the intent of the founders on this issue. I don't think that anyone can reasonably contend that the founders believed that the government should create a society void of any public religious reference. The government should not be involved in the business of religion, but it shouldn't go beyond basic common sensical analysis whether action "a" constitutes government endorsement of religion. Display alone simply does not equal endorsement.

Here in the United States of the Offended, however, any nutjob can get an audience, and if he's a nutjob with the "right" agenda, he can get a whole lot of support from the current judiciary.

On the Import of SCOTUS

2005-11-10T07:25:00.000-06:00

The current political climate notwithstanding, when a President makes a Supreme Court nomination, we stand at a particularly significant moment in history.

The constitution established a Supreme Court to perform certain tasks and functions that made complete the system of checks and balances that our founders found crucial to the continued prosperity of the democratic union in its infancy. In their wisdom, they realized that without this system of checks and balances, government here, like in every other situation, would eventually grow into an oppressive behemoth--the very situation they had suffered great hardship to escape in Europe. They wished their posterity to enjoy the benefits of true liberty, and therefore thought it of paramount importance to address this inherent tendency even as they were establishing the foundational tenets of the new government.

American government has weathered numerous changes in the global political climate. By the standard of time alone, we can consider our government in its adolescence, still far behind the hundreds of years government has operated in many European and Asian nations. The changes that have come to many areas, however, leave the United States's government in the unenviable position of being among those "older" by comparison. We are, undoubtedly, seeing some "growing pains" as our government struggles to meet the needs of its subjects, while attempting to establish and maintain order in any part of the world in which we have an interest.

Through the latter half of our nation's existence, the Supreme Court has taken on a role that our forefathers may or may not have foreseen, but almost certainly never intended. That role has propelled the High Court into seemingly unending controversy, as its justices collectively have redefined the entity into some sort of super-legislature, acting as if their role is to right the wrongs not readily fixed through "traditional" democratic processes. It is, to be sure, a noble endeavour on the surface, with only one critical flaw. There is no such function in the constitution.

The result of this attitude has been a plethora of "new rights" that have been "discovered" within the Constitution. It is not only clear that not every right of the people is specifically enumerated within the verbiage of the Constitution, but also quite obvious that no rights were specifically enumerated.

Hogwash, you say? I call your attention to the text of the first amendment, the first in the series of articles dubbed the "bill of rights." It is prudent to note that the ratification of this set of amendments was of tantamount importance to the founders, to the point of potentially preventing ratification of the constitution were they omitted.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, any grade school student will express in no uncertain terms that the above specifically defines and secures the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petition, having had only a cursory exposure to the document. They would be wrong.

The intent of the constitution was never to enumerate the rights of the people, but to specifically enumerate the limitations of the federal government. Such purpose is particularly evident within the text of the tenth amendment. That short statement stands as a summation of the entirety of its preceding articles, explicitly stating that any powers not granted to the federal government, nor prohibited from the states by the Constitution itself would be reserved to the states or to the people.

This concept is obliterated as the Supreme Court Justices comb over the Constitution with the intent of "discovering" the protected rights contained therein. Were they to view the Constitution as a limiting document rather than one that empowers, many of their decisions would have been drastically different.

One concept that particularly reeks of this brand of backward reasoning is the idea that the Constitution somehow guarantees a "right to privacy." There are certain Constitutional guarantees against the inappropriate use of private property by the government, but there is nowhere to be found a concept that an absolute, inalienable right to something called "privacy" exists.

After establishing a constitutional right to privacy, the Supreme Court is left with the responsibility of defining the bounds of that right. Is there any indication that any of the rights of the people were to exist only at the mercy of any government entity? Is there any indication that any right of the people would be defined or limited by any branch of government (or by all three branches acting in concert, for that matter)?

The founding fathers understood that under the government's control, certain rights enjoyed under total freedom would be sacrificed in order to avoid anarchy. This, balanced with the power granted to the government to grant certain privileges, established the harmony of order and freedom that was rightly called "liberty."

Along with the first steps taken in redefining the intent of the Constitution came the inevitable descent into a variety of judicial questions that would never have arisen without that initial assumption. Going back to the "right to privacy," in establishing such a notion, the Supreme Court immediately paved the way for a multitude of legal questions about the boundaries of that right. Having no constitutional framework from which to judge, the Justices were left to their own opinions and beliefs. This led to such abysmally empty decisions as Roe and more recently, Kelo. One calls upon a right to privacy within the context of abortion, the other undermines the rights of ownership of private property, in the interest of the common good. The fact that two opinions that have such radically different approaches to "privacy" illustrates how far the Supreme Court is prone to drift away from the central statements of the Constitution when left without any constitutional framework as the foundational element of its collective reasoning.

What, then, is the role of precedence? We've been told that certain cases constitute some sort of "super-precedence" that should not in any wise be overturned or revisited. The principle of stare decisis is cited as supportive of this view, and a nominee for the High Court is rightly expected to share his views on that principle. What, then, is the right attitude to take towards that concept? I propose that at the level of the Supreme Court of the United States, there is no room for such a concept, as it's recognized as the highest court in the land. An appellate judge must certainly rule with an eye "upward" to those courts above his jurisdiction, but the only higher law than the Supreme Court is the Constitution itself. Under that premise, there is no ruling that should not be evaluated anew any time a current case calls for such reevaluation.

Were the notion of stare decisis on the Supreme Court level not utilized so often, I sincerely doubt Plessy v. Ferguson would have lasted some six decades. How many people who uphold the legitimacy of Roe as a "superprecedent" would argue that Brown v. Board of Education was a maligned ruling because it overturned a sixty year-old decision? Bad law is bad law, and it shouldn't take six-tenths of a century to correct it.

So much has been made of the potential for a ruling that overturns Roe, that SCOTUS nominations are essentially shoehorned into one category or another, based only upon their position on abortion, when the ruling from the High Court should hinge upon the constitutionality of the law, not its moral implications. The question is not nearly so much whether abortion is right nor whether the fetus is alive, but rather whether government is specifically given the power to regulate in that area. Strictly speaking, if the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from banning abortion nationwide, it would likely also forbid the Federal government from legalizing it nationwide. There are simply precious few restrictions placed upon state governments at the Federal level, according to the Constitution.

What of things like the freedom of religion and the separation of Church and state? In lieu of an itemized list of dos and don'ts, the principles outlined in the Constitution were sufficient to the framers to guarantee that the free exercise of religion would not be infringed upon by the government. Would they have left the language so open had they forseen the draconian restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court over the past twenty years on that freedom? I don't believe that they in any way anticipated that the protections that they had placed as a hedge about religious freedom would be used as the means to eradicate religion from public life. Again, an indication that when the High Court steps away from the eloquent simplicity of the Constitution, it ventures into an area devoid of guidance, save that from political agenda of the day, an area in which the Supreme Court was not designed to operate.

The beauty of the Constitution is truly within its simplicity, utilizing principles instead of rules. Back to the First Amendment's protections towards religion, is the intent of the framers really in question? There were two things that they wanted to avoid: an official religion, sanctioned, established, and controlled by the state; and a government that restricted the free exercise of religious practices and beliefs. That's the reason for the twofold guarantee, and that's about the extent of the principle. In the founders' wisdom, they felt that to further detail the relationship would be pointless, as their two goals would be readily visible to anyone with a smattering of common sense and historical context. Alas, they could not foresee the effects of revisionist history, coupled with a dearth of common sense, in bringing about the belief that the Constitution contains a guarantee of freedom from religion.

Indeed, even the nature of appointments to the High Court being as they are, for a lifetime, indicate that the founders never intended for that governmental body to cater to the whim of a fickle constituency, but rather to serve alongside our elected representatives as a buffer to the ebb and flow inherent in democratic government. Plato called democracy a bad form of government, citing that it gave way to "mob rule" then to anarchy. Our representative democracy and an appointed Supreme Court were designed, among other things, to insure that the Constitution was not trampled beneath the feet of that mob.

The nomination of Judge Alito seems to be a strong move towards a court which will concern itself with the content of the Constitution, not with either a conservative or liberal political agendum. An originalist interpretation of the Constitution will return some autonomy to the states, and will be the first step in returning the Federal government to its rightful level of involvement in the lives of its citizens. That, in turn, will pave the way for a content and prosperous populace, a body of citizens who will once again see the Federal government as a noble institution that serves the people, not a tyrannical taskmaster obsessed with extending its reach.

Casey: Uterine Control or Just Common Sense?

2005-11-04T09:45:00.000-06:00

I posted the following as a comment on another blog. I liked it enough to put it here. Whether that makes me vain or lazy, I don't know.

In one sense, it’s admirable to attempt to argue either way upon spousal notification as if it’s its own issue, but it’s nigh unto impossible to continue that argument for any duration. It inevitably hinges upon two major questions:

“What is Abortion?” and “What is Marriage?”

Abortion is, of course the removal of fetal tissue from a woman’s uterus. That’s the “sterilized” definition. That tissue must be viewed as one of two things, either a life or a piece of property. One demands preservation, the other is an object to be either kept or disposed of at its owner’s discretion.

Marriage is an agreement in which two people join together under a bond of partnership that includes (among several other facets) shared benefits, responsibilities, and control over assets. It is an agreement entered into voluntarily (at least in this nation), and it’s a legally binding agreement (as evidenced by the complexity of divorce proceedings).

When the question of spousal notification arises, it strikes at the framework of those two points, in that it presupposes the fetus to be “property” (as established in Roe, otherwise abortion could be deemed illegal by any of the several states), and it limits its scope of influence to couples who have entered into an agreement that involves joint possession of property (especially that which is acquired through joint effort).

One may argue that because the woman is in possession (quite intimate possession, at that) of the fetus, it is considered “more” her property than her husband’s. That would be akin to arguing that interest in the couple’s domicile or vehicles shouldn’t be divided in the event of divorce because only her husband’s name is on the titles or deeds to the property. Legally, it’s shaky ground.

I would also caution that to argue that the fetus is more than property leaves a void which must be filled with an alternative definition of the fetus. The logical progression must be that it’s to be seen as a part of the woman’s body. As such, she would be free to remove that part without notification or consent from any other party. You wouldn’t, for example, be bound to any form of “notification” for an appendectomy. There’s one glaring problem with that analogy, however, Though nonremoval of body parts may have dire consequences, nonremoval of the fetus leads to the birth of a human being, for which the father, by law, must assume some responsibility, if only financial (a situation which extends beyond the presence or absence of a marriage agreement).

Of course, if the fetus is viewed as a life, the argument regarding spousal notification is moot.

I offer, therefore, that the case for spousal notification (and perhaps even consent) is far from “indefensible” to anyone who isn’t content to relegate the complexities of this debate to a thinly veiled attack on abortion rights.

Playin' the Plame Name Game

2005-11-03T18:53:00.000-06:00

I've held silence on this issue for quite a while now, only commenting briefly on other blogs regarding the debacle.

Here's how I see it right now, and I'll forewarn you, my thoughts will probably be rather fragmented.

From the beginning, it's never been clear whether Valerie Plame Wilson's employment with the CIA carried the type of protections afforded to "covert agents." Whereas her use of her maiden name seemed to indicate that her identity was at least masked to some degree, that's not the level of protection generally provided to an agent whose career (and potentially life) hinges upon their employment by the Agency being top secret.

That said, if the extent of her "undercover" nature was using her maiden name, I sincerely doubt that it would be possible for her to be "outed" in a way that was a compromise to our national security.

So much for the "treason" meme.

Then there's the charges of obstruction of justice and perjury that have come out on Libby. I did comment elsewhere that I've never been a fan of these "sidebar" charges when the initial allegation didn't happen, but perjury remains a serious crime, as it chips at the foundational integrity of our legal system. As such, if Libby, Rove, or anyone else committed such a crime before the grand jury, they should be convicted and sentenced.

But because of the current political mood, inspired by the liberals and the MSM, there arises a significant problem. According to what has become "conventional wisdom" because of the liberal onslaught, if Libby is convicted, Rove should have been, as well. If Libby is acquitted, it will be spun as evidence of the "Rethuglican conspiracy." If Libby and Rove are somehow both convicted of wrongdoing, it will be evidence of the "culture of corruption."

In other words, the Republicans are already sunk, in the MSM's eyes, and those of the most vocal liberals.

So how to rise from this? Republicans must learn for once, to stick to the program (see my earlier post on a "Damn the Torpedoes RNC"), regardless of what the MSM says about how they're perceived. The Republicans have run scared anytime the MSM reported that a poll reflected that their latest position was unpopular. They've never tried turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to those reports and foraging ahead with the things that got them elected. It just might work. If nothing else, it will give the American people a clear choice at the next election.

The unasked question in all of this is whether the CIA itself did anything following the "leak." By definition, if the identity of an undercover agent is discovered, that slip constitutes a very serious offense within the ranks of the Agency, and is typically followed by an internal investigation. Did that happen? If so, what did they find? If not, doesn't that fact by itself establish that Mrs. Wilson was actually not an agent who could have been "outed" because she simply was not covert.

Perhaps at some time in the future, the MSM will quit trying to find out when Cheney and Bush knew (assuming they actually did know prior to the Novak column), and turn their attention to matters that, well, actually matter. I'm not, however, holding my breath.

Thinking Deeper

2005-11-02T11:21:00.000-06:00

I realize the title of this post is grammatically incorrect, as it should actually read, "thinking more deeply."

Sue me. I just liked the sound of the actual title a lot more.

I suppose I've become a bit fatigued at some of the venom of the political blogs over the past few days, and maybe a bit discouraged at the fact that so much hateful talk has entered into what passes for political debate.

I'm especially weary of the vitriol directed towards conservatives with any degree of religious convictions. Some people, it seems, are incredibly threatened by those who believe that certain actions are simply wrong.

It was whilst I was pondering this phenomenon that a quote from a friend of mine (who happens to be a preacher) came to mind. He said, "Can you imagine the result if Hitler had been an evangelist?"

Ponder that awhile.

What could this man, who is regarded as the embodiment of evil (though that personification has been trivialized by leftists flinging insults towards Bush and co.), have accomplished for the good, if he had used his powers of persuasion to inspire people to love one another, to live morally, and to help their fellow man? How many millions would have joined in the effort to make right the wrongs of oppressive governments worldwide? How many people would have been spared the horrors of the numerous wars and conflicts since Hitler's rise to power?

After some time, I came up with the answer. He would have been, at best, another Billy Graham. Someone who has had significant influence, but he wouldn't have inspired so many to such great action had his intention been towards benevolence and love rather than towards hate.

Why do I think his success would have been limited by his message? Do I think the forces of evil are vastly more powerful than the forces of good?

Well, no, but yes.

Here's the problem. Despite Whitney Houston's ode to the contrary, "learning to love yourself" isn't anything that's particularly remarkable. Chrisitanity's most widespread influence is in the form of the "Golden Rule." It's stated a couple of ways, the most common is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The other variation is simply, "love your neighbor as yourself." Seems that Christiandom ascribes to the notion that "loving yourself" is something that comes quite naturally, and the foundational element of a proper relationship with others comes from our learning to extend the same magnitude of love towards our fellow man.

That's harder for us humans to do than it sounds. It demands that our comfort is at the very least, of no greater importance than the comfort of our fellow man. It prescribes a change in mindset from, "what's in it for me?" to the radically different, "how will it benefit my neighbor?"

And that doesn't sell very well in a world fixated upon personal comfort and affluence (as addressed in a previous post).

So I'm afraid the incredibly influential personalities who have done notorious and despicable deeds against humanity would have been severely limited in their scope of influence, had they chosen to promote good things and positive ideals. It's simply not what people want. But as they enjoyed success in promoting self-pride, racism, distrust of others, and genuine hatred, others who follow in their footsteps will find an audience among the masses.

I do hope, however, that we've seen the last of their great "successes."

A Village of Voyeurs

2005-10-31T10:33:00.000-06:00

I heard an interesting analysis this morning. The topic to which the comment was attached is really irrelevant. The point is excellent.

We've become a society of voyeurs, choosing rather to watch life out the window than to get out and live it for ourselves.

On the lighter side, that's the only reasonable explanation for the boom of "reality television."

There's a much more disturbing point, however. We've successfully alienated ourselves from nearly every part of our own existence. In days gone by, when the internet and the modern obsession with anytime/anywhere communication were nonexistent, we actually lived, making our own way. Now, we can immerse ourselves in a fantasy world in which our problems are either forgotten completely (and therefore never directly addressed), or are attributed to the actions of another.

I tend to think this is the end result of a culture's obsession with extravagance. During the first half of the century (even more so after the Second World War), citizens of this nation were driven to achieve more and accomplish more than their parents. As that generation aged and procreated, the trend was towards granting their children all the fruits of their labors. That generation grew up in good homes, with the best of everything, and they didn't have to struggle to get to that point like their parents had.

When that generation grew to maturity (the "yuppies," for those who keep up with such terms), their children enjoyed even more affluence than their parents, again without the struggles that that generation's grandparents endured.

Now, up to this point, my analysis has mirrored much of what has been written about "Generation X," but here I'll veer away from the conclusion normally presented here, that Gen-X has no concept of morals, financial responsibility, etc. Those may be real problems, but they have little, if anything to do with my point.

The Baby Boomers drove station wagons and American luxury sedans, sometimes stepping down to the econo-boxes when it was time for their kids to go to college. The Yuppies selected from Mercedes, Volvo, Saab, and the occasional Audi, citing things like "engineering" and "fit and finish" as the driving criteria for that selection. Gen-X was arguably the biggest reason for Lexus and Infiniti to come about, as their concern for "old-world" refinement was usually located right next to their affinity for Victorian mores. An expensive, high-performance sedan from Japan was acceptable to them, despite the fact that they were paying an average of $10K more for a re-badged Toyota. Image was, in their world, everything (I could go into a rant about a $70K four-wheel drive vehicle here, but I digress). Enter the children of Gen-X. Many are reaching young adulthood, and as their Gen-X parents grasp for some long-overdue satisfaction out of life, they're looking for ways to fulfill expectations of exceeding their parents' achievements. This leads them into the realm of Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston-Martin, and Bentley. Now, with these ever-increasing expectations of affluence come the stark reality that a smaller and smaller percentage of people really "make it" to the top. As the bar is raised, fewer are capable of jumping over it, and more are inspired to try to stretch their limited resources to reach it.

Parenthetical--
I know I've concentrated on vehicles, because it's a handy barometer, but consider how most of the 40+ crowd grew up dreaming of a summer cottage on the coast, and those younger than that willingly spend about three months' mortgage on that cottage on a seven-day Club Med vacation. The quest for affluence has truly permeated every aspect of society--not just our autos.

Back to the main topic now--
So, as fewer and fewer people really make it into the "in" crowd, we're more inspired to live out our fantasies of opulence through other means. For some that takes the form of a few drool-sessions at the Porsche website per week. For others, it's an uninhibited trip to Vegas or Mardi Gras. For others still, it's watching others on television vie for riches and affluence, and noticing that they're no better than the average citizen.

Most of all, it's about us becoming much more concerned with what others have and with how others live, when Americans once were quite preoccupied with making their own lives into what they wanted.

Perhaps this is at the root of some of the political discourse of late. Perhaps this trend serves to explain the corruption that seems be present in nearly every level of business and most areas of government.

Perhaps it's just my own personal pet peeve, and it's not really doing anything at all significant in society.

How Not to Clean a Hard Drive (or, the final antivirus solution)

2005-10-16T19:59:00.000-05:00

I must confess, I learned a lot over the weekend.

A little background.

I chase tornadoes. For fun. I have a gi-normous Ford Excursion, equipped with all sorts of gadgets that help my chasing experience, including my laptop (for GPS, etc., saving up for a MobileThreatNet system).

No, I didn't get it wet. Well, not exactly.

My wife and I took the kids to the State Fair Thursday night. Before the trip, I took my laptop off its perch between the driver's and passenger's seat, and carefully placed it in the back of the Excursion, face-down to protect the screen. Done it before. No problem.

Friday night, enjoying a rare string of three nights that my wife didn't have to work, she and I went out to eat, then made a quick stop by Wal-Mart. I probably should mention that we had originally intended to take her car, but my 16-year-old son managed to beg her out of the keys so he could go to Homecoming "in style." Anyway, as we left the store with our purchases, everything seemed quite normal. Indeed, disaster was looming large, albeit just beyond our limited scope of vision.

We loaded our packages, and set off towards home. The time was about 11:00 p.m. We were an hour from home.

Among our parcels was a couple of car-deodorizer canisters, the kind with the gel in the bottom that smells really good when the car's nice and hot, so that you feel like you're in a magically scented oven, rather than a conventional oven when you climb in. About ten minutes into our trip, I noticed a scent that I presumed may have eminated from one of the supposedly sealed canisters. My wife put my concerns to rest, as the canisters were both sealed, in small bags we had arranged on the back seat.

Riding home, the scent persisted, and I was sure something had come open, but I couldn't discern the particular aroma as belonging to anything we had purchased. I contemplated stopping and checking everything, but figured it wasn't really worth the time, trouble, and risk involved in stopping on the side of interstate at nearly midnight.

When we got home, we unlocked the house and I reached into the back to start retrieving our bags. The scent was particularly strong, and I readily discovered that it eminated from a bottle of ultra-super-mega-concentrated Dawn dishwashing liquid (Apple scent, no less) whose top had lodged in a fold of the bag just enough to partially open the top. No problem--I had, after all, bought a deodorizer for my truck, so this would let me delay the deployment of the brave little canister.

My first inkling that not all was well came when I moved the bag that contained the leaking bottle and revealed my laptop, still attached to the jotto-desk top, still upside-down, with some of the green soapy goo on the jotto desk. I actually didn't panic, but rather thought it good that the jotto desk was there, so the soap didn't get into my laptop, but probably just ran over the back, where its effects on the various ports and such would be limited. A quick wipe-off with first a dry paper towel or two, then a couple damp ones and a drying pass would make it all good as new, with a shiny spot on the laptop to boot. I picked up the laptop, observed that quite a lot of the stuff had run down the back and sat it on my kitchen counter with some concern, but honestly not that much.

After completing the unloading task, I attended my laptop. I looked again at the jotto desk, and realized that the actual area where the dishwashing liquid had dripped was between a couple channels in the bottom of the jotto desk in which were slots for some unpurchased and therefore unattached accessories. These slots, as the sharp mind would have deduced by now, allowed said dishwashing detergent to readily penetrate the cooling ports on the bottom of my upside-down-for-protection's-sake laptop.

Surely, I mused, not enough actually got into the thing to severely damage anything, did it? As I opened the laptop and observed the puddle of detergent on the screen, I had my answer. I immediately seized my precision screwdriver set and removed the battery pack. Continuing, I went through, carefully wiping off the green goo from the removable drives and the outer case. I pulled the keyboard off and pulled out the backup lithium button battery. Moving to the bar, I started disassembling in earnest. Pulling the fan/heat sink assembly, processor, memory, and other various components, I got down to opening the case for access to the bottom side of the motherboard. There was a curious foam eminating from some of the power-supply circuitry.

I feared the worst, but not to be dissuaded, I continued disassembling and wiping. When I had it down to the smallest parts not attached with solder, I pondered the possibilities, then decided water, whilst not particularly friendly to energized circuitry, it was probably better than trying to power-up the system with so much detergent still in all the nooks and crannies of the board. So I began washing each item, trying to get every bit of soap off of every piece.

I'll hearken back to my original description of the detergent. This wasn't a bargain-store bottle of "Dishwashing Liquid" brand detergent--it was the extra-super-mega-ultra-any-other-superlative-adjetive-concentrated Dawn. The stuff is formulated such that oh, about two drops is sufficient to completely and thoroughly clean a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

About three hours and more bubbles than Lawrence Welk saw in his entire career later, I had all the pieces laid out to dry.

The next morning, I was quite pleased that there was no water nor detergent left on any of the components, and I reassembled the computer. Every screw went in the right place, no spare parts--a good sign.

I tenatively plugged the adapter in. No smoke or sparks--a very good sign. Then came the moment of truth. I pushed the power button.

Nothing.

Nada.

Zilch.

Not even a faint flicker of life. No fan spin, no light flickering.

My laptop was dead.

Well, after a few more hours (and a significant unplanned expenditure), I was the proud owner of a brand-new Sony Vaio laptop. It's so much better in so many ways than my old one, that it's hard to be awfully upset, but it was a major setback to some of my other financial goals.

I began this post by saying that I learned a lot this weekend, and the most significant thing I learned is that I can suffer an absurdly bizarre turn of events that cost me a large sum of money and not lose my cool. My wife even remarked that she was amazed at my demeanor. I suppose it struck me as so outlandish that I found it nearly humorous. I've also learned a particularly devious means to sabotage a laptop, if ever the necessity arises.

Lastly, I've learned that when the Dawn commercials claim that "a capful cleans a sinkful," they ain't bullshittin'.

Holy Toledo!

2005-10-16T18:56:00.000-05:00

Ok, the title is about as witty as I'll get on this issue. Yesterday I watched as all auspices of civilization were torn away as a mob of savages rampaged in parts of Toledo, under the guise of "protesting" a Nazi rally.

And they were black.

The story isn't so much surrounding the question of whether the Nazis should have been allowed to rally. Instead, what is disturbing to me is that the sequence of events was, at least to some degree, expected by the city's leaders.

Does this say something about black culture? I don't accept that within every black person lies an innate tendency towards this type of behaviour. I do believe, however, that there exists within black society a set of factors in which this tendency is learned at an early age. I am not enough of a sociologist (or perhaps too much of one) to assign proper weight to the various contributors to this phenomenon, but I do think that rampant illegitimacy, entitlement mentality, and anti-white racism all play major roles.

The solutions to the problems are hard answers, but certain things need to significantly change.

One of the most noticeable things about the Toledo "riot" (quotated because this was decidedly not a riot, but rather a fit of opportunistic criminality) was the lack of any substantial force by the police department. Perhaps images of the use of firehoses against predominately black crowds during the Civil Rights movement discourages any show of force towards similar crowds, but a strong response to the opening motions of the melee would have prevented the event from escalating. Policemen should be authorized to use as much force as necessary (up to and including deadly force) in response to being targeted by rocks, bottles, and the like, and they should be willing to use such force. As it stands, there's no fear of retaliation, so there's no second thought given to such actions.

As to the underlying causes, the first thing that should be done is drastic welfare reform to stop the system from encouraging illegitimacy. As it stands now, more bastard children equals more money. No, maybe not most people's idea of a good way to make a living, but it has become a way of life to many, particularly among black Americans. There is currently neither an incentive for black men to father their children properly, nor for black mothers to keep from getting pregnant again and again, knowing that so long as she is responsible for a minor child, her food, housing, and healthcare will be provided by the government. To be sure, nearly every system will have flaws--those who unduly benefit, as well as those who abuse the system--but the current system is so horribly skewed against stable families that I'm not at all sure it can be reformed. It may truly be better to start again from square one, requiring re-certification under new standards. Those standards should truly help those who are willing to help themselves, but should have standards of responsibility to ensure that "baby factories" and "sperm donors" aren't rewarded for their efforts.

Secondly, the generalized "entitlement" mindset must be eliminated. Private citizens are "entitled" to precious little, but one wouldn't get that impression looking at the billions spent each year on "entitlement programs." I still remember when the shift was made from calling these disbursements "entitlements" rather than "benefits." The very idea that anyone is, through their own irresponsibility in life decisions, "entitled" to free food, healthcare, housing, utilities, or anything else for that matter, is diametrically opposed to the very principles of a free society. One of two things needs to happen. Either the eligibility requirements for the programs should be trimmed such that only the truly needy qualify, or everyone who could possibly qualify for the programs should sign up, breaking the system and necessitating a rebuild. Either way, the growth of the welfare state must be curtailed.

Third, and equally significant, is the problem of anti-white racism being taught in the black community. There is such rampant hatred and distrust of anything white that blacks have very nearly segregated themselves more completely than they were in the first half of the 20th century. Whether it's worse that such segregation is promoted by black leaders or that it is so readily tolerated by society is anybody's guess. Both aspects are abominable from my point of view.

Perhaps the most disturbing thought I had as I watched the drama unfolding in Toledo was whether this would be the first blow in some sort of racial conflict. There has been so much tension fostered by the elements I address above that I fear that such a conflict looms on the horizon, barring drastic changes to current trends. What's more, the mainstream media seems to play to these tensions, fanning the flames whenever they're given an opportunity. When so much airplay is given to racially-charged allegations and absurd conspiracy theories (Kanye West, Louis Farrakhan, e.g.), nobody is served, save those twisted individuals who actually want a race war. In the absence of clearer minds and kinder words, I'm reminded of the famous quote from Cool Hand Luke:

"...which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it."

In Fewer Words:

2005-10-03T13:06:00.000-05:00

I just realized I've been extremely long-winded in most of my posts. In the interests of being more pithy, I'll try to sum up the past four posts here:

Hurricanes, race-baiters, and wimpy conservatives suck.

Bad.

Why Can't We Have a "Damn the Torpedoes" RNC?

2005-10-03T12:26:00.000-05:00

One of the most destructive trends is the incessant cry for "unity" between what should be two diametrically opposed philosophies on government's role.

Whether the Republicans actually could maintain a majority by playing upon the salient differences between their party's platform and that of the DNC will never be known, because they have allowed themselves to be drawn to the "center" by this trend, "center" meaning "not-too-radically-liberal-in-most-ways."

I didn't think that Bush, in either election, effectively differentiated himself from his opponent, something that cost Dole the Presidency at a time when much of the nation was quite dissatisfied with the Clinton administration. When people think they're choosing between "ash gray" and "slate gray," sometimes they just stay home. The only reason Bush came out ahead was that his opponents (both Gore and Kerry), in spite of the DNC's efforts, insisted upon playing to the liberal fringe, creating some defining issues upon which the people expressed their preference.

If only the RNC would learn to ignore their MSM caricatures long enough to actually do what they were elected to do. I took some flak from the left when I agreed that the American people had sent Bush back to the White House with a mandate--my point being that he was sent with a specific set of goals, and that the RNC would reap the fallout if he, for whatever reason, didn't perform those goals.

The fact that these things haven't been accomplished says as much about the lack of Republican leadership in Congress as it points to the lack of direction in the White House. I fear that Bush and the Republican Congressmen have been essentially neutered by the controlling interests in the RNC, as the "party" tries to position itself for the 2008 Presidential Election. They're doing the political equivalent of putting with a driver.

Bush should have nominated a well-known, solidly conservative judge to the Supreme Court this morning. I joked that Ann Coulter would have been a good one to pull out of the hat, if for no other reason than to send Kennedy, Byrd, and Schumer into shock, but I guess I was probably only half-joking, as I was in hopes that a staunch conservative would be proposed. As it is, Bush seems to have attempted to please everybody, and has, in so doing, angered both sides instead.

Will somebody please take a stand? I don't buy into the "absolute power" meme, because I haven't seen such power exercised. From the days of the "Contract with America," the RNC has exhibited an unwillingness to forage ahead ignoring the slings and arrows of the MSM and the left-wingers. Do they even remember how they gained the majority? Do they have any notion that they're being looked at as one of the greatest failures of representation ever seen in the nation's history. They were supposed to have been our voices on Capitol Hill. Their chief duty was to represent the wishes of their constituents.

Somewhere along the way, they forgot. Maybe they'll remember before it's too late for them, their party, and our nation.

I fear they won't.

Straight Talk About Race and Racism

2005-10-01T08:54:00.000-05:00

I submit for your perusal:

"Now I'm black but black people trip 'cause white people like me; white people like me I but don't like them. . . . I don't hate whites, I just gotta death wish for motherfuckers that ain't right"
--"Race War"; Ice-T, Album: Home Invasion

"This will all be over in '99, so, niggas, give devils the crime; gonna be more devils dying"
--"No Surrender"; Bone Thugs-N-Harmony, Album: Creepin on ah Come Up

"Like my niggas from South Central Los Angeles they found that they couldn't handle us; Bloods, CRIPS, on the same squad, with the Essays up, and nigga, it's time to rob and mob and break the white man off something lovely"
--"The Day the Niggaz Took Over"; DrDre, Album: The Chronic

"Bust a Glock; devils get shot. . . . when God give the word me herd like the buffalo through the neighborhood; watch me blast. . . . I'm killing more crackers than Bosnia-Herzegovina, each and everyday. . . . don't bust until you see the whites of his eyes, the whites of his skin. . . . Louis Farrakhan . . . Bloods and CRIPS, and little old me, and we all getting ready for the enemy"
--"Enemy"; Ice Cube, Album: Lethal Injection

"Rhymes is rugged like burnt buildings in Harlem; the Ol Dirty Bastard. . . . I'm also militant. . . . snatching devils up bythe hair, then cut his head off"
--"Cuttin Headz"; Ol Dirty Bastard, Album: Return of the 36 Chambers: the Dirty Version

"I come with the wicked style. . . . I got everybody jumping to the voodoo. . . . I got a gat and I'm looking out the window like Malcolm. . . . April 29 was power to the people, and we just might see a sequel"
--"Wicked"; Ice Cube, Album: The Predator
(editor's note--April 29 was the start of the post-Rodney King trial riots in L.A.)

"Deal with the devil with my motherfucking steel. . . .white man is something I tried to study, but I got my hands bloody, yeah. . . . I met Farrakhan and had dinner"
--"When Will They Shoot"; Ice Cube, Album: The Predator

"My own kind blind, brain-trained on the devil-level. . . . chasing down loot, Dole or Newt, who do you shoot. . . . rough stuff to the babies, spread like rabies"
--"Niggativity . . . Do I Dare Disturb the Universe"; Chuck D, Album: Autobiography of MistaChuck

“I may die in the scuffle but I’m taking forty devils”
-- “The City”; Wu-Tang Clan, Album: Wu-Tang Forever

"And death to you devils from the Old South"
--"Waitin' Ta Hate"; Ice Cube, Album: War & Peace, Vol 2 (The Peace Album)

This is a sampling of what has been recorded in the name of entertainment. Not by a couple fringe groups, but by "mainstream" rap artists (I use "artists" very loosely here). There's no doubt from context that the "devils" oft-threatened in these lyrics represent the "white devils" spoken of by Louis Farrakhan and Khalid Abdul Muhammed. Was there an outpouring of condemnation for this hate-speech from the black community or the music industry? Hardly. Ice Cube, a former Grammy winner was reviewed in Rolling Stone:

War and Peace Vol. 2, an improvement on 1998's scattershot Vol. 1, makes an argument for Cube's longevity. Few other MCs feature madly recontextualized Shakespearean verse, as Cube does on "Pimp Homeo." Cube also shows his flair for drama on the cinematic, post-apocalyptic rant of "Mental Warfare," an intro to the unrepentantly pro-gangsta "24 Mo' Hours." There are fresh departures here, too: On the single "Until We Rich" (which features Krayzie Bone), Cube imbues his old-school rhyming with a contemporary R&B flavor and a defiant optimism: "Don't talk about death/I got too much life to live." In a line like that, we see the badass spiritual resiliency that made Cube so worth imitating in the first place.

Not exactly a scathing indictment of hate-filled lyrics.

I could speculate what would happen if a white recording artist said anything derogatory about blacks, but I don't have to. When Guns 'N' Roses released their sophomore wide-release album, Lies, it contained a track titled "One In A Million" that included the line, "Police and niggers, get out of my way. Don't want to buy none of your gold chains today." Backlash was immediate. Even a fairly recent retrospective biographical of Axl Rose in Salon (subtitled "American Hellhound) read thus:

"Lies," for example, Guns n' Roses' second album, which came out in 1988, contains several songs that twist contradictory emotions into a rough, intriguing thread. "I Used to Love Her" tells the story of what sounds like a murder, yet it's widely considered a song about Rose's dog -- which he loved but had to euthanize and bury in his backyard. "Patience" preaches virtue in ballad form, but Rose breaks down in the end; and then there's "One in a Million."

The hateful, six-minute rant filled with lines like "immigrants and faggots don't mean much to me" brought hailstorms of criticism. Yet it sounds a lot like a parody of the late-'80s political mood. Once you overlook the sheer offense of what Rose screams, which is no easy task, the song looks more and more like a documentary of discontent, the preface to the white male backlash that we now acknowledge exists thanks in large part to Susan Faludi's book "Stiffed."
Rose's later career seems to support the theory that he's not so much ignorance incarnate as he is perpetually immature. Writing last year in Rolling Stone, critic Peter Wilkinson may have said it best when he noted that Rose is "a complicated man who can be sensitive and funny but who is also controlling and obsessive and troubled."

Hmm, Ice Cube rants about killing the white devils, and he's "worth imitating," while Axl's sole departure into the taboo renders him "perpetually immature" and "obsessive and troubled."

There's a profound disconnect here. Dr. King spoke of a "symphony of brotherhood," but the current state of affairs is much more reminiscent of the "jangling discords" he sought to eradicate. There is more dissent between races now, I dare say, than existed thirty years ago, the fires of racial tension being fanned by hatemongers like Jackson, Sharpton, Mfume, and Farrakhan. There have been no efforts whatsoever from the NAACP to leave the ugliness of the past behind in a quest for harmony. Instead that group (and others) seek out as many points of contention as they can find or invent. Part of healing is a cessation of picking at the wound. Dredging up "past injustices" and holding tightly onto a presupposition of oppression ensures that the wound will never heal, but will keep growing, festering, and seething with all manner of vile matter. The other tendency is to neglect the fresher wounds, those problems that currently face the black community, letting them get more and more gravely infected, when proper care would heal them in short order. My fear is that the infections will eventually grow systemic, threatening the entire body that is our great nation.

That outcome can come in many forms, but I think the most likely is an escalating amount of tension between the races that will culminate in an outbreak in violence between the races. The reason behind the ugliness of the South during the Civil Rights movement wasn't some deep-seated hatred of blacks--they were simply the focus of the action. The impetus behind those actions was a perceived threat to American culture. Through the years of slavery, blacks had been bought, sold, worked, and generally treated like animals, and it was the observation of many people that they acted the part. The freed slaves were seen as uncivilized and brutish, a menace to "higher society." Because they had been deprived of many of the influences of western civilization, and removed from the tribal structures that existed in Africa, the freed blacks were in a similar situation as a college-school graduate seeking employment. They can't be employed without experience, and they can't gain experience without being employed. There arose a set of leaders who taught blacks that the road to freedom was paved with education. Through the early part of the 20th century, blacks became educated in much larger numbers, and with that education came civilization. From that generation came Evers, Meredith, Parks, and others, who effectively prepared themselves to succeed and excel, in spite of still-rampant oppression. The indirect effect of that oppression was that blacks recognized that they would have to do even better than whites for recognition. This led to some of the sharpest and best educated professionals the nation has ever seen, in all fields.

Now the situation has changed horribly. In the dark days of racial oppression, blacks knew the challenges they faced, and struggled against it, ultimately becoming better, as strength built against resistance. Today, however, there is more of a trend towards citing past oppressions as excusing a lack of effort towards excellence. A mentality has arisen that in order to "right the historical wrongs" Americans should accept lower standards for blacks, and that blacks should have an easier time than whites to achieve the same goals. This is the entitlement culture at its most destructive, and the Civil Rights leaders of the 60s would be appalled at what their dream has become. Their quests for achievement have been ditched in favor of complacency in poverty. Their demands for equality have been burned at the stake, in favor of race-based set-asides and preferential treatment. Their hopes of a society that over time would become legally, morally, and perhaps socially "color blind" has been dashed against the rocks, hurled over a cliff called "empowerment."

The great voices of the Civil Rights movement knew that equality demanded a two-pronged approach. They had to fight the injustices imposed by whites, but they also had to prepare blacks for their roles in the brave new world they struggled to create. The assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Medgar Evers also killed that two-tiered message, relegating it to a message of victimhood preached by their successors. Black America currently has precious few leaders even willing to admit that internal problems even exist amongst blacks (much less propse solutions), choosing instead to lay the blame for every woe of black communities on the injustices of the past and perceived prejudices of the present.

The end result of this mindset will be more and more self-destruction by the black community and continually increasing tension between the races. I was in hopes that the conversations that arose after Hurricane Katrina would lead to an honest and open discourse about race, poverty, and what needs to be done from both sides, but instead I'm seeing more dissent and blame, sprinkled with a generous helping of racist accusations.

What is the solution? Quite simply put, black people in America must realize that the trends that have guided them over the past couple of decades must stop. They must also acknowledge that a lot of blood was shed for them to have the opportunities they are currently squandering. They need to stop support and participation for "black-only" events and groups, and drop a whole lot of the "black pride" movement. While there is nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage, by maintaining separation you are creating a heritage of which future generations can only be ashamed. White Americans must also have a change of attitude. First and foremost, we must stop giving in anytime Jesse Jackson (or any one of several others) squeals "racism," and force him to prove his allegations, instead of extorting his way into another headline. If the allegation is true, own the error and fix it. Otherwise, force the accuser to put up or shut up. Whites absolutely must not give in to meeting wrong with wrong, or we will descend into the same type of conflict as we lived through in the 50s and 60s, and the burden of maintaining order falls squarely on the shoulders of us, the majority. We must acknowledge sins of the past, but refuse to be forced to wallow in them, recognizing that the past is out of our control, while the future is in our hands. We must also try very hard to put to rest any notion that blacks are in any way predisposed to certain behaviours because of race. What we see in the thugs that roam the inner city is learned, not inborn, behaviour.

On that note, parents of every race must be careful that their children aren't learning such through the rap and hiphop culture that has made a huge industry through peddling sex, violence, drugs, and hate. There are far greater problems that need to be addressed than what Ice Cube or Wu-Tang says on an album, but we've got to start somewhere.

Katrina-Part II: The Politics

2005-09-10T13:57:00.000-05:00

I've tried very hard to look objectively at the New Orleans situation, and I'm ready to admit I really can't. Too much history and experience is intricately involved in the situation for me to block it out and just look at the bare facts. In so admitting, however, I don't offer an apology, because the history and experience to which I refer is directly pertinent to the situation at hand. I'll try to keep this post organized, but there is so much floating around the MSM and the blogosphere that categorization of the issues is nigh unto impossible.

Point 1: Racism
There has been much said regarding the fact that most of New Orleans' residents seen on television and in print media were black. Immediately there were cries of "racism" leveled at the Bush administration. This is an unfortunate, but not unforseeable, development. The "projects" in New Orleans were built in a particularly low-lying part of the city. That facet lays at the feet of state and local government, those entities being responsible for the zoning and contstruction that brought that scenario about. Further, two programs have come into play here that perhaps will be scrutinized in the future. The first is the practice of building "projects" at all. The second is entrenching people in poverty by giving hand-outs instead of legitimate assistance. These two policies conspire to complete the cycle of poverty, in both concentrating poor people in communities where they're tucked out of sight, and removing any impetus for upward mobility and escape from the cycle. To suggest that relief was slow because the people in distress were black and poor is absurd. To question why the bulk of the people in need of rescue were poor and black, however, is quite appropriate. Much has been made of Mayor Nagin's failure to implement standing plans to evacuate the poor and infirm by making use of city resources. I personally think he stands responsible for that inaction. I think the more pertinent question, however, is why such a huge population of poor existed in such an affluent city. Had the programs instituted to ease poverty been achieving only marginal results, there wouldn't have been the incredible numbers of people still in the "projects," without means or ability to get out of the area. Perhaps (and I know I'm hoping against hope here) a re-evaluation of how our government on all levels deals with the poor will come from this disaster. What we've done for the past half-century isn't working.

Point 2: The Federal Response
Bush is the new Hitler. I don't say that as a slight upon the man, because I think he's done a pretty good job, overall. I say it from the standpoint that for one segment of American (and international) society, he embodies everything they hate. As such, he can do nothing right, in their eyes. Had he run rough-shod over Louisiana's Democratic Governor (who happens to be female, to boot), and over New Orleans' Democratic Mayor (a black man), he would have been lambasted for exercising dictatorial powers, doing great violence to the constitution. The end would have never justified the means. I sincerely doubt that he would have received praise from some had he stood on the shores of Grand Isle and made Katrina dissipate at his command. As it stands, he utilized the proper chain of command in both Louisiana and Mississippi. Where then, is the difference in observed outcome? I dare say the differences in side-by-side comparisons of what happened in the two states point to a single undeniable conclusion: the failures were at a lower level than federal. Both states are incredibly poor (Mississippi ranks 50th, Louisiana ranks 49th), both states were hit incredibly hard by the storm, and both states received the same treatment from FEMA. The difference happened somewhere else. Governor Barbour shined; Governor Blanco stalled. While the Mississippi National Guard headed out from Camp Shelby, chainsawing and clearing their way to the coast as soon as the winds subsided a bit, what was the Louisiana National Guard doing? That's a function of state-level leadership, not federal.

Point 3: The Environment
I hesitate to go here, because I haven't the time to link to all the information I want to cite. As a result, I'll keep things very brief here, just giving my overall take. I hope to return to this with a full complement of data at a later date, but I know better than to count on it. Global warming has been cited as a major cause for the recent increase in number and intensity of hurricanes. This is a disingenuous approach, because it requires that solid scientific research be mated to theoretical results. In other words, while there has been an observable trend towards a warmer earth, the results of that are highly debatable, and the minute changes of the past century would almost certainly not cause the effects claimed over the past decade. Whether that claimed trend is real or imagined is another topic of debate. From the National Hurricane Center's website, charts on hurricane activity don't show an escalation in frequency or strength out of line with other "surges" in past decades. Further, if the progresses of civilization have truly caused the warming trend over the past centuries, there's no indication that even the most drastic changes in the way we do things would curb the trend.

Point 4: The Cleanup
My greatest concern here is, why should this be such a large Federal project? Certainly there are scores of investors and entrepreneurs chomping at the bit to develop this area, and industry could be easily drawn to areas near the Port of New Orleans. My suggestion would be to minimize residences in the flood-prone lower areas of the city, and to develop these areas as light industrial/commercial areas. This would achieve two goals--decentralizing the "projects" and filling the area with structures built by entities that would be more capable of managing the loss in the event of future flooding. This is also a perfect opportunity to build the levees as they should be, rather than building them as existing space allows. Landowners will have to be compensated, but the land being acquired under eminent domain would be much more in tune with the spirit of that provision than would acquisition of land for private corporate distribution.
In my opinion, the Army Corps of Engineers should be in charge of overseeing the levees, as they have been in the past, and the Federal government should completely finance this rebuilding and maintenance. There should be no Federal expenditures, however, on private losses. Period. Charitible organizations should step in, and those families dependent upon the government (state or federal) for housing and sustainance should be re-located to non-flooding areas. There is simply no excuse for putting tax dollars into building flood-prone homes for the poor. It's a waste of money and puts those least able to fend for themselves directly in harm's way.

Point 5: The Next Storm
Katrina, better than any natural (or other) disaster of late, exposed weaknesses that have been intrinsic to big federal government. There will be a push to do one of two things: either empower the federal government to seize control of disaster planning, preparation, and recovery without states' consent (a disastrous blow to the intent of our Constitution), or there will be a greater directive towards state governments to do what they are expected and required to do. Either way, disaster preparedness and response will be changed, probably fairly drastically. Problem is, it won't stay that way for long. We have a horribly short memory about things such as this, and we will watch, as the current generation's grandchildren (and perhaps great-grandchildren) refuse to take the next really big storm seriously. Even on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, devastated by Camille only 35 years ago, people didn't evacuate like they should have, and several died in structures that survived Camille. Alas, the adage is as true about natural catastrophe as it is regarding human blunders: Those who do not study history are destined to repeat it. There will be more big storms, there will be more needless loss of life. But above all, there will be the part of the human spirit that demands that we will once again rebuild, that we once again will thrive. We will, once again, be whole.

Katrina-Part I: My Story

2005-09-06T09:26:00.000-05:00

I've a whole bundle of thoughts to put together about the events of the past 10 days, so I'll start here, and hopefully complete this series before the weekend.

I'll open by saying that I live in central Mississippi. Because of friends and obligations, I have found myself in Gulfport about once a month over the past several years. Truly, some of my best times have been spent in the area the MSM has referred to recently as the "Redneck Riviera" (funny--that's always been the Florida panhandle, if I'm not mistaken).

I'm also a weather nut. Here, with numerous trees, narrow & crooked roads, and rolling hills, I chase tornadoes. Adds a couple levels of difficulty (and several levels of danger) because you can't see beyond about 1/4 miles in most places, but I've caught at least one very good video segment. I don't try to sell my videos--I just love the storms. I probably spend more time daily reading up on meterological events, both current and historical, than many people who make their living in the field.

Having established both of those facts, when Katrina crossed Florida, I told my wife, extended family, and a couple friends with similar interests in the weather, that this looked like the Pontchartrain Express that New Orleans had feared for years. I dismissed the original track that projected the storm's second landfall to be along the Florida Panhandle, perhaps as far east as Tampa. It just didn't make sense. I also remarked that Dennis had achieved incredible strength and windspeed, that storm's strongest winds were at a significant altitude, and didn't do the type of damage that Ivan had. Obviously, Katrina was right on the ground, going from the damage she left in Florida. I also know that August-September is a time when the Gulf waters are warmer than any other time of the year (and warmer than usual over the last few years because of cyclic currents in the gulf), and that Gulf hurricanes during these months are frequentely very severe.

NHC forecasters and computer models kept insisting on an early northeast turn for the storm, even as she strengthened and drifted farther to the west (actual WSW for some time), but eventually the fact set in that this storm would make landfall much farther west than they had predicted initially, and that she would likely be very strong. We in the central part of the state (and across the deep south) had been in the middle of a major heatwave, producing afternoon thunderstorms and showers almost daily, but always very small and concentrated. This massive high-pressure system was what the forecasters were anticipating would deflect Katrina and drive her back into Florida, but that was not to be.

Then she made her first turn to the northwest. Her bearing was as if she were driving the direct line to New Orleans. This was ominous from two different perspectives. First and foremost was the fact that the city of New Orleans was incredibly vulnerable to any storm larger than a category two. Secondly was the fact that as Katrina made this turn, she was plotting a course that would take her over the calmest, warmest Gulf waters, and she was already a Category 2 hurricane. I said "Cat-5" at that point, although the professionals thought 3 or maybe a nominal 4.

I don't offer my gut-instinct predictions to gloat. Mississippians either remember or are intimately acquainted with the ghosts of Camille. It's so ingrained into our culture that she's spoken of and about in tones normally reserved for deity. She has long stood as the benchmark against which modern hurricanes are measured, arguably establishing Category 5 as the strongest possible hurricane. When we in this state see a hurricane churning into the Gulf, we immediately take it very seriously. I also sincerely think that many meterologists were under the impression that Camille's intensity would never be possible in a larger storm. For all her power, she was a very compact hurricane, far smaller than most, and positively tiny compared to some of the monster hurricanes that we've seen over the past twenty years.

Early in the weekend, as Katrina made her turn northward, Mississippians started getting braced, just in case. Officials at the state and local levels began readying preparedness plans for full implementation. People bought nonperishable foods, bottled water, and filled their gas tanks. We knew what was possible, if not yet regarded as probable.

On Saturday, we knew. This would be a big one, maybe the big one. Preparations began in earnest, and coastal residents across Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama started leaving, heeding the advise of their Mayors and Governors. My aunt decided to stay, other family members on the coast came north. We went to bed Saturday night hoping that the storm would turn or at the very least not strengthen much over the next 36 hours.

Sunday morning. My wife woke me a little before seven telling me that Katrina was a Category 5. A chill ran through every nerve. Never have I been so heartbroken about being right. We got dressed and went out to get a few last-minute items that we knew we would need, not only for the storm and its immediate aftermath, but for the days when everything would be getting back to normal, not knowing if supplies would be available after she came through here.

Probably a good time for an "aside." Elena came through my area as a tropical storm. Same with Ivan. Frederic was still a Cat-1 hurricane when he reached the central part of the state, but Camille was still a Cat-3. She leveled homes and dropped trees all over the state, not just on the coast.

Being faced with a Category 5 storm just offshore, with nearly as low (and later in the day, lower) pressure as Camille, but a storm that was many times larger, we took things very seriously. If nothing else, we knew we'd be without power. My wife works in a Meridian hospital as a registered nurse, with a 50 mile commute, so gasoline was a concern, as was her safety traveling. I decided that I would take her to work Monday evening (she worked from 7 pm til 7 am that night). My small children would stay in my Mom & Dad's house (brick, hip roofed) and my oldest son would be with me and my wife for the trip. My wife went to work Sunday night for the 11-7 shift, and I went to bed about midnight, leaving the television on. I woke up frequently, watching the storm pound the coast as it neared landfall. When my wife got back home, she went to bed to rest up and I got up and did a last look-around the yard and the house before I went to work, making sure everything was secure. Then I went to work and stopped to fuel my truck when I got to town.

As the morning continued, conditions began to deteriorate. By noon, we had shut down the computers at work and began preparing for the inevitable power outage. We had decided that we'd leave to take my wife to work about 1 or 2 that afternoon, so I headed out home. Just as I left work, there was a tornado warning issued for my county, a twister moving towards the northwest, coming towards town. On the cell phone with my wife as I headed home, I spotted the funnel about 1/8 of a mile to my south, and cursed under my breath that I didn't have time to set my tripod for a few minutes of footage. It was aloft, but quite impressive.

I got home in driving rain, and walked through my back porch, which faces the south. I realized the power tools I was using on my porch-screening project (table saw, miter saw, etc.,) were going to get wet as the wind picked up, so I moved them to the carport. My wife came out of the house and told me that the power had flickered a few times, and we both knew that meant that a tree was on the line somewhere already, and that our time without electricity would begin very soon. Within 15 minutes, we were in the dark.

At about 1:30, my mother got home and we transferred the children, ready to make our trek to Meridian. Our path would take us into Katrina's direct path, so time was of the essence. Heading out, we had crosswinds fairly strong initially (we were heading nearly due east), then encountered head-on gusts that were probably approaching 60 mph. We got my wife delivered to the hospital, we kissed good-bye, and headed back. Trees had begun to fall, and a few interstate signs had already given up the ghost. Twigs and leaves pelted us, even though the nearest tree was about 75 feet away from the highway. With the wind pushing from behind, my truck (a Ford Excursion) was quite stable, and we were traveling about 65-70 mph when I first noticed sheets of rain staying in front of us, and very few drops on the windshield. Occasionally, we would see brake lights or hazard flashers in front of us, upon which we would slow and hit our flashers to warn people behind us. The first several times, there was a tree blocking one lane, necessitating a drive-around. Then we came to a point on a short overpass where traffic had stopped. power lines had fallen across the road. There were two vehicles directly in front of me in the right lane, an 18-wheeler in the left. What now? It would have been perilous, if not impossible, to back up, and the sides of the bridge held the wires up too high to drive over. Thankfully, the driver of the big truck decided to act. He eased up to the wires, and catching them with his bumper, advanced in low gear, snapping them. There was still a steel cable blocking our way, and I pulled out to the left lane and set my bumper against it. pulling forward, it stretched, some of its strands snapping, and then stopped me. I eased back just a bit, and went forward again, using a little bit of momentum to break the cable completely. It sailed off the side of the bridge when it gave way, and we continued. Several more trees had to be avoided, ultimately necessitating our taking of an alternate route home, as one had a two-lane road back to my house completely blocked. We got back home just after my neighbor's shed got flattened.

Donning my rainsuit, I checked the house over to make sure we hadn't lost any shingles, knowing that within a short time the storm's complete fury would be upon us, and that any quick-fix would have to take place right now. My screened porch was beginning its first stage of restoration to its open-air state, but otherwise, the house was faring well. I checked in with my parents and kids, and finding everyone ok, returned to my house to ride out the storm.

I casually noted that my cell phone service was gone.

For the next two and a half hours, I sat and watched trees bend, some snapping, and listened alternately to the weather radio and the only FM station still on the air within my area. Thankfully, they weren't playing music, only giving news regarding Katrina. There's only so much "new" country I can take at a sitting.

I actually dozed off for a bit. I said I was a weather nut, but despite sustained winds of over 90 mph, and gusts over 120, my home never uttered a creak or pop, and I suppose the constant howling of the wind and pelting of the rain was somehow hypnotic.

I prayed for my aunt. I prayed for the families of those who had already died. I prayed for my wife. I prayed for New Orleans. I prayed this wouldn't be as bad as I thought it was.

The winds calmed. I looked outside and realized that it wasn't over--we were in what remained of the eye. My father and I went to town to check our shop. No damage there. By the time we got back home, the "dry side" had begun to intensify again. We had about another hour of fairly strong winds, but nothing like we had seen earlier. As darkness fell, we were all very thankful to be alive and okay, but all very worried about our loved ones in Gulfport.

Early the next morning, I left for Meridian to retrieve my wife. Re-routing around trees and other debris, I finally arrived to see the effects of the storm on that city. Nobody had power. The hospital where my wife works was on emergency power, but without its full complement of generators functional, so only minimal lights and life-sustaining machinery worked. She had spent the evening swapping rechargable IV pumps around, trying to keep them charged and operational, with temperatures inside the building at around 85 degrees. We got back home, a little disheartened that this was a bright, sunny day, because we knew what temperatures inside the house would soon be. We moved perishables from the refrigerator to the deep freeze, hoping to keep milk, eggs, and meat from spoiling as rapidly. We began getting information on the devastation on the coast, and I flatly refused to tell my mother and her family about the number of dead being reported from the coast. We heard that the levees of New Orleans had been damaged to the point that water was flowing into the city. We also heard that many communities on the Mississippi Gulf Coast simply were no more.

Amid thoughts of how stupid it was not to have purchased a generator, I pulled my truck near my living room window, and ran an extension cord to my power inverter. I hooked up my satellite dish and a small television, and sat, dumbstruck, as the first footage from the Mississippi coast was shown. My heart sank as I thought of my aunt and numerous friends in the area who I knew hadn't evacuated. My wife, as well as she could without power, got ready and went back to work. Miraculously, our power returned about 10 pm Tuesday, though nearly everyone else around us was still without electricity. I immediately got on the internet, searching for any indication of how my aunt's neighborhood fared. I found nothing. Then about 11:30, my phone rang. My mother said that my uncle's phone had just rung, and although the call didn't connect, the number on the caller ID indicated that it was my aunt, trying to reach us.

Wednesday morning, I stumbled upon the NOAA site that had high-resolution aerial photos of the Mississippi coast. Using equal parts Mapquest, Google Earth, and NOAA imagery, I located the house where my aunt had ridden out the storm. It was intact. I immediately called my mother over, who along with her extended family had been simply horrified at the pictures coming through the television news. Though it wasn't like hearing her voice, we at least had a second piece of evidence indicating that she at least had survived. Another acquaintance, I feared, wasn't so fortunate. The area where his house stood was decimated. Only slabs remained. Still another, though he was safely inland, had obviously lost everything.

Our television coverage began changing, then. Suddenly, we weren't seeing the people in Mississippi, arguably the hardest hit by the storm, wading through the debris that once was their lives, but we were seeing people in New Orleans screaming for relief and transportation. We saw New Orleans police officers taking part in the looting of a Wal-Mart. I felt a rush of so many emotions, from deepest sympathy for those suffering, to vicious anger at those who capitalized on the catastrophe. But even as I write this, nearly a week later, I still feel a sense of disbelief that it really happened.

This storm surpassed Camille's record for highest storm surge. It will almost certainly hold the top position in both amount of property damage (currently Andrew) and in the number of lives lost in the United States from a hurricane (Galveston hurricane of 1900). In long-term effects, however, the full impact may never be measurable in any one concice fashion. The economic implications for Mississippi and Louisiana are staggering. The loss of life and property will lead to emotional concerns for survivors and rescuers. The potential for disease is mind-boggling, as there is at least some potential for a resurfacing of ancient illnesses as the graves in New Orleans are "washed out." The ecological impact upon Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf Coast will be phenomenal, as the toxic slurry is pumped out of New Orleans. Schools, on all levels, in the affected areas are on hold, the students not knowing how they will complete the year, whether 10th Graders in Bay High (Bay St. Louis, Mississippi) or Tulane medical students getting ready to do their internships.

Storm of the Century? More accurately the millenium.

We lived. We'll recover. We'll talk about it for generations in the same hushed and reverent tones heretofore reserved for Camille. We will remember.

One Nation, Minus God

2005-04-22T19:20:00.000-05:00

Link to an interesting account here. Seems that a guidance counselor not only believes that "under God" shouldn't be in the Pledge of Allegiance, but that she has the authority to alter that pledge as she leads the student body to more closely suit her political views.

Eighth-grade counselor Margo Lucero, filling in for absent principal Kathleen Norton, changed a portion of the Pledge from "one nation under God" to "one nation under your belief system," while on the public- address system Wednesday morning.

When the little "alteration" was brought to light,

Christina Pulciani-Johnson talked to Norton and Lucero. She said Norton was apologetic but Lucero wasn't.

"She said, 'Yes, I said that because I believe that there should be separation between church and school. I believe that everybody should have their own beliefs and that we shouldn't have to say, 'under God.'

Now, as if that weren't enough, when under (obvious) pressure to offer an apology,

Lucero told The Denver Post that she didn't intend to create a stir and that she apologized to anyone she offended.

I want to repeat: "apologized to anyone she offended."

This is another of my real pet peeves. She didn't apologize for anything, and only to certain people--those who were offended. Now this may seem to be nitpicking, but an apology shouldn't be qualified, in my opinion. She may as well have said, "I didn't mean to offend anyone, but if your feelings are so delicate as to have been offended, I will apologize, even though your sensitivity was more to blame than my statement."

I won't say she should be unemployed, but she certainly shouldn't be a counselor for impressionable eighth graders. Maybe a slight career shift would be in order--I'm sure the janitorial staff could use a little more manpower.

Death of a Pope

2005-04-04T09:47:00.000-05:00

Pope John Paul II died this weekend. I don't know if I can think of a single person over the last couple of centuries who has more significantly changed the world for the good.

I'm not Catholic, as I do find fault with a few practices of the Catholic Church, most notably confessional and prayer through a priest. John Paul II, however, had an appeal, and yes, a true holiness about his person, that united Christians of all denominations. Much more than just heading a single branch of Christianity, he exemplified the Christian principles for which he stood, and personified Godliness.

The sunsets and sunrises through the last two days of his life seemed to be God's way of smiling on his devoted servant.

And no "final words" have ever resounded with the gravity and beauty of Pope John Paul II's last utterance: "Amen."

Evolution, Environmentalism, Abortion, and Schiavo

2005-03-31T11:24:00.000-06:00

Four topics that inspire a whole lot of controversy, isolated issues to many, but in my view, inseparable.
Let's work backwards:

Terri Schiavo was murdered this morning. Actually that's not accurate. The act that caused her death was committed some time ago, with the blessing of the Florida and United States judiciary. She did nothing to deserve to be slowly killed over the past two weeks. She simply found herself at the mercy of those who both used her for personal gain and at the same time declared her to be no longer a person. We were told that she was in a "persistent vegetative state," a term that was distorted repeatedly as she was called "brain dead." We were told that she was on "life support," a term that conjures up ventilators and heart-lung machines, not the simple feeding tube upon which multitudes of healthy Americans (and one notable Pope) depend daily. We were told that she would be blissfully unaware of what was happening to her, a fact that was soundly refuted when she was being administered morphine to curb the excruciating pain of dehydration and starvation. And, perhaps worst of all, we were told that she didn't want to live, a vicious lie in light of her fight for life over two weeks without nourishment or hydration. Her sole crime against humanity was falling into a category through no fault of her own that left her open to be declared a "non-person."

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States made abortion a legal act, exempt from any restrictions imposed by states. In effect, they declared that the living human being inside a pregnant woman was not protected by the Constitutional guarantee of the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What they accomplished, perhaps unwittingly, was dictating that a human being who was dependent upon another person for survival was devoid of "personhood," and as such could be considered a nuisance and exterminated like a cockroach.

Environmentalists argue that humankind has no more right to exist than any living thing on planet Earth. An extrapolation of this logic defines us as a parasite on a fragile planet. As such, we are not only to do nothing that harms the environment, but also to ensure that we don't put our own needs for life over those needs shared by our "cohabitants" on the planet. We should see ourselves as no more entitled to life than the lowest member of the animal kingdom.

Evolutionists argue that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. This strips mankind of any basis for holding a higher valuation for human life than he holds for animal or plant life. This theory, of course plays well into the hands of the environmental movement. It also, however, undermines any basis for morality, as we're just a higher form of animal. If animals live by a rule of "survival of the fittest," there's no moral reason for us not to, and any deviation is a restriction on our freedoms as individual creatures.

Now I'll make an attempt (perhaps feeble) to tie all this together. If Evolutionists are correct, there truly is no reason for humans to hold themselves accountable to any higher moral code than that shared by animals. Any notion of a Creator who has dictated what is "right" and "wrong" summarily goes completely out the window. The environmentalists, then, are correct in assuming that humankind, being the biggest hindrance to Mother Earth's health, are expendable for the good of the Planet, and therefore attempts at artificially sustaining life are harmful to the Earth. Abortion establishes that "personhood" is a needed criteria for life to be considered valid, and paves the way for systemic extermination of "non-persons" who happen to pose a burden to "persons." And Terri Schiavo was the first openly public case of a post-birth "non-person" being legally eliminated to facilitate a better life for a "person." I realize that many may "poo-poo" the "slippery slope" argument that has been used against evolution, abortion, and euthanasia, but I think we're seeing how fast that slope can become a downward spiral. Things will get worse, I'm afraid, before they get better.

Remember that Nazi Germany declared Jews to be devoid of "personhood," and thereby perfect subjects to the experimentation of demented scientists and the exploits of power-mad militarians before their (relatively humane) extermination in Hitler's Final Solution. This isn't, in all honestly, more than an arm's reach away from where we stand now. If we can declare an incapacitated but otherwise healthy human being to be devoid of that magical quality we've defined as "personhood," only time and further desensitation need take place before we're willing to make that same declaration towards an entire class of citizens.

My take on Schiavo

2005-03-21T09:54:00.000-06:00

I have posted numerous comments over on Wizbang!. I have repeated my problems with this case over and over again. They all boil down to a few really disturbing things:

Michael Schiavo, although under law Terri's next-of-kin, and therefore responsible for medical decisions, has gone on with his life to the extent of moving in with another woman and having children by that woman. In my estimation, this tarnishes his status as her husband to the degree that he should have no say whatsoever in her fate.
Terri Schiavo, although drastically incapacitated, seems to respond to some stimuli. Barring extensive and current tests, nobody can determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether she is having any true cognitive function, or whether her responses are simply reflex-loop based. Those tests have been blocked by her husband.
All rehabilitative efforts, even the brushing of Terri's teeth, were blocked by Michael after the court awarded the Schiavos a large sum of money to cover the costs associated with rehabilitation.
To date, there has not been even one explanation why Michael won't simply divorce Terri, go on with his own life, and allow Terri's parents and siblings to assume the role of primary caregiver. Many folks on many blogs have been viciously attacked for suggesting that Michael's motives involve money, but I haven't seen even one alternate motive. One could possibly make the argument that since the couple is Catholic, the Church wouldn't recognize his divorce, and therefore he couldn't move on his intentions to marry his fiance until Terri was dead anyway--but I'm sure the Church's position on adultery wouldn't be a whole lot more lenient.
I have profound doubts that anyone in the world, no matter how much they wouldn't want to live in Terri's condition, would want an estranged spouse to hold such power over their personal affairs. Consider a couple who has been separated for years, but not divorced, and the outrage at the spouse's insistance that he or she retains such rights.
There is a distinct difference in "allowing a person to die" who is on life support, and withholding nutrition and hydration from a living being whose only dependence upon any machinery is for that nutrition and hydration.
Judge Greer seems to have a clear bias towards protecting Michael's "rights" over Terri's. He has exhibited this not only in his rulings directly involving withdrawing Terri's feeding tube, but also in a ruling that allowed Michael to use the medical trust fund originally earmarked for Terri's rehabilitation to cover his own legal fees and expenses. To date, Michael's primary attorney alone has received more than $400,000 of that money.

There is absolutely no way that I would condone someone being kept on life support against their own or against their family's wishes. That decision, made daily by families all over the nation, is difficult at best, gut-wrenching at worst, especially when there is significant disagreement upon the best action. What I see in the Schiavo case, however, is not an emotional, illogical hope by Terri's family, but rather a desire to see whether anything can be done to help their daughter and sister. I have a huge problem with any postion that contends that her husband is her "family," because of his actions in abandoning Terri. Until there are more tests, we simply cannot know what level of functionality, if any, Terri can attain. Until there is more time to study her body and brain, we cannot know what state she is truly in. I think the designation of "permanent (or persistent--I've heard both) vegetative state" is an attempt to make more people eligible for euthanasia. I also have very deep personal convictions that insist that to cause death, whether by comissive or omissive action, is morally wrong, outside the realm of capital punishment (that's another debate entirely).

Please, search your heart. Look closely at the unbiased, established facts (not hearsay). Go through the events of Terri's illness, from the mysterious collapse at her home through all the legal wrangling, to today. Ask yourself whether Michael is truly acting in Terri's best interests. Perhaps most importantly, ask yourself not whether you would wish to live in Terri's condition, but whether you would consent to an estranged spouse making the decision of life or death on your behalf.

Back out from under my rock

2005-02-09T08:37:00.000-06:00

I hated to have been absent from the blog community through all the events of the past couple months, but my day-to-day life got really demanding just after Thanksgiving. Happens that way sometimes. I'll be doing a little "housekeeping" with the blog through the next couple of days, pointing to some truly noteworthy posts on other blogs and offering some thoughts of my own, as well.

For those of you who have been keeping regular checks on my, thanks for your patience.

For those of you who haven't noticed my absence, feel free to be equally ignorant of my presence.

And just in case there's anyone out there who cares, I'm giving up Coca-Colas, Little Debbies, and alcohol for Lent, so don't be surprised if I get a little testy over the next several weeks. (And no, I'm not Catholic, I just believe in showing my "vices" who's boss once in a while.)

I've been through the desert on a post with no name . . .

2004-11-23T10:05:00.000-06:00

The various stories I've been exposed to, both via MSM and the Blogosphere have my mind racing on many various topics. I'll apologize in advance for the scatter-gun nature of this post, but, as the title says, nothing really wraps these ideas together . . .

'I cut her arms off' A Plano, Texas mother severed the arms of her 11 month old baby. There's a pretty convoluted story about how her husband called a daycare center and asked them to check on his family, then the daycare center called 9-1-1. Nevertheless, she was calm while on the phone with the operator, stating, "I cut her arms off," in regard to her baby. I will be a very old man before I understand how police could take someone who has done such a thing into custody. She's charged with capital murder, but has a history of "postpartum depression," so look for a temporary insanity defense. I'm sorry, but PPD is the reason women cry because the baby won't eat--not the driving force behind brutally murdering your child. This woman should be killed just as brutally as this little baby. It's only right.

Here is a post is regarding seat belt laws. The lengthy comment I posted to Rogue Angel's blog regarding this question probably explains my viewpoint, but I'll hone it to the topic at hand. It isn't the government's business to protect me from my own stupidity. I believe that safety belts are the single best piece of protection you could have in a crash (I hate airbags, but that's another topic). I've seen horrible accidents with a wide variety of outcomes, and there's simply no factor that contributes to your safety like something that keeps you in the vehicle, in the place, engineered through multitudes of tests, to best protect your body. So I am certainly not an anti-seat belt person. It's my firm belief, however, that government has no business dictating their use. In my (not particularly humble) opinion, there's no limitation in sight to the government's power over personal choices when personal safety is legislated.

The UN should be totally abolished. It is an organization that, due to woeful mismanagement, flagrant abuses of power, and inept leadership, has been politically neutered. It has served as nothing but a catalyst for anti-US sentiment worldwide, and would fall flat if we, as Americans, refused our financial support. Oh, and Kofi Annan is an idiot.

I've been incredibly impressed with Bill Clinton's behaviour since he left the White House. I've never considered him to be a bad man, just a poor President. Many folks see him as just the opposite, but his greatest mistake, in my opinion, and the thing that I cannot excuse completely, is the fact that he lied while under oath before the court. I'd be jailed for that. Still, he has shown that he is indeed a true statesman, and probably will go down in history as one of the most noble "Former Presidents" in American History. Jimmy Carter isn't even in the running.

I get the distinct impression that the one thing that really horrifies non-religious folks is the idea that somehow, someday, something comes to light that undeniably proves that a religion (any one of them) is actually right. The other thing I've noticed in this vein lately, is that while there are many intellectual Agnostics in conservative circles, the non-religious on the Left are generally Atheistic in philosophy, and therefore much more hostile to religion.

Springing from that last thought, and I'll just say in passing that I'm not sure which is more imbecilic, PETA, ALF, or the ACLU.

One last thing. It's an overcast, rainy, dreary day here. We're expecting severe weather this afternoon and evening. I haven't been able to ride my motorcycle in over a week without getting drenched. I had planned to make a fairly long (500 miles each way) trip this weekend on the bike, but finances and weather have cancelled it. I'm working today, and probably tomorrow when I was hoping to be able to take off for the holiday after yesterday. But this morning, my four year-old little boy told me he loved me. It's been a beautiful day ever since.

Happy Thanksgiving, Everybody!

Ashcroft Out, Gonzales in . . .

2004-11-10T10:54:00.000-06:00

Fox News reports (and White House confirms) that Gonzales will replace Ashcroft as Attorney General. Gonzales has a very long history with Bush, going back to Bush's Gubernatorial days in Texas.

Good move for the Bush Administration, IMHO, because Ashcroft has been a rallying point for the Liberals for a very long time now. They'll keep the same arguments, but they at least will have to change the name on the T-shirts.

I'm sure I'm behind some of the other bloggers in reporting this, but at least I tried . . . lol.

Maybe I was brain-dead . . .

2004-11-03T06:42:00.000-06:00

I don't know why, but as I was watching the returns last night and processing all the rhetoric from the Democrats, both on television and in the online community, the significance of the "Help America Vote Act" and the push for provisional and absentee ballots finally dawned on me.

Florida 2000 redeux.

Think about it. How many times were the ballots in Florida gone over with a fine-toothed comb in search of that elusive 500 votes for Gore? That's just not possible when there aren't any paper ballots. There's also the question of all those absentee ballots--something that the Dems were pushing for very strongly, telling folks that voting by absentee ballot would ensure that their vote would be counted. Well, it also ensures that their vote could be counted, recounted, altered, thrown out, or multiplied to suit the DNC's purposes.

Absentee ballots have a place. There are some people who, because of work, school, or other committments, must be away from their home area on election day. These folks deserve an absentee ballot. It's generally not their fault or choice to be away, and they still should have the option of making their voice heard. This year, however, many people unnecessarily cast their ballot through the absentee process. This produces scores of ballots that must be verified and counted after-the-fact, and leaves more room for human error. As we saw in 2000, the DNC is more than willing to use human error to benefit their candidate.

The idea of provisional ballots reads well on paper. If someone shows up at a voting precinct and their name isn't on the rolls, they now have the option of casting a ballot that will be evaluated for validity at a later time. There is a huge problem here, however. The number of provisional ballots exploded this election, and this turns into a mess as people have to evaluate whether an individual is actually a registered voter. By necessity, part of the ballot may be invalid, even if they're registered, because of the local races that differ precinct to precinct, but at the same time, without an extensive amount of research on each ballot, many will be impossible to solidly verify. Consider that a provisional ballot may only be certified as valid if the voter is proven to be legally registered, and that there exists no evidence that the same person has voted, whether by provisional ballot or not, in any other precinct in this election--nationwide! Looking further into the logistics of this mess, every provisional ballot would have to be recorded in a nation-wide database, and compared with every precinct's voter roll, then every matching name checked and double-checked against other information, possibly calling into play witnesses from the polls in question to verify that someone actually did or did not appear in person at a given precinct. Got a headache yet?

Not one to throw out a problem without a fix in mind, I'll address the better way of doing things in a later post.

Bush!

2004-11-03T06:38:00.000-06:00

Bravo!

I think our President showed incredible tact and finesse throughout the entire campaign, not letting Kerry and company significantly change his tone and mood through this whole mess. His plan for America and his proven leadership equated a well-deserved win and a strong vote of confidence from the American public.

Congratulations are in order.

Exit Poll Explanation

2004-11-02T17:09:00.000-06:00

Does anyone really put any credence in these "early exit polls"?

No official exit poll data has been released, and even if poll numbers are accurate, they probably come from areas where a particular candidate is known to be very strong. For example, does anyone think Bush will pull the Miami area? If you want to show that Kerry will take Florida big, all you have to do is "unofficially" poll some voters in that area.

This is why the "official" exit poll data is processed and averaged across a state, instead of "leaked" onto the internet as raw data comes in.

Don't expect the above facts to slow down Dan Rather tonight, though.

Pennsylvania Voting Machine tampering

2004-11-02T13:39:00.000-06:00

According to Fox News, a woman in Pennsylvania entered a polling place, signed in as a Green Party registrant, and went straight to the back of one of the machines. She began to tamper with the machine, completely disabling it, then fled. Nobody stopped or caught her. Voters still have several other machines to use, but no word as to whether votes in the machine at the time of her stunt could be counted, or if they were lost.

Furthermore, Pennsylvania machines that were said to already have hundreds of votes tallied when they arrived at the polls this morning are still in question.

An oversight . . .

2004-11-02T13:28:00.000-06:00

Seems I've not made an official "prediction" on today's voting.

I'll do so, state-by-state, but I don't have time to do the math to see how this pans out in the EC tally.

New Hampshire - Kerry by a nose. This will be sufficient to bring Kerry some serious worry, as the race will be too close to call until around 80% of NH precincts are in.

New Jersey - Bush will win this state by a very narrow margin. Expect the DNC to legally challenge these results, provided Kerry is within striking distance (less than 20 EVs). This won't be called until a few hours after polls close.

Pennsylvania - expect an initial call for Kerry from one or more of the MSM outlets. This won't last, as rural boxes come in overwhelmingly for Bush, the Kerry lead from Pittsburgh will be overwhelmed, and the state will go to Red. Bush by 2-3 percent.

Ohio - The MSM will hold this one as "too close to call" until enough other states have been filled for Bush. The DNC will hold this as their Florida for 2004, unless (and I hope this is the case) the margin is too wide for Kerry to overcome, even with Ohio and New Jersey.

Florida - The Sunshine State will go big for Bush this time. CBS will call it for Kerry based on Miami returns in an effort to re-create the 2000 results--but Panhandle folks won't be fooled again. Bush's supporters, energized by Jeb, will turn out in droves this time, making it a 50K spread or greater.

Nationwide - Overall, Bush, and by a significant popular vote margin. If somehow, he loses on EVs, expect Democratic pundits and commentators to laud the virtues of the Electoral College. I dont' expect that, though. Bush is poised to carry as much as 18% of the black vote, nearly 50% of women's votes, around 30% of the Jewish voting bloc, and maybe as much as 25-30% of the Hispanic vote. Bush will wait until about midnight in D.C. to allow Kerry plenty of time to do the proper thing an concede, but Kerry won't. At about that time, Bush will claim victory. During his speech, never the one to behave as a gentleman should, Kerry will take the podium in his HQ to start a tirade about how the election isn't over until all the votes are counted, citing the numerous provisional ballots that haven't been counted, all the "questionable tactics" used by Republicans in the polling places, especially in Ohio and New Jersey, and the absentee ballots that were thrown out because they weren't signed or because the signatures were deemed forgeries. Despite what he says today about a "stronger America" after the elections and his desires that Americans be again unified after the vote, he, like Gore, will never make a legitimate concession speech, in his last public "flip-flop". After one more uneventful and unremarkable term in the Senate, he will retire from the public spotlight. Bush, on the other hand, will remain in office and push to amend the Constitution in such a way that Arnold can run in 2008.

Hey, I figure if I hit 50% of the above accurately I'll be doing as well as most folks today . . . lol

Voter intimidation in Florida

2004-11-02T13:19:00.000-06:00

Hat Tip: Sharp

Election Eve headache

An interesting story about the theft of a computer in Pasco County, Florida, that contains a database of registered Republican voters. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that this isn't MSM newsworthy.

First lawsuit filed in Ohio

2004-11-02T11:42:00.000-06:00

Woman claims to be denied the right to vote, based upon the fact that she had properly applied for an absentee ballot, but never received the ballot. Now she can't vote because of that application. A Federal lawsuit has been filed.

Question: Can she be considered "disenfranchised" if she's trying to vote Republican?

Update: The suit was apparently filed by the DNC, so I'm certain she was "disenfranchised"

Tires slashed in Wisconsin . . .

2004-11-02T11:23:00.000-06:00

Hat tip, VodkaPundit

More evidence of exactly how low the moonbats will stoop . . .

Tires slashed in Milwaukee, story indicates that the vehicles in question were rented by the Wisconsin State Republican Party to be used to transport either poll workers or voters to the polls.

Also, link here to a story about a voter who was told she had already voted by absentee ballot.

Anything goes, as long as their guy wins.

Funny how quiet Oliver has been today . . .

NBC10.com - News - Hazmat Incident Forces Evacuations At N.J. Elementary School

2004-11-02T11:15:00.000-06:00

Hazmat Incident Forces Evacuations At N.J. Elementary School

OK . . . first of what will probably be a very long list of similar attempts by some wackos to totally disrupt the election today. I believe that more than coincidence is at work here . . . this is in a state that may well be leaning for Bush. Not to mention the fact that this was done at a SCHOOL.

The substance in question was salt. No word as to whether this polling location will be allowed to stay open longer to compensate for time lost while the matter was cleared up.

If anyone's reading me today, I'd love to see someone do some research as to which way this precinct has typically voted, "red" or "blue."

Update on Pennsylvania Machines

2004-11-02T10:13:00.000-06:00

Possible explanation . . . the Republican poll monitor misread the vote tally on at least one machine, actually confusing the current vote count and a "lifetime" count for the machine.

The hole in this bucket? How likely is it that the total lifetime votes for these machines combined amount to only about 1500 votes?

Again, if the shoe was on the other foot, there'd already be a motion filed to nullify today's election completely.

Who's stealing this one?

2004-11-02T09:49:00.000-06:00

Now, I know this is a "breaking story," and may turn out to be nothing at all . . . but Republican Party officials in Pennsylvania have discovered voting machines that may have approximately 1500 votes already cast on them at the opening of the polls this morning.

Of course, this would be splashed all over every news network, special reports pre-empting regular programming on everything from NBC to Nickelodeon if it had been discovered by the Dems.

More to come . . .

Final pre-election entry . . . maybe

2004-11-01T15:51:00.000-06:00

I don't know. I would sincerely like to think that Bush will win tomorrow's election in a landslide, but I'm not at all confident of a Bush victory, much less one so decisive.

First, this map shows why the electoral college works. We have forgotten in modern times (I could actually point back to the Civil War, but I'll save that for a later post) that our nation is a union of sovereign states, not a single national entity divided into various subservient districts. Because of that, our founding fathers took measures to ensure that the states would have some sort of balanced representation, such that a handful of states, whether by population density or land mass, could rule the new republic. Wholesale ignorance of American history and government contributes to the cry for the electoral college to be abolished, but it is the only measure that stands between the democracy we enjoy and mob rule.

Moving right along, I'm appalled that the "big boys" in electronic and print media have been allowed to get away with some of the shenanigans we've seen in this election campaign. There are certain guarantees in the bill of rights that extend towards the press, but at the same time there must be a level of accountability and responsibility exercised by that body. As the child of a newspaper family, I know to what extend stories should be examined before they're run as fact. I also know that errors will invariably occur. But I know, above all, that the ultimate in irresponsibility in journalism is exhibited when stories are validated by the agenda they serve, not by their veracity. CBS should be taken to task over their memo scam, as well as their plans to air the "scandal" regarding the Al Qa'qaa munitions storage site on the 31st of October.

Michael Moore should be quite proud of himself. Even Osama Bin Laden recognizes Moore's genius. In a more clear-thinking society, F-9/11 would have been seen as treason.

Anyone who thinks Kerry will ever take a hard and fast stand on any issue just hasn't been paying attention.

Anyone who truly thinks that Iraq had no terror connections is a fool.

I will vote for Bush tomorrow. By his actions and words when he has been viciously attacked by his opponents, he has demonstrated substantial character. By acting in the best interests of the United States, he has proven that he is a capable and solid leader. By fighting for the rights of the unborn and standing against the assaults on the sanctity of marriage, he has displayed moral integrity. By doing what was right, not whatever it took to appease a vocal minority, he has proven himself to be a true statesman.

Kerry, in his stances on all of the above, has demonstrated himself to be a genuine politician.

That's not a compliment.

Finally, the true colors of the Democratic Party and its allies have been displayed quite openly already. They are willing to do anything it takes to win the election, with no regard whatsoever to the welfare of our republic. This is obvious in the way they have approached questionable registration forms and/or ballots. They have fought against any measure to curb election fraud, and have characterized the enforcement of any law that stands against fraudulent registration or voting as "suppressive measures" targeting minorities. This assault on our most basic tenet as a representative democracy is shameful, and should be rewarded accordingly.

Where to start?

2004-10-26T07:37:00.000-05:00

Well, I may be showing my arrogance to think that I've been missed during my hiatus, but I've been incredibly busy with my "off-line" pursuits. Seems that the blog continually has to take a back seat to other tasks, particularly since most of them are "profit-based" endeavors.

Anyway, I have been keeping astride of the issues that are making the blog rotation of late, and I'd like to share a few thoughts.

LaShawn Barber has taken a huge amount of heat for her post regarding Christianity and Liberalism. I don't think she for one minute assumes that no Christians vote for the liberal candidate, but I do wonder how someone who professes to believe the Bible (and the whole Bible), can support the liberal agenda without acknowledging an ideological conflict. The Bible plainly teaches a solid work ethic, condemns homosexuality, promotes the protection of the unborn and others who are incapable of defending themselves, and teaches personal responsibility for personal actions. The liberal agenda promotes sloth, praises many types of sexual deviations, protects abortion-on-demand as law, and demonstrates that personal responsibility is to be avoided in favor of laying blame for one's actions to circumstance or environment. In a nutshell, the Bible teaches moral absolutes, the liberal theme is one of moral relativism. I don't assert that a Christian can't vote Liberal and still be a Christian; only that the honest Christian must admit to compromising some of the tenets of his faith.

ISOU goes on a tare here regarding the accusations of voter fraud and intimidation. While the points he makes ring true on some fronts (how supervision of voting precincts may hearken back to the days of segregation to some black voters old enough to truly remember suppression) one has to weigh both sides of the argument carefully. I am of the opinion that every voter should have to produce some form of identification to demonstrate that he is truly who he claims to be. I also cringe at the proposition that people can be registered to vote in two states simultaneously, and can vote in both states. I think it's time that voting is viewed again as a privilege, not an inalienable right. I am personally outraged that there are those folks who would undermine this basic tenet of our government for the sake of political gain, and if anyone really cares which side is doing more digging under this particular cornerstone, look at which party has the long-standing history of opposing any reforms that would curb voter fraud. At some point, the responsibility must fall upon the voter to be informed on the issues, and to vote in the right place, at the right time, and in the right manner. Also, I am convinced that legislation needs to be pursued that would harshly prosecute those who vote fraudulently. There is no excuse, in the "information age" for there to not be safeguards against multiple registrations, nor is there any excuse for counting so-called "provisional" ballots, cast by folks voting in the incorrect precinct. It's your privilege to vote, so treat it as such.

I've almost decided that many Americans are just as stupid as Michael Moore believes them to be. Facts have been totally discarded in this election campaign (as in the CBS memo debacle), and slanderous character attacks have been substituted. In the light of all this, I have one significant fear regarding Tuesday, November 2, 2004. That fear is not that Kerry will win. Rather it is that Kerry will almost win. If that happens, the DNC will conclude that these tactics almost worked, and that they have to do even more of the same to win the 2008 election. That, in my opinion, would be disastrous for the United States. The things that have been done and said this year border (and sometimes cross that border) on treason and insurrection. I am in hopes (though possibly futile hopes) that Bush will win in a landslide, and that the DNC will take this as a sign that their efforts this year were the wrong campaign, done in the wrong way, at the wrong time. I'm so tired of hearing Kerry supporters interviewed on television and radio and repeating the same talking points we've heard all year. It's a sign of a propaganda campaign that hasn't enough basis in fact to be defended. It also seems to be proof that if a lie is told often enough and loudly enough, people accept it as truth. Worst of all, it has created a climate in which a publication in England indicates that the President of the United States should be assassinated, a liberal talk-radio station hints that it would be a good thing if George Bush were dead (of natural causes, of course), and there's nothing but a muted murmer amongst the American populace.

The double standard regarding the way MSM reacts to the two sides of this campaign was never more evident than last week in the midst of the controversy over the "Stolen Honor" documentary. Imagine for a moment the firestorm that would have certainly been brought on if the Republicans and their supporters used the same tactics to mute "Farenheit 9-11." Cries of censorship and lectures on first-amendment rights would still be rolling through every major network. To give another example, if Fox News had broken a story about newly-discovered memos detailing how Kerry had forged documents and lied about combat actions to get his medals, only to have the documents proved to be forgeries, would they have been able to sweep the mess under the carpet by pointing to the "valid questions" the documents raised? I'd say not.

In conclusion, if anyone's out there who truly believes that Saddam wasn't aiding Al-Qaeda, who truly thinks that 9-11 was anything but an act of war, who believes that Kerry's plan to give everything to everyone will be financed with anything short of back-breaking taxes on the working class, who thinks that the overinflated Clinton economy and NAFTA had nothing to do with the recession and job losses over the past four years, who believes that Bush's funding of stem cell research under particular guidelines constitutes a ban, who believes that Bush and Cheney planned, facilitated, or used for their personal gain the attacks of September 11, or who believes that attempting to stand on every side of every issue is a sign of good leadership, please go cast your vote for the candidate who embodies that type of thought: John Kerry. It's your right as an American to be oblivious to the obvious.

Somebody want to explain?

2004-09-01T09:04:00.000-05:00

I've heard so many folks give the Republican party grief for holding up a handful of minority supporters and appointees as "token" representation to display a diversity that isn't there. They've been accused of trying to win the black vote by holding up the occasional Condi Rice or Colin Powell that slips into the party, in essence creating "Black Republican Poster Children".

I present to you the latest "Black Democrat Poster Child": Barak Obama

Link Here

Obama was here in Mississippi recently. Why? Campaigning for Kerry? No, not according to this article. Obama made a sweep through the South "to raise money for his campaign". Huh? A fellow running for a senate seat in Illinois is pulling fundraisers in Mississippi and Alabama???

Please.

This is a direct result of the Democratic Party's infatuation with Obama. They've finally found a well-spoken, successful black spokesperson for the Democratic Party. Obama is an energetic, fresh breath of air into a party that has, essentially, lost its way. Like it or not, the Democratic party will soon lose their cornerstone senators, Byrd, Kennedy, and others, to retirement, and some of the party's longstanding allies in the black community have faded from the limelight, most notably Sharpton and Jackson. In a sense, Obama has the potential to fill both voids.

I have a lot of respect for Obama, even if I think he's a little bit misguided. For anyone to climb to the position of notoriety he currently enjoys takes a lot of dedication, and he seems to be a particularly talented speaker.

That's why I'm discouraged that he would allow the Democrats to use him in this fashion. Obama "made it" on his own. The blacks in the South before whom he's campaigning, however, are trapped in the cycle of poverty and government dependence that the Democrats have used to maintain political power. He's in a position to stand up with the party and say, "look, guys, there's a better way to do this." Unfortunately, he has chosen to step to the drumbeats of vote-buying giveaways and feel-good deceptions that have become business as usual for the once-noble party.

Putting things in perspective

2004-08-30T12:46:00.000-05:00

Blackfive: Major Mark Banks - Someone You Should Know

This really touched me. I'll write further on my thoughts later, because they really aren't relevant to the theme of Blackfive's post, and I don't want to detract from its message.

Interesting . . .

2004-08-25T12:00:00.000-05:00

via www.pardonmyenglish.com:

Alice Cooper seems to be a little weary of entertainers' political statements. Further, he makes the point I've been arguing for some time now:

“If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal.”

Right on the money, Alice! Problem is, folks are so enamored of these celebrities, they blindly follow their lead. Why is Whoopi "Communisism-isn't-that-bad" Goldberg regarded as an expert in anything? Why in the hell would you want to hear Linda Ronstadt singing the praises of Michael Moore? (or singing anything else, for that matter)

I'll never forget seeing a documentary about Jon Bon Jovi several years back. In it, there were fans hanging around the gates of his home. When interviewed and asked what she'd say to him if he came out for a visit, one of the little ladies there said she would tell him "how much I love him." This is the mentality we're dealing with--delusional to the point of being in love with someone she's never met.

Always a good thing to remember that "fan" is short for "fanatic".

Guilty of blog neglect

2004-08-25T10:33:00.000-05:00

I realize it's been nearly two weeks since I made any significant blog posts, but I've been incredibly busy. I, unfortunately, don't have ads to generate income, and I'm not a columnist or professional writer, so my blogging has to be juggled amongst work and family. Hopefully the next few weeks will bring a better schedule to my days and I'll be able to get active in posting again. I really appreciate those of you who check once in a while for updates. I plan to have more for you to look at very soon.

Why VietNam?

2004-08-19T10:03:00.000-05:00

In the past several days, there's been more light shed on the accounts John Kerry has given of VietNam experiences, mostly due to the impact of the Swift Boat Vets' commercial and book. Much speculation has been offered as to why the news media is so silent regarding the allegations. I would love to see the whole story exposed, because either one side or the other is pushing a plate full of lies to the American people for political purposes.

One significant question remains, regardless of who's wrong or right here. Why did Kerry make a four and a half month stint in VietNam the center plank of his campaign platform when he's been in the political realm for so many years? One would assume that the issues he espouses would be reflected in his voting record. Wouldn't this be akin to Bush trying to divert attention from his four-year term in the White House back to his record as Texas Governor?

I don't understand the direction the Kerry campaign is taking. This has the potential to go down in history as the political equivalent of "New Coke".

The only possible explanation I can imagine is that the intent is to divert attention away from the issues at hand (i.e. war on terror, economy, gay marriage, abortion, etc.) because the Republicans seem to be more in line with the majority of Americans' positions on those things. In doing this, perhaps they hope to cash in on the "anyone but Bush" syndrome. As long as Kerry doesn't strongly align with either side of any of these issues, there's less chance that potential voters will be turned off by his stance.

At the same time, I don't think most Americans find this type of fence-straddling appealing. Kerry should define himself as someone who stands hard-and-fast against the policies of the current administration, and let the voters decide which road to take.

I'm back . . .

2004-08-19T09:57:00.000-05:00

Didn't have any time to do any legitimate posting over the past week or so. I've managed to contribute in some comment threads on some of my fave blogs, but that's about it.

I'll be out of town for the weekend, but there's a few things I'd like to hit a lick or two at before I leave town this evening.

Stay tuned . . .

My thoughts on the Swift Boat Vets

2004-08-10T08:37:00.000-05:00

Amid the past week's news and blog coverage on the SVT campaign, there's been a lot of things said about these guys. I personally don't claim to know the facts, although the hypocricy is not lost on me when the same crowd--dozens of websites and syndicated columnists--ranted incessantly about President Bush's military record, and are now insisting that Kerry's detractors should be silent.

One point that I haven't seen made thus far is in answer to the liberal cry that these men have an agenda to defeat Kerry, and because of this their stories don't have credibility. I won't even take the easy shot and point out Michael Moore.

My question is, "Why is it so easy to find VietNam vets eager to speak out against Kerry?"

Answer: Kerry, regardless of what he did when he was In Country, came back to the U.S. and promptly turned against his "band of brothers" and numerous others who were still there. I think this profoundly outweighs the fact that he only served 4 months, outweighs any debate over his commendations, and truthfully, outweighs any actions he took while serving.

He prefaced his remarks with:

"...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony...." (emphasis mine)

His statements before the senate detailed the atrocities committed in VietNam, including:

"they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam. . ."

He said that these were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...."

Kerry made these allegations, and stated later that he himself had participated in some of them. He made no references to heroism, no references to his "band of brothers", only allegations condemning all soldiers involved in VietNam. In so doing, he furthered the abuses those soldiers endured upon returning home, and (apparently permanently) distanced himself from them and their interests.

To say that all these veterans are involved in a gigantic conspiracy of lies with the intent of defeating Kerry is a dodge. The significant fact that will not go away is that these men, and many, many more like them, do not want Kerry to be President. The reasons why they feel this way speak much louder than can any book or column written about their story.

A (rare) uncensored rant

2004-08-09T11:01:00.000-05:00

There's a story here on Captain's Quarters that has me absolutely fuming.

This is the sort of bullshit that needs to be fixed NOW. The very idea of an illegal immigrant getting any of the rights that we enjoy as American citizens, rights our people have fought and died to defend, absolutely blows my mind.

For those too damned dense to recognize the obvious: Illegal: not according to or authorized by law. If we can't stop these people from coming in illegally, why in the hell aren't they deported when it's discovered that they're here? Furthermore, why is there even a debate about "government benefits" or "voting rights" when discussing a group of people that, if "right" entered into the equation at all, shouldn't be here! They have no "right" to a damn thing except a trip back to their homeland.

As to the "no taxation without representation" argument, anyone who thinks that's not going on every day hasn't a clue. I'm a business owner, but I live outside of the city limits where my business is located. Guess where I pay taxes on that business. Guess where I can't vote. As an American citizen, I pay taxes and can't say a damn thing about any city referendum to spend more of my money!

Humanitarian concerns? Please. Our immigration policy is open enough that anyone who really cares to come into this country by legal means can. But they do have to exhibit an understanding of the English language and know something about our system of government. (Hey, there's an idea. Give the immigration test to every American citizen--if you can't pass it, out you go! Overpopulation problems solved.) What to do with those who are already here illegally? Sell them into slavery in some third world country and we could get rid of the deficit. Enlist them in the military as land-mine detectors. Give them a pair of scissors (those blunt-point first grade plastic things) and set them to work cutting grass along the freeways. Maybe if enough return home with stories about how horribly they were mistreated, fewer would try to climb the fence. Furthermore, folks who employ them should be deported, and their citizenship stripped.

I really do find myself wondering if the non-brain damaged are in the minority nowadays.

A clearer mind

2004-08-07T10:49:00.000-05:00

I must make a disclosure regarding the upcoming presidential election.

I have gone the way of many other supporters of our current President in getting baited into debates that should have been sidebars, not issues. The facts of the upcoming election should be quite enough to speak for themselves:

On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by folks who hate us for being American. We currently have a President who took charge of the situation, acted with firm resolve, and kept his promises to seek out those responsible, as well as their allies.
Bush has been ridiculed for being a plain-spoken man, not a polished politician, who lets his faith in God guide his everyday decisions. He doesn't just give lip-service to his faith, but implements it into private decisions and public policy. If you disagree, fine, but he does stand by his convictions, rather than resorting to "situational ethics".
President Bush inherited a grossly over-inflated economy that had raced to the brink of a cliff and was beginning to teeter over. The dot-coms and technology stocks were the playthings of the off-wall-street traders, and as a result were priced much like baseball cards--driven by demand, not worth.
Democracy and Capitalism are good. Communism and Socialism are bad. The democrats believe in the principles of the latter--common good and socialized programs. Remember that a government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take away all you need.
We have a vested interest in the Middle East's oil, not because of dependence upon their oil, but because of the influence Middle-Eastern oil supplies have over worldwide oil prices.
Bush has done a great deal to better America's educational system, understanding that money won't solve all the system's ills, but that the system must be brought under accountability.
John Kerry and George Bush were both military veterans. Both served as they were expected, based upon the positions for which they volunteered. Both, however, should be running upon their records in political decisions, and Kerry is not.
Neither John Kerry nor George Bush have ever lived lives of poverty. Neither should claim to truly understand the challenges faced every day for those of us who live from one paycheck to the next. The fact remains that the Bush tax cut really did help us, and it didn't hurt those of lower income, because they don't currently pay taxes. Big business and the "top one percent" already pay a humongous portion of all taxes paid. The tax burden should be shouldered by all, not just the wealthy.
Our nation is at war. Clinton saw the risks and ignored them. Bush saw the result and acted upon it.

We must not go back to the emotion-driven "boom" of the 90s. History teaches the aftermath of the "roaring 20s", and we're living the aftermath of the "roaring 90s". Times will get better, but they won't get better overnight. Logic must overtake emotion, and common sense will need to become a lot more common. Personal accountability and responsibility must take the place of "self esteem" and "self-worth". I don't see that happening under a Kerry "image is everything" administration.

The "battle lines" have been so horribly blurred by the press on both sides. I truly hope the American public can discern the real differences between these two men, and make their decision in November upon something more significant than 40 year-old (thrown away) medals and "good hair".

This one's REALLY big!

2004-08-04T18:51:00.000-05:00

No links yet--

Mark Hacking may not be Mark Hacking. Breaking news reports state that he's been using an assumed name (presumably the same one he used at the hotel the night he was running around naked). That name, Jonathan Long, is the object of a lot of attention right now.

Now, if you're ready for a headache, ponder what the implications would be if "Jonathan Long" actually did graduate from college, applied for, and was accepted to Medical School. Would that be the same as Mark Hacking doing all the above? Is there a Jonathan Long somewhere who's been the subject of identity theft? Or is this pseudonym just a ficticious name Mark invented for the purpose of hiding his true name in some situations?

Don't forget that I speculated some time ago that he had a reason to be heading to North Carolina--potentially a romantic interest. This name being released may well flush out the object of that interest, if she exists. I'll be watching this closely through the evening, trying to keep up with this as it breaks.

A confession from Hacking

2004-08-04T08:14:00.000-05:00

In a story here, information on the "probable cause statement" filed by police prior to Mark Hacking's arrest. The document details some evidence found at the Hacking home, as well as a statement that referrs to an admission Mark made to an undisclosed person while he was a patient in a psychiatric ward.

Police believe he attacked Lori while she was sleeping, then began work to cover the crime.

Search efforts in the landfill will resume today, with police saying that they have some "landmarks" to look for that will indicate when they are close to Lori's body.

No, absolutely no Al-Qaeda/Iraq connection . . .

2004-08-03T16:36:00.000-05:00

I'm sure this story won't significantly reduce the Anti-Bush propaganda, but I'd be willing to bet more than a few Americans are taking notice.

Of course, if I know the extreme-left mindset, they'll blame the current cooperation by these two on Bush's actions long before they'll admit that there was dialogue prior to September 11, 2001.

Also, as other news stories and blogs have pointed out, many of the reasons for the elevated terror alert were based upon current and newly-discovered information, but I wouldn't hold my breath for an apology from Dean, Willis, or anyone else who jumped on that bandwagon.

I needed this . . .

2004-08-03T12:24:00.000-05:00

Via email:

CNN is reporting that Lance Armstrong may be stripped of his 6th Tour de France title.In a random check for banned substances, 3 were found in Armstrong's hotel room.

The 3 substances banned by the French, that were found in his hotel room were as follows:
(1) Toothpaste
(2) Deodorant
(3) Soap

The French officials also found several other items which they had never seen before including a testicle and a backbone...

One more brief on Hacking case

2004-08-02T20:55:00.000-05:00

Fox News has footage of Mark walking into a convenience store at approximately 1:30 a.m. on the morning of Lori's disappearance. Reporters speculate that he looks nervous, and avoids other patrons, but what is obvious from the tape is that he's checking his hands for something, by looking at and smelling them, and makes a motion as if he's removing something from his watch band. Police believe this was after he murdered Lori.

Scatter-Gun time . . .

2004-08-02T20:10:00.000-05:00

Several topics, few words . . .

Howard Dean, Oliver Willis, and others have apparently bought into Michael Moore's assertion that Americans are stupid. They have suggested that the Bush administration raised the Terror Alert level for political purposes, not in response to information that actually suggested a possible threat. I find irony in the fact that in prior instances of the threat being raised, the administration was criticized in the information being to vague--but now, with specific information, that's not right either. BTW--I hope I didn't give the impression that Willis actually had an original thought, he was just easier to link than any stories reporting Dean's comments.

Along those same lines, don't be surprised to see a wholesale implosion of the Democratic party in the coming weeks. Kerry has had to do damage control for Dean, try to shrug off Sharpton's rant at the convention, and is trying very hard to ignore the actions and remarks of Teresa. Sooner or later, the house of cards will tumble.

A rash of child disappearances over the next few days have me a bit concerned as a parent. I am not one to be paranoid or over-protective, but I do wonder why this type of crime seems to be on the upswing. I hesitate to assign blame to the internet, but one musn't discount the influence, as pornography of any desired genre is readily available. I don't think that viewing porn makes someone do something they wouldn't ordinarily do, but it can feed and exacerbate the existing problem, much as booze contributes to the problems associated with alcoholism. Still, as the father of five children, I cannot help but be concerned.

The proposal being batted around regarding the abolition of the IRS is quite intriguing. There are several ways to achieve this lofty goal, the easiest of all being a national sales tax. I personally favor this over the other popular option--a flat rate income tax--because it catches those folks who may make their income through illegal pursuits. The biggest obstacle to disbanding the IRS will come from the private sector, though, because of the substantial number of accountants and tax attorneys whose livelihood depend upon a painfully complex tax code. This will be a fascinating story to follow as it unfolds.

Finally, the Islamic fascists in Iraq are showing their true colors (and the true opposing sides of the war) by specifically targeting Christian churches in that nation. Perhaps now more Americans will understand exactly what it is that the radical Muslims hate so much about America. Until then, many more attacks of this nature are likely.

An arrest in the Hacking case . . .

2004-08-02T14:59:00.000-05:00

Police arrest Mark Hacking on suspicion of aggravated murder

This weekend saw a definite change in tone of the investigation, as Salt Lake City police confirmed their belief that Mark Hacking had indeed murdered his wife, wrapped her body in a portion of their mattress, and disposed of the bundle in a garbage dumpster.

This creates a particular problem in one sense. After trash is emptied from a dumpster into a garbage truck, it is compacted greatly. When the trucks are emptied, one of two things happen: either the trash is compacted further in a huge hydraulic press, or the trash is spread and "walked down" in the landfill by bulldozers and other heavy equipment. Either way, a human body put through those processes would be crushed severely, and the findings from an autopsy regarding cause of death could be speculative.

The defense of Mark Hacking will probably not take that route, however, as I stand by my earlier prediction that he will angle towards an insanity defense. Still, the lead-up to the initial hearings will be quite interesting, as the arrest was made with the charge of aggravated murder--a death-penalty eligible offense in Utah.

As the case now stands, on Wednesday cadaver dogs will resume their search of the landfill for Lori's body. Meanwhile, the volunteer search effort in the nearby mountains and countryside will be halted.

Hacking update

2004-07-27T13:56:00.000-05:00

Mark and Lori's apartment has been released to their families. Can't help but wonder what the new occupants of that little spread have to say about their new address. Also, it's come to light that Lori had a particularly disturbing phone call at work Friday, leaving her in tears. Co-workers say it had to do with a married-student housing application to the medical center where Mark was supposedly accepted.

Police have renewed their search of a landfill with cadaver dogs, and have made (or leaked) the fact that they presume Lori to be dead.

More to come . . .

Depends on your definition of "better"

2004-07-27T13:08:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's DNC lineup seemed to be a good round-up of reasons NOT to vote the Dems' ticket this November. Jimmy Carter spoke about foreign policy--ironic since the main things he accomplished in office were getting our asses kicked in Iran trying to get our hostages back, and giving away the Panama canal. Al Gore re-iterated his "count 'em til I win" philosophy, which translates into "every vote counts, and every vote (for the right people) will be counted."

Then Bill Clinton got up and made the most asinine statement I can imagine for this convention: "By the only test that matters, whether people were better off when we finished than when we started, our way works better . . ." I fail to see where that's the only test that matters . . . and I fail to see where his party passes the test. Clinton left office with the fuse lit on a grossly overvalued stock market, an open-door policy towards terrorists, and far more ammunition for anti-government radicals here in the U.S. thanks to his administration's handling of situations like Waco and Ruby Ridge. He pushed the highest tax increases ever through the house and senate, vetoed laws banning partial-birth abortion (not once, but twice), and appointed some of the most radical liberals ever to pass the bar exam to the Federal Judiciary.

Mr. Clinton, with all due respect, I am an American, and as my Country goes, so go I. If the United States sits weakened, a sitting duck for terrorists, I am vulnerable as well. If she cries with the pains of her nearly-born, my tears flow. If her life's-blood economic structure is in danger of collapse, I shall be found at the bottom of the rubble. If her founding principles are ridiculed, her proud heritage trashed, then I, like every other American, am nothing but a bastard child of superstitious plunderers.

Americans at the end of the Clinton administration's tenure were as blissfully ignorant as a cancer patient before his trip to the doctor. We had masked so many symptoms and denied so many "little" problems, that we were totally convinced that all was well. Nine months later, the diagnosis came. We were horribly ill, and too pumped-up on good feelings to notice.

By Clinton's line of reasoning, the cancer patient was much "better off" before he went to the doctor, and John Kerry really does need to be President. He'll make us feel better.

Not much new in Hacking Case

2004-07-26T11:09:00.000-05:00

Not very much to report in the Hacking case through Sunday, so I'll just give a quick re-hash of the new developments over the weekend.

1. Unconfirmed reports that police found a bloody knife with hair attached in the Hacking home.

2. Convenience store employee found a clump of dark hair in a dumpster near the furniture store where Mark bought a new mattress

3. Police confiscated computers, a box spring, and many other items from the Hacking home

4. Police "sources" (read: off-the-record statements by officers) stated that the investigators believe that Mark Hacking is lying to them. Not particularly a stunning revelation, considering the known lies he's told thus far.

5. The witness who allegedly saw Lori stretching in the park said they could not be sure that it was actually Lori they saw.

6. Details now out show that Mark's original claim was that around 10 a.m. was when he first knew Lori hadn't made it to work.

Now, putting all this together is something that I firmly believe the investigators have already done, but don't expect much information in the form of "confirmed" reports prior to the initial hearings. Police here aren't going to make the same mistakes as were made in the Scott Peterson case.

My own instincts about when, how, and why are certainly irrelevant, but I've put forth opinions so far that have been echoed by later media reports, so I'll go out on a limb again.

As I've previously speculated, I think the true reason Mark and Lori were moving to North Carolina will be revealed in what investigators find on Mark's computer. I have a gut instinct that he was moving to be close to someone else, and Lori would have been promptly dropped, perhaps with a plane ticket to get back home to Salt Lake, after Mark was set in a new home. The whole graduation-med school charade would be sufficient for Mark to get a lot of assistance from both families with the relocation, and by the time he gave the c'est la vie to Lori, the move would be a done deal. Something happened, though, that screwed all this up--Lori got pregnant. Mark, knowing that a child (and child support) was not something he had counted on, found himself in a fix. Why not divorce her in Utah, though? Well, Utah and North Carolina are significantly different in one aspect of Divorce law---North Carolina does NOT take into account "marital fault" in determining whether alimony is ordered. So, Mark is faced with a dilemma. He may have decided to break things off with Lori now, or He may have been caught updating his long-distance interest over the computer. Either way, the powderkeg finally exploded in the pre-dawn hours of Monday. Mark, horrified at what he's done to Lori, makes a decision to cover the crime. He cleans the house as much as possible, but there's one problem--Lori's still there. He decides to wrap her in the mattress and drop it in a nearby dumpster. Nobody would suspect a fellow discarding an old mattress, and by moving Lori's car to the park, he can sufficiently divert attention from the dumpster until it's been emptied, its contents compacted and dumped in the city landfill. He moves quickly, getting Lori's car to the park before even the earliest-morning joggers show up, then returns home. Wrapping Lori (and probably other evidence like clothes, etc.) in the mattress, he straps it to the top of his car, drives to the dumpster, then to the furniture store to replace the mattress. He's in the store when it occurs to him that he needs to show some concern about Lori's whereabouts before much later in the day, so he calls her work, then some friends. Finalizing the mattress purchase, he returns home, places the new mattress, then calls police. He counted on police coming in, taking a brief statement, then going to the park to look for Lori. That would give him some additional time to look over the apartment and make sure that everything was concealed or discarded. Instead, they stay, making Mark all the more nervous. When they finally leave, he has to make a good show of helping with the search, so he has no time to tidy up. Monday afternoon, it finally sinks in that the police will search the apartment, and that they will, inevitably, find something that ties him to the crime. He formulates "plan B", and goes to a nearby hotel, getting a room under a false name. That night, after he's finally left alone, he goes to the hotel, strips, and makes a huge scene in the parking lot. Drawing from his knowledge of the behaviour of the insane, as well as his skill at deception, he makes a believable case to be admitted for psychiatric treatment. Police return to his apartment, and find numerous pieces of evidence, directly connecting him to Lori's disappearance, but as long as he's held in the hospital, they will hold off calling him a suspect until he's either released or Lori's body is found. Whichever happens first (my opinion is that Lori will be found in the landfill within the next day or two), the police will promptly take Mark into custody. He'll attempt an insanity defense, and the rest will be in the hands of the jury.

Now, if you've read all of this, I thank you for giving ear to all my speculation. I would love to be horribly wrong, and sincerely hope that in spite of all the deception and speculation, that Lori will be found alive and well. I think to truly believe that she's still alive, however, is being overly optimistic.

Grisly discoveries in Utah

2004-07-25T09:51:00.000-05:00

Police have begun the use of cadaver dogs in their search for Lori Hacking, and are concentrating on a nearby landfill.

Meanwhile, seems Mark Hacking is destined to be more than a "person of interest".

Link to a story that details what was found in the couples' apartment by police.

In a television report, the "bloodstains" were not reported as fact, but a positive Luminol hit was confirmed.

This will take an interesting turn soon, in my estimation, as investigators looking into Mark's computers will probably reveal a reason besides Med School that he was moving to North Carolina, and I stand by my earlier prediction that Lori will be found wrapped in a mattress.

I sincerely wish this were headed for a different ending.

Definitive Irony

2004-07-23T21:50:00.000-05:00

In tonight's news, there was an item that bears repeating. Seems there has been a specific terrorist threat surrounding the upcoming Democratic National Convention. The threat has the FBI on high alert, and they're taking it very seriously.

What's so interesting is that the press is the target of the threat. Now, I can understand that a strike at such a high-profile event would certainly get the world's attention. but for goodness' sake, the American Press has been some of the terrorists' most vocal allies! I think, however, that a strike against the press would achieve quite a lot. Consider that as soon as the smoke cleared, the folks inside the convention, fresh from their Farenheit 9-11 screening (sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, btw) can gloat over how dangerous a world George W. Bush has created.

Just a few tidbits . . .

2004-07-23T20:26:00.000-05:00

Just a comparison . . .

Then: Mark was a "straight A" student in college
Now: He never graduated from college

Then: Mark had been accepted into Med school in South Carolina, the couple was soon to be moving.
Now: Mark never applied to Med school.

Then: Mark checked himself into the hospital because he was "incapacitated with grief"
Now: Mark was picked up by emergency workers who responded with police to find him running around naked at a nearby hotel. He was transported and admitted to the hospital. He had checked himself into the hotel, ironically, under an assumed name.

Then: A witness said she had seen Lori in the park.
Now: The same witness says she isn't sure.

Then: Mark called Lori's work, then called friends, then police to report Lori missing
Now: He did just that, in that order, but found time to go furniture shopping in the meantime.

Now: Mark denies, in a confrontation with his father, that he had anything to do with Lori's disappearance.
Later: ?????

Don't blink--you may miss something

2004-07-23T12:26:00.000-05:00

Back in the earliest AP feed I could find (link here), the following statement:

Mark Hacking works the night shift at inpatient psychiatry and usually is sleeping when Lori Hacking goes running. She normally returns home about 6:30 a.m. to shower and get ready for work. "Then I usually drive her to work," he said.
On Monday, he woke up later in the morning and called Wells Fargo and learned she had not arrived for work.

So here is the timeline:

5:30 a.m. (approximate): Lori heads out for a jog. Note that her long-time jogging partner stated that Lori had plans that evening, and that, she assumed, was the reason she went running early that morning, instead after sunset when the two of them usually ran.
6:30 a.m.: usual time for Lori to arrive back at home, shower, and dress for work (Mark states he usually drove her to work.
--unknown time--: Mark awakes to see that Lori isn't there, her clothes are undisturbed, her lunch still in the fridge. He calls Wells Fargo, finds that Lori isn't at work.
9:45 a.m.: Mark enters a furniture store, mattress-shopping
10:00 a.m.: Mark calls friends and family to tell them he can't find Lori.
10:23 a.m.: Mark's still out shopping, buys a mattress.
10:49 a.m.: Mark calls police to notify them his wife is missing.
Late Night: Mark observed/picked up running around naked in a hotel parking lot, 1/2 mile from the couple's home. He was "acting strangely" and wearing nothing but a pair of sandals.

Be patient with me . . . I'm pulling this together in a minute

The facts are:
1. Quite a bit of time lapsed between Lori's "usual" time to return from jogging and Mark's call to friends.
2. Mark apparently called those friends from the furniture store where he was shopping for a mattress.
3. Quite a bit more time passes between Mark calling friends and Mark calling the police.
4. Mark experiences a "breakdown" later that night that leaves him clad in sandals and nothing else, and running around a nearby hotel.
5. Lori didn't normally jog in the mornings.
6. Lori's "jogging buddy" knew from their conversations, that Lori was pregnant, and that the pregnancy wasn't planned, even though Lori & Mark didn't do anything preventative.
7. Most friends and family feel that Lori didn't know that Mark indeed had never finished college, her father making a statement that he was a straight "A" student.
8. Police have found pieces of the couple's old mattress discarded.

I now call your attention to the opening paragraphs of this post--detailing that Mark works the night shift at "inpatient psychiatry". This fellow works each night with the mentally disturbed. He knows considerably more than a common layperson about the symptoms that accompany dementia.

We can make a safe assumption that Mark and Lori didn't sleep on a bare box-spring on the night of the 18th, so between the two waking, and Mark calling the police at 10:49, the mattress had been somewhat destroyed (police found pieces of it) and discarded, and another mattress purchased. This from a couple who were planning to move soon--why replace a mattress when it's just one more thing to pack?

There's also a mention of Mark finding Lori's car when he went looking for her. He made a statement that he had run through her usual path twice, and no sign of her. But what about the car? Were her keys in it? Was it locked? If it were locked, did she leave her License or other ID there? In all, was there anything in her car that she usually took with her running? She was seen by one witness at the park that morning, but this witness has made no other statement, and no other witnesses have come forward. I'd think that there would at least be one or two other joggers in the park before work.

There are so many questions that need to be asked--and answered--regarding this case. My personal feelings: Mark has everything to do with Lori's disappearance. He got rid of the mattress trying to cover evidence. He laid a two-prong defense by pulling the "running-around-naked" stunt. He knows enough (or so he thinks) about insanity to make a defense out of it, even if the evidence catches up to him. I don't think Lori ever made it to the park, that the witness was simply trying to get 15 minutes of fame, and that searching the park and surrounding area is a fruitless endeavor.

UPDATE: In a twist of irony, seems Mark was employed at the same inpatient psychiatric unit where he's now a patient. Also, current reports state that the police didn't actually find parts of the mattress, but rather confiscated the box spring when they conducted a search of Mark and Lori's apartment. The location of the mattress is still unknown, but my guess is that the mattress is wrapped around Lori's body somewhere.

No spin here . . .

2004-07-22T12:26:00.000-05:00

Headlines and links from the MSNBC "Politics" section, beneath a story titled:
• Success of Moore film has Republicans rattled

• Poll: Kerry has Hispanic vote locked up
• Dillard won't seek Illinois Senate seat
• Kerry takes gang plan to Urban League
• Kucinich to formally back Kerry
• S.F. may let some non-citizens vote
• Trippi: John Edwards' rotten luck
• Watch 'Picking Our Presidents' on MSNBC
• Kerry near Bush in post-primary spending
• Ice cream mogul puts Bush in hot seat
• Bush saying little about 2nd term plans
• GOP plans Boston 'war room'
• Jenna gives media a little razz
• Measuring presidents via the economy
• New poll smiles on Kerry
• Dillard leaves Illinois Republicans hanging
• Labor's front cracks as convention nears
• Delegates, ticket differ on marriage
• WP: Parties wage battle of databases
• White House Derby: Kerry's to lose
• Bush vs. Kerry at a glance
• Washington Post: Bush vs. Kerry
• Day-by-day schedule of Democratic convention
• A quick look at the Democratic Convention
• Boston: For Democrats, stars and bars
• 'Multiple layers' of convention security
• Boston: The political past is everywhere
• Delegates would pick Hillary in 2008
• Labor's front cracks as convention nears

Ok . . . so their motto isn't "fair and balanced", but wouldn't you think that one of the leading web news sites in the U. S. would try just a little to mask their political preferences?

Also noticed that a poll by the Pew Research Center upon which MSNBC reports (New poll smiles on Kerry) states that the dems are "almost even with the GOP on which party is stronger on the issue of morality." Of course this is from a sampling (unknown locale) of 2,009 adults, 1,568 of which are actually registered voters. Do the math. Almost 25% of those polled aren't even registered to vote! How in the HELL can they claim a +/- 2.5% margin of error?

Obviously the claim of a media bias toward the Democratic party is just a construction of the VRWC.

The Kid Rock Experience

2004-07-22T11:55:00.000-05:00

Got in early a.m. today from a Kid Rock concert. I'm not going to argue his "musical genius", but in an entertainment market dominated by image, this guy is pretty damn talented.

I really don't understand, though, why folks tend to want to fight at this type of event. Out of nearly 10,000 people at this (relatively small) coliseum, there's about a dozen asshats who insist on creating problems. I had to contend with one who was determined he needed to take a leak without losing his place near the stage. He was eventually convinced otherwise. Another couple guys decided they were big-and-bad-enough to run over any and everyone between them and the stage. They were proven sadly wrong. Security dropped the ball when they had their first opportunity to remove these two dunces, so the next trip the bouncers made over the wall was to rescue them.

Anyway, with the exception of a few minor altercations, almost everyone was intent upon having a blast, and we did. I've seen very few entertainers who can work a crowd like Kid Rock, and although I don't have the benefit of seeing him in other venues, I got the impression that much of his show and set list was tailored to this particular concert. After all, it isn't every day you can hear him blasting out "I Feel Like Jackson, Mississippi" when he's actually on stage in JACKSON, MISSISSPPI.

Add to this mix an assortment of songs and pieces of songs from Lynyrd Skynyrd, Bob Seger, Led Zeppelin, Hank Williams, Jr., and even Waylon Jennings (theme from the Dukes of Hazzard, no less), and it's a show that no fan of southern-fried rock should miss. Even if you're not into Kid Rock's "hip-hop" side, it's a great show. He seems to be truly proud to be an American, unlike so many other entertainers of late.

Also, never hurts to throw in a quartet of bikini-clad dancing girls.

Hacking not accepted to med school

2004-07-22T11:51:00.000-05:00

deseretnews.com | Did husband lie? Hacking not accepted to med school

Just caught this, even though it's several hours old now . . . It seems that Mark Hacking, the missing lady's husband, has lied to the media about the couple's immediate intentions for re-location to North Carolina.

Further, Fox News reports that Mark has gone out and bought himself a brand new mattress.

Apparently he's been reading drafts of Scott Peterson's upcoming book: How to Murder Your Wife, Be a Complete Idiot in the Cover-up, and Still Get Away With It (Foreward by O. J. Simpson)

Why Marriage?

2004-07-16T12:42:00.000-05:00

I'm confused.

For years and years, we've been told that a certificate of marriage is optional, that the real issue is whether a couple truly loves each other, that folks should have the right to express their love without being bound by a state-sanctioned piece of paper.

Now the gay and lesbian communities are up in arms wanting the institution of marriage extended to their relationships. In England, they demand that civil unions aren't enough. Only full-fledged marriage certificates will do. What's going on?

Pretty simple to figure out. What will happen the first time a legally married male-male couple, both men in their 30s, applies to adopt a 6-year-old boy? The adoption agency will be forced to grant the adoption, providing all of their presently existing guidelines are met. Otherwise, they will be the target of a discrimination suit. As such, these two men will be in a position to teach this young, impressionable, boy the beauty of gay love, and introduce him to the pleasures of things sexual whenever they, as his parents, see fit.

I concede that a dangerous trend is to draft a constitutional amendment for current social issues, but I maintain that until there is a return to an honest interpretation of the United States Constitution by the Supreme Court (and the judicial branch in general), there may be no other viable resolution to such questions. I think this is one open-and-shut case of states rights (remember those?), and that the federal judiciary branch has no business ruling in this area. If a state has particularly strong gay/lesbian demographics, let them decide by popular vote to allow such marriages, but at the same time, don't force other states to recognize those licenses, against their own laws.

Is this a personal issue? No, it's at the center of Constitutional law, and it must be addressed. I think the debate about the morality of homosexual relationships is a futile one, as most religions of the world flatly condemn those actions as immoral. At the same time, consider that while those who support these marriages scream that the government shouldn't dictate who someone loves, by insisting upon government licensing and sanctioning of these "loving relationships", they themselves have thrown the issue into the political arena. This is not the equivalent of sodomy laws, but rather a challenge to the rights of state governments.

The question of same-sex marriages is, in that light, much less complex than we're told in the media. The "sanctity of marriage" is only a secondary issue here. The real question lies in how much power the federal judiciary wields over states in issues not explicitly addressed in our constitution.

A wonderful vacation, and a rant to boot...

2004-07-16T12:15:00.000-05:00

My apologies for taking so much time off from my newly-conceived blog, but the family and I were vacationing in Florida for a few days.

We had a great time, enjoying the sights and sounds of the oceans, both Gulf beaches and Atlantic, and I even had an opportunity to have an extended conversation with a resident there that covered everything from hurricaines to politics.

One item of note: Don't go through the south part of Tallahassee on 319, headed down towards Apalachicola, lots of construction, really quirky traffic signals (all other lanes got 2 or 3 green lights before mine!) and lots and lots of apparently confused drivers.

I suppose my only real gripe over my vacation is the anti-smoking law Florida passed awhile back that bans smoking in all restaurants. I suppose most of the smokers in the state just tolerate the ordinance, being good little citizens, and enjoy their smokes outside, but this is an issue I really have a problem with. I realize the "one man's rights end where another's begin" argument is the crux of the issue, but isn't it far past time we re-evaluated what "rights" really exist and which are constructions of society?

I argue that an individual has no more "right" to not smell cigarette smoke than he has the "right" not to smell skunks, loud perfume, or cooking cabbage. There's no evidence that occasional environmental exposure to smoke is detrimental to one's health. What has society regressed into when personal preferences towards one scent or another is the subject of legislation? I, for one, have had my meal "experience" in a nice (and relatively expensive)restaurant at least partially spoiled by an unruly child at another table. Perhaps a ban on children under 15 in any restaurant where entree prices are above $15.00 should be legislated. Such absurdity is simply an extrapolation of the "smoking ban" logic.

The other side to this coin, of course, is the rights of business owners to conduct business as they see fit, not be subject to more governmental regulation and scrutiny. If cigarette smoke is so patently offensive, why do so many people choose "first available" when asked in which section they would like to be seated? Furthermore, one would assume that if such a huge segment of the population is against smoking in public, venues which allowed smoking indoors would eventually be forced to honor the public's wishes and become voluntarily smoke-free. This would never happen, though, and the smoke-haters know this, so they resort to pushing through legislation, with much fanfare, deemed to be in the interest of "public health", and smokers, in the name of being polite, bow to their demands.

My solution: smokers should start lighting up anywhere they wish, in the name of peaceful protest. Free expression is still a part of the constitution, even though it's being eroded every day. A challenge to such totalitarian policies is long overdue, and this just may be the perfect first volley in the bloodless revolution to return America to its roots of personal liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.

Overnight Poll Shows Surge for Ticket

2004-07-07T14:27:00.000-05:00

NewsMax
Wednesday, July 7, 2004
A new poll conducted for MSNBC by Princeton Survey Research showed that the Democratic ticket has gotten a big boost from Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his VP candidate.
Respondents were asked which duo they would choose were the election today - Bush/Cheney, Kerry/Edwards or Nader/Camajo.

MSNBC reports that 49 percent choose the Democrats against 41 percent for the incumbents.

Interestingly, 6 percent declined to answer the question, leading one to believe that a large chunk of voters still are unsure or undecided.

Ralph Nader and Peter Camajo got 4 percent.

Kerry and Edwards are the first serving senators to appear on the same election ticket since 1972, when Democratic Senators George McGovern of South Dakota and Thomas Eagleton of Missouri teamed up for the Democratic ticket.

Gee, I would have never seen this coming . . . the ticket actually gained a couple of points in polls when it was a (gasp) complete ticket?

Nevermind that Wall Street fell in the wake of the Democratic ticket's surge.

I still say that Kerry's in deep trouble to not have a more significant lead at this time, and I don't think Edwards is enough of a personality counter-balance to pull this one off.

Jumping In . . .

2004-07-07T14:26:00.000-05:00

Well, here goes . . .

After a minor blog presence (thanks, Kevin) at Wizbang! I have decided to step out on my own into the blog whirlwind.

A few loose rules:

1) Be nice! Nobody enjoys a debate that resorts to personal attacks and name-calling.

2) Please keep profanity to a minimum. My opinion is that excessive use of such language displays a lack of intelligence and creativity.

3) Keep on topic. I realize that many times a post lends itself to more than just the main issue, but try to stay close to home.

I reserve the right to delete posts that grossly violate the guidelines above, but I pledge not to be the blog-nazi here. This is a forum for open debate.

And so it starts . . .