Saturday, November 29, 2003

Re: Hillary's Baghdad visit

Here's an encouraging anecdote.
Nobody seems to have pointed out that the President's Thanksgiving day visit to Baghdad completely neutralized Hillary Clinton's similar visit. This bodes well in terms of campaign savvy if these two end up going head to head in 2004, which still is a distinct possibility. It is laughable that some are calling the President's visit a stunt or a shameless political maneuver, while the queen of souless politics is treated as if she just couldn't stand to be away from her beloved troops. If I were stationed in Iraq I'd have a really hard time not showing Hillary my ass.
Sigh. This sort of thing is going to have to change.
The EU has begun planning its own army. Oooh! Better watch out Liberia! Settle down Lichtenstein! Oh, Serbia? They're *cough* too powerful, someone could get hurt *cough* not OUR problem....
"If it were to die completely, it would take on a mythical grandeur and like Obi Wan Kenobi become more powerful as a spirit than in physical form."
Just like Che Guevera. Good point.
I've decided that it would not be a good thing for socialism to be eradicated from the planet. It would be much better for it to crop up every now and again (hopefully outside the U.S.) just to serve as an example of man's folly in trying to reengineer society. If it were to die completely, it would take on a mythical grandeur and like Obi Wan Kenobi become more powerful as a spirit than in physical form. Here's to the French and the Germans keeping the flame alive for a while, and here's to the unfortunate souls in the other EU nations that are strapped in for the ride of their lives.

Kerry, I also wanted to thank you for your info on Mary Magdalene a few posts back. I learned something, and put the information to good use in some recent political discussions. I stand corrected.

Friday, November 28, 2003

Looks as if the minor EU members are getting boned again by France and Germany. They should just rename the EU the "Greater French-German Co-prosperity Sphere" as the other European countries are going to get as good a deal as Asia did under Japan during WWII.
Hmmm, didn't see anything about this in the lamestream media.
Spin this:

"I just wanted to drop you guys a note from here in downtown Baghdad where I interact with the local population on a daily basis. The President's visit was even more of a morale boost to the Iraqis than it was to the troops. When the President of the U.S.A. visits a place like this, it's like the most popular kid in school coming to a party hosted by the A.V. club. The Iraqis feel validated and Al Jazeera looked foolish in the eyes of the Iraqis trying to find a negative spin to the story.

George Bush's visit has made my job easier in showing that we are committed to helping this country. I had Iraqis wishing me "Happy Thanksgiving" all day today (they only learned of the holiday by finding out the reason why Bush came to visit us).

Just wanted to give you the perspective from the street here in Baghdad."

Hat tip to NRO Corner
I agree Kerry. How long do you think it will take the Bushophobes to spin this into another "reckless stunt" like the aircraft carrier landing? It will be tougher for them to pull it off, since it was a holiday visit to the troops, but rest assured they will attempt to use this against the President.

How pissed are the terrorists in Baghdad now that they let The Mothership slip right past them?

Wednesday, November 26, 2003


That tribute was nice, and I can attest from my limited experience in the reserves that it is right on target. I met some pretty amazing people who were " bright and talented and could do anything..." but chose to serve their country anyway. I have a lot of respect for these people.

The other thing that really struck me was the quote by Thomas Paine: "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, so that my children may have peace." I am still eligible to be called up for 3 more years, and while it would be very hard, I would go without complaint. The sentiment expressed in that quote alone pretty much sums things up for me.

That's a nice tribute. Much to the surprise of the left, our troops are doing exactly what they believe in and are committed to finishing the job. People often say that one of the things the troops are fighting for is the right of the lefties to freely express their opinions, and they are correct. Unfortunately, the left does not believe that the troops are fighting for them in any way. The great thing about our soldiers is that they fight on, completely unaffected by those who deep down don't care a fig about them. Thank God we have them, for I would hate to see what would happen if all we could muster in times of crisis were a bunch sisified liberals.



That master slave thing is a flaming crock of shit. As if all our bloated social welfare programs aren't enough for those who would rather not work for a living. This clown has to file a discrimination lawsuit against the use of a technical term? The time is ripe for a loser pays legal system. We'll see how many of society's moochers will try this crap if there's a chance they might have to fork over some cash.


Stupid sons of whores.
Cal Thomas takes a swing at the last congress. I couldn't agree more. The confetti hasn't even settled yet from the celebration of the Republicans winning over congress, and this is the performance they turn in? This is why I'm a Libertarian. I already pay nearly 50% of every dime I make back into the government teet fund, and these supposed fiscal conservatives are greasing my ass for even more. At the end of the day, Republicans suck only fractionally less than Democrats. Congress needs an enema.

Geez, you guys are getting way ahead of me here. I'll try to catch up.

Tom, I agree that ideally government shouldn't be involved whatsoever in marriage. The polygamist example I gave was simply to point out that you don't necessarily open up the floodgates when you allow same sex civil unions; it is possible to draw the line here based on financial practicality. I see this as an imperfect but much more realistic solution to the issue. While I would support government getting out of marriage, I would expect many on the right would equate this with the destruction of the institution and lose their minds over it.

Kerry, you're right in that we're approaching this from different perspectives. I think it's very positive and often necessary to apply social pressure against behavior that is legal yet potentially destructive (smoking, drinking, burning flags, etc.) Being aware of this difference is the important thing. People too often want the government to outlaw things that bother them, without any regard for the fact that they are jeopardizing their own rights in the process.

I also agree that same sex partners are truly looking to have their partnerships viewed on an equal footing with traditional marriages. Again, the legal vs moral issue crops up. As long as the government views the relationships equally, then nobody can bitch from a legal standpoint. There are those who would like to make it illegal to think less of a homosexual relationship, but they belong in the same asylum as the people that want to outlaw hate speech. I for one am not offended by the desire for homosexuals to have their relationships on an equal footing with a same sex marriage, but I understand the reasons some people are. I think it gets to the point that people are fighting over trivialities that should best be left alone. Obviously there has to be something unique about a same sex marriage, as that is the only way people can procreate. I'm just not sure why people on both sides of this get so upset over what other people's perceptions are. It reminds me of the quote from Adlai Stevenson "America can choke on a gnat but swallow a tiger whole."


Tuesday, November 25, 2003

Scott, regarding your post on the cluster-fuck that is the EU, it is going to be REALLY amusing if they ratify strict emissions controls at next week's United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. I'll be all chucklehouse (I used it!) as they enter a full-fledged depression, although one can't help feeling sorry for average Europeans being led into a hellish skein of legal minutiae by unelected bureaucrats.

Oh, and this doesn't bode well for Europe in their plans to overpower the USA economically. United States of Europe. Pshaw.
"I would allow polygamy, but only allow marital benefits for one spouse. While this is an uncomfortable compromise, it is a necessary evil."

Scott, are you advocating the government getting involved or even mandating marital benefits? That doesn't sound like the boy with the libertarian bent that I know. While I think if people want to live together in a polygamous (or same-sex) relationship they should be allowed to, government should not be involved in anyway in marriage, civil unions, etc. What I am getting at is that the government shouldn't be denying rights to certain groups that could lead to diminished rights for all down the road, they sure as hell shouldn't be pushing legislation for them either. The only "benefits" being discussed should be in the workplace between the employer and employee.

That being said, if you are going to allow polygamy through legislation, you can't limit rights to one spouse. It's not only hypocritical but perpetuates problems due to the fact that it is a half-assed compromise. This is part of the problem with the abortion compromise.

As far as "There are practical reasons polygamists will not be allowed civil unions. Chief among these is the fact that one spouse will be disproportionately draining governmental benefits" - since when has this been a disqualifying factor? Christ, I can see the Dem presidential nominees running for the microphones to announce this as a plank in their platforms and evidence of how much they "care".

To answer your questions:

Do you support the right for homosexuals to have children by artificial insemination?
Do you support the right for homosexuals to adopt children?

Yes on both. I can't think of a single reason why we should deny homosexuals this right that doesn't violate the constitution. While I agree that this is not the optimal parental scheme, if that becomes the standard by which we judge people's right to have/ adopt children then we open up the door to government putting up all kinds of other qualifications for insemination/ adoption (intelligence, race, health, age, etc.) If we care about our own rights, we must accept that denying these same rights to homosexual couples could diminish our own freedom down the road.

Do you believe that there are inherent defenses biologically between men and women that make an ideal family consist of a mother and a father when possible?

Yes, but there is no ideal family, and all families are flawed. The other parental attributes (love, responsibility, discipline, etc.) are far more important than gender. A homosexual couple with all of those qualities will raise better children than a heterosexual couple without them. Again, "qualifying" for being a parent is a slippery slope.

As far as opening the door to polygamists, etc, you have a point. However, this issue, like the issue of abortion, is going to be defined in its gray areas. There are practical reasons polygamists will not be allowed civil unions. Chief among these is the fact that one spouse will be disproportionately draining governmental benefits due to his/ her multiple spouses. I would allow polygamy, but only allow marital benefits for one spouse. While this is an uncomfortable compromise, it is a necessary evil. Our abortion laws have similar gray areas (you can have an abortion but not certain types of abortions.) Perhaps it's a bit untidy but you have to do this to keep from cutting your own nose off.

Re: Gay marriage

Can I marry my mother when she is old so she can share my health benefits? Government should have NOTHING to do with marriage whatsoever. It was a religious rite originally until government got in on the action - probably to increase revenues. If people want to live together, and share they're lives together - fine. If a company wants to give the spouse of someone that works for them benefits - fine. But government should not be involved.
About the EU: I want a front row seat for that train wreck. The failure of the EU will hopefully mark the end of socialism as a significant political force, as well as the end of the ridiculous American perception that the Europeans are somehow more sophisticated and intelligent, despite their abysmal modern track record. Europe is on it's way to being the largest 3rd world country in history, but there are millions of bozos in America that think we should follow their lead and let them make national security decisions for us.

You won't see this kind of news coming out of Europe any time soon.
My 2¢ on gay marriage: You cannot simultaneously call yourself a Christian and deny two people who love each other the right to form a civil union, and all that comes with it. While I understand that there is some sensitivity about using the actual word "marriage", due to religious beliefs as well as due to it's definition of being a union between a man and a woman, you're not hearing the gay community whining about definitions. All they want is the right to form a civil union (call it whatever you want) and receive the same legal benefits that a straight couple would. Denying gay couples the right to form a civil union is no different from denying black couples the same right. Those who would use the few Old Testament lines denouncing homosexual acts as the basis of their argument need to read the New Testament (you remember that, don't you) where Jesus pretty much spends his whole adult life talking about forgiveness and compassion. He also spends a considerable amount time in the company of a whore, but he didn't lobby to have her rights taken from her. I would also point out that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say "when in doubt, check the Bible."

It all boils down to people who have an irrational fear of homosexuality, along with that time tested trait of humanity to not be comfortable unless they have someone or some group to blame for their troubles. Half the people losing their minds fighting gay marriage are cheating on their spouses for crying out loud. Straight people have done more to damage the institution of marriage than all the gay people in history could ever hope to.
This guy knows what is going on.

Monday, November 24, 2003