20060131

On the road again...

As much as I enjoy being at home, it is being on the road that pays the bills in my line of work. While I am on the road I do not have access to the internet.

I expect to return home towards the end of February or perhaps early March.

Virginia Gay Marriage Ban

(See here) a Washington Post article that reports the citizens of Virginia likely will face a referendum on an amendment to their state constitution banning Gay marriage.

(See here) a Washington Blade article that discusses what such a ban might mean for Virginia's Gay community.

I am a resident of Virginia, and I am apt to vote that Virginia join the eighteen other states that have approved state constitutional amendments that define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The gay community objects to this? The language of the amendment might threaten other "rights" that they currently enjoy? My question is, and just who's fault is this?

If America's national gay community had not set out to test the legality of banning same sex marriages in the courts, efforts to protect traditional marriage would not be necessary. Please note that in every instance I am aware of, referendums to define marriage as between one man and one woman have passed by overwhelming majorities in every state where citizens were given the opportunity to vote on the matter.

The gay community is not content with some of the rights of married couples, time and again they take things to the courts in an effort to be granted all the rights.

Gays claim they are being discriminated against. I guess that is an accurate statement, it is discriminatory. But let us look at convicted felons. In many states convicted felons are denied the right to keep and bear arms or even the right to vote. Is this discriminatory? In my opinion, yes it is, however a good case can be made why this discrimination is good for society. In my opinion, in the same manner, a good argument can be made for why it is good for society to deny the privileges of marriage to gay couples.

Will the Virginia constitutional amendment go too far? Perhaps it will, but I am in agreement that some type of action is necessary. If the gay community was not making this such an issue that the "rest of us" would not have to decide how we are going to vote on referendums like this.

Of course steps like this are only the opening salvo. Eventually a same sex couple with a marriage certificate in a state such as Massachusetts is going to receive a job offer from one of the states that have amendments banning same sex marriage written into their constitutions and then a federal case is going to be made out of it. I am fairly certain of how, now that it seems Alito is going to join the courts, 4 of 9 justices are going to rule on the matter. Only 1 of the remaining 5 will need to join them for the gay community to have their hopes dashed. Remember it used to be Sandra Day O'Connor who was the swing vote, and recent reports are that Justice Anthony M Kennedy is going to often be the new swing vote. Which way will he swing?

My own belief is that America's gay community is jumping the gun. I feel that my own generation is much more tolerant of gays then was my parents' generation. Whenever the issue comes up in my own household it seems that my children's generation is even more tolerant. If the gay community were to just bide their time they might eventually achieve their dreams. However they are impatient and they demand what they claim is justice right now.

By striking prematurely, the gay community even risks seeing a ban on gay marriage incorporated into the federal constitution, and once there, it will be extremely difficult to extract the ban.

By the way, please do not resort to labeling me as a "homophobe" just because I might happen to disagree with your opinion. To see how often this happens, just do a google of blogs with "homophobe" as the search criteria. It is my opinion that the gay community does nothing to further their cause when they resort to calling the majority that disagree with them names.

When the gay community resorts to name calling and refuse to engage in reasonable debate, they only expose themselves as being the bigots they are.

20060130

Peace Now on the Hamas Election Victory

(See here) Americans for Peace Now's reaction to the Hamas election victory in Palestine.

Let me quote from a portion of the article: "In general, Israel should negotiate with anyone who recognizes its right to exist, is willing to talk peace with it, and rejects violence and terrorism. This is currently not the case with Hamas."

I am grateful that Peace Now is being reasonable. While I do not always agree with Peace Now's positions and methods, most often I find myself admiring them as an organization. I am grateful they are not taking a position that I would call unacceptable regarding the election results.

20060129

Greenspan Legacy

(See here) a San Francisco Chronicle article that speaks about the Greenspan legacy.

Let me share my own opinion of Alan Greenspan. Greenspan was a wise man who could not resist bending to the forces of politics.

While Greenspan possessed great wisdom in economics, he allowed political considerations to color his pronouncements as his Fed Chairmanship waned.

Instead of exposing the Dubyah economic policies for what they were, he muted himself for political reasons. "Borrow and spend" federal budget policies pressed hard on the accelerator as our economy heads over the cliff. But not according to Greenspan. According to Greenspan these policies were only reason for, at the most, concern and we need not panic.

Somewhere along the line Alan Greenspan sold out on us and started coloring his pronouncements with political opportunism instead of sound economics.

Under Greenspan, American economic policies became unsound. I would not blame Alan if he sounded the clarion to warn us. But that is not what happened. Instead he voiced opinions that reassured us that we should not worry.

Truth is that America is headed for an economic train wreck. Instead of telling American citizens that we need to wake up and face the threats head on, Alan voiced opinions that enabled politicians to urge us on as we pressed down on the accelerator.

Alan Greenspan possessed great political capital as an expert that could have assisted us in changing course. Did he spend this capital in sounding a warning? No he did not. The man is not a fool. He is educated and wise. His avoidance of responsibility is unforgivable.

Alan Greenspan too often took to the microphone with the song "Don't worry, be happy" while America continued to rush towards an economic meltdown.

This is the legacy of Alan Greenspan. He is the man who could have changed things but who did not bother to do it. Shame on him.

20060128

Just How Evil is Our Enemy?

Just how evil is our enemy?

(See here) an Aljazeera article that reports on the fate of four peacemakers.

It is not enough to believe in peace? Aljazeera reports upon them as being peace activists. Even peace activists are subject to being held hostage.

Even the peacemakers will be held hostage. They are not peacemakers? Go read what Aljazeeri reports them as being.

Even those who are most innocent amongst the Western world will be held captive and perhaps killed when unreasonable demands are not met. Even when we send forth the best of our society to represent us they will be held hostage.

Is it wrong to come to the conclusion that "our enemies" do not want peace when they hold our (according to Aljazeera) peacemakers hostage. Even when those who completely disagree with Dubyah and his ways are threatened with death?

Heh heh, if they are willing to kill the peacemakers, what hope do we have for some reasonable resolution with them? If they are willing to execute the most honorable of those who come from amongst us, what hope do the rest of us, who are less honorable, have?

Blessed be the peacemakers. When our enemies choose to execute those few who walk forward as peacemakers they only expose themselves for what they are.

God, Yahweh, Allah, please help us. We humans seem to be so evil we seem to be unable to escape the call of Satan.

What Does an Alito Confirmation Mean for America?

Well the tea leaves are starting to become clear. Unless there is some change I guess America is just going to have to batten down the hatches and get ready for Supreme Court decisions that include the opinion of a new Supreme Court Justice by the name of Alito.

What does this mean for America?

Proponents of Alito seem to have gotten wrapped around the axle on the issue of abortion. Problem is that Alito is not going to rule on this one issue and then submit his resignation. He is going to be sitting in that position for a good long while and he is going to have the opportunity to rule on a host of other issues.

Where do I see the threat? Let us look into the future by looking at the recent past. Let us examine the recent "Death with Dignity" Supreme Court decision.

By a 6 to 3 decision the Supreme Court voted in support of Oregon's "Death with Dignity" laws. Note which justices dissented. Scalia, Thomas and the newest addition Roberts. You can be pretty certain that if Alito had a seat on the bench he would have voted with these three. With Alito the margin would have been 5 to 4, only one vote shy of an altogether different result.

What horror do I see in such a different result? I like the "Death with Dignity" option. If I lived in Oregon and were presented with a medical diagnosis that called into question my continuing life I would feel empowered to try some of the radical medical treatments my doctor might propose. For you see, I do not want to become a burden upon my family. While I might be motivated to continue my life because I can still be, if "cured", of some value to my family, I do not want to continue my struggle for life at the expense of my family. Somewhere in the equation of my willingness to struggle on the factor of my own personal misery fits in. Since I do not live in Oregon, I do not have the luxury of "Death with Dignity" laws, although I wish I was granted this option. I am hoping this option spreads from Oregon to my state.

Why? Because I do not want to be forced to prematurely have to exercise my option to end my own life in a messy way when presented with a gloomy diagnosis. While I might be willing to endure medical procedures that promise misery with slim hope and I might be motivated to struggle on while hope remains, I am unwilling to undergo these procedures if somewhere along the line I do not have the choice to cut my monetary loses and end my personal misery. I might be forced, because I do not live in Oregon, to exercise my right to "keep and bear arms" beforehand, go into my back yard, and put a gun to my head. I'd do it in the back yard to keep the mess to a minimum.

If I lived in Oregon I would remain in charge. Even if the medical procedure left me too weak to put a gun to my head and pull the trigger, I would still have the choice of saying "Enough is enough, it is hopeless and the time has come to put this to an end." Why should I be forced to spend what little money I have on my own medical care when hope is lost, the agony is too great, and the attention of medical professionals might be better concentrated on those who still have some hope?

"Justice" Alito would deny me this wonderful alternative. Instead I will be forced to weigh the odds ahead of time, and if the odds do not look favorable, make a decision before I find out if modern medicine might be able to save me. Before I admit myself to the hospital I have the right to keep and bear arms. They can not stop me from ending my life ahead of time. I am just going to have to make my decision on what I am going to do before I end up in a hospital and my "right to die" is withheld from me. Even if I am suffering from unbearable agony I would be unable to say "enough is enough" and even my own spouse could not assist me in bringing things to an end without being accused of murder.

To me, this is what the likes of Alito sitting in the Supreme Court represents. While I think that there needs to be some reasonable restrictions on abortion, I am unwilling to surrender all my rights to the extreme right wing on all the other issues that will impact me and those whom I love. I would not force Alito to engage in "Death with Dignity" if he chose not to. Why should I be forced to undergo death with agony just because he thinks this is right? He might even deny me the right to see if modern medicine might have been successful because I dare not risk it.

I think "reasonable" restrictions on abortion could be obtained with Justices who hold moderate opinions. I do not think we need to commit ourselves to a Supreme Court where all the justices only represent right wing extremist positions in order to obtain reasonable restrictions.

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are not going to rule on abortion and resign. The positions they hold are life long. We are going to hear from them for a long time, and how they rule is going to impact us for years to come.

What is in store for us? Tune into Christian radio and television stations that host Alito's supporters such as Dr Dobson and the Rev Robertson. When you hear what they hope happens keep in mind that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Dr Dobson and Rev Robertson supported the nomination of Harriet Miers and that was not even good enough for those who are now going to get their way. Harriet Miers was not even conservative enough for them. No hint of a moderate viewpoint would be allowed.

According to polls 54% of Americans support the confirmation of Alito. Let us look at the bright side. This means that perhaps 46% of Americans have not yet lost their minds.

Senator Kent Conrad on Judge Alito's Confirmation

(See here) a Washington Post article that reports North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad is considering voting for confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court. Reports are that even if he votes against confirmation he probably will not support a filibuster.

The article states:

Among the rank and file, there was opposition to a filibuster from several
lawmakers, including... North Dakota's Kent Conrad, a moderate who is on the ballot this fall in a Republican state.

In an interview, Conrad said that in remarks to fellow Democrats at the caucus, he
outlined several factors. These included Alito's strong backing from the American Bar Association, his uncontested confirmation 15 years ago to the appeals court, public opinion polls and the fact that Republicans had voted overwhelmingly to confirm Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer when President Clinton nominated them.

"So I put that all together and I find it makes it hard to justify a filibuster," Conrad said.


For a sampling of what Senator Conrad is hearing from this constituents (see this) In-Forum article by Lee Mayer. Please note that I doubt Lee Mayer represents someone who is apt to vote for Kent Conrad under any circumstance, however his article might be representative of at least some of the input that Senator Conrad is receiving.

I can understand if Senator Conrad feels it is necessary to vote with the opinion of his constituents. Please note that the single issue Lee Mayer sites in his article of why Senator Conrad needs to support the Alito confirmation is the issue of abortion. Please note that it is on this single issue that many people are going to vote come election day.

I value Senator Kent Conrad's presence and voice in the Senate. If Senator Conrad feels the need to represent the people of his state's opinion on this issue I am willing to stand by him. I am unwilling to ask Senator Conrad to jeopardize his seat in the Senate by bucking the will of his constituents.

I am grateful to the people of North Dakota for sending to Washington such a reasonable voice as that which comes from Kent Conrad. I do not want to see this voice cut off by this one issue.

If Senators like Kent Conrad will not oppose the Alito confirmation then we are just going to have to live with it.

What does this mean for us? Well in order to explore that subject I am going to have to write a new article, which comes up next.

Politics From the Left Wing

I have been perusing a few blogs that I can only describe as "left wing" recently. First I will admit cowardice in that I did not even bother leaving comments of my own (rebuttals to some of the comments I read). However I do have valid reasons for not doing this. I did not want to stir up a storm and then bail out. I have to return to the road in a couple of days and I do not have access to the internet, yet, while on the road.

It is my opinion the "left wing" just does not get it. I do not describe myself as a conservative, but rather as a moderate. But I am shaking my head at what the "left wing" has in store for us if they get their way in the next round of elections. They have not learned a thing. The left wing has lost two Presidential elections in a row, lost both houses of Congress, and what do they plan on doing as a result? Do they plan on retrenching and offering up some "reasonable" candidates to win over some "moderate" support? Not if you believe what you read in the blogs. They scheme to take the Democratic Party even FURTHER to the left. Sigh.

Take for example the "War on Terror". While I agree (and I have held this opinion since back BEFORE we invaded Iraq) that the Iraq war was a mistake, I do not think the War on Terror is wrong. 9-11 did happen, although there are some real loonies out there who seem to think it was not Osama who was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center, but the American Government itself. 9-11 did happen, Osama was behind it, and America and the rest of civilized society faces an evil (yes I will use that word) and conniving enemy that still seeks to carry out further attacks on Western civilization. While the invasion of Iraq was a foolhardy distraction, the fact that Dubyah led us into that quagmire does not in any way remove the fact that a legitimate enemy is still out there plotting against us.

Is Dubyah providing wise leadership in this war? No he is not. But I do not hear anything coming from the left that I would describe as wisdom either.

What worries me is that the Democratic Party is strongly in the clutches of those I describe as the "loonie left". They are a major bloc of those who vote in the Democratic Party primaries and they serve up to the voting public a slate of candidates who swear fealty to the left wing extremist positions.

I am looking for an alternative to the Republican Party candidates when I go to the voting booth. Problem is that I insist it not be just any ole alternative it must be a "reasonable" alternative. The "left wing" can stand firm on what they call principle and they are going to continue finding out that a majority of Americans do not agree with them.

Let me warn Democrats that this is coming from an independent who's vote they succeeded in winning as I cast my ballot for John Kerry. While I did not particularly like John Kerry, I considered him preferable to Dubyah, and winning the votes of people like me is not going to be enough.

What would I suggest? How about presenting to the voting public a real moderate candidate such as former Virginia Governor Mark Warner for President? And do not force him to swear fealty to a left wing extremist party platform in order to win the primary. Let him remain a moderate with a moderate's message.

Last I heard there is fertile ground to be sown upon should the Democratic Party allow some reasonable, moderate, candidates to represent them on the ballot. 45% of Americans describe themselves as moderates. We chafe at the "conservative" yoke the Republican Party has thrown on us, however we, as a group, are unwilling to trade that yoke in for a "liberal" one... and trying to describe the "liberal" yoke as "progressive" ain't gonna cut it, we still recognize it for what it is. Just changing the name without changing the positions is insulting.

Gay marriage? Think again. Partial Birth Abortion? Think again. Tax and spend? Think again (although this one is probably preferable to "borrow and spend"!) Cut and run? Think again. Further gun control? Think again.

I am begging for the Democratic Party to give me an alternative to the Republican candidates. The Republican Party has been given their chance and they have failed miserably. But I plead with the Democrats to give me an alternative I can actually vote for. Please do not offer up candidates who represent a wet dream for the left wing extremists. Give the American voting public a "reasonable" alternative and surrender to the moderates the right to define "reasonable".

Either that or get used to the idea of remaining as a minority, opposition party. We moderates might not like the Republicans, but that does not mean we are going to automatically start loving whatever fare the Democrats put on the menu.

20060126

As Much As I Love Jimmy Carter

As much as I Love Jimmy Carter, I have to disagree with his current stated leadership when it comes to Palestine. (See here) a JPost article that reports on it.

I am sorry Jimmy, the Palestinian people voted for a continuation of violence. The government they elected must be forced to deal with how they will both prosper their people while they turn their back on peace. Any government based on the repugnant Hamas charter should not receive even a half penny of support.

Do we starve the Palestinians out? Nope. However every sack of wheat that makes it way into Palestine should be adorned with at least an American flag (or an EU flag if it comes from the EU) if not the Star of David.

We can pour humanitarian assistance in to keep them from starving while holding back on any assistance that will allow them to prosper. If the Palestinian people want prosperity it will not be found by adopting the Hamas Charter as their constitution. That way leads to misery and the world should ensure that their lives are miserable while they vote that way. Perhaps we should continue to provide the Palestinians with subsistence food, however nothing says we must allow them to become fat off of what we provide.

Hamas Charter

For anyone who did not bother to google the Hamas Charter for themselves (see it here).

I would quote from specific parts of it, but I think you need to read the whole thing for yourself. I myself found nothing redeeming in any part of it.

However please pay attention to Article Seven, particularly the last paragraph. If we take this entry literally, it is not going to be enough if Hamas drives the Jews into the sea unless all the Jews drown once they are driven there.

Go read it for yourself.

Hamas Willing to Extend Cease Fire?

(See here) a Haaretz article that reports Hamas is willing to extend the calm provided Israel reciprocates.

At first blush I think this is fair enough while Hamas sorts out what they are going to do. But my question is, but what about Islamic Jihad? Will Palestine take action against Islamic Jihad if they fail to honor the "calm"? If Palestine fails to take action against members of their own society that defies Hamas intentions will action be taken against them? If Palestine fails to take action against them will Hamas (Palestine) retaliate if Israel takes action against Islamic Jihad?

Hamas wanted to be treated like the big boys. They ran in the election and won so now let them deal with the reality.

Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar said "We are going to change every aspect, as regards the economy, as regards industry, as regards agriculture, as regards social aid, as regards health, administration, education..."

Oh yeah, and just how is Hamas going to do all this while his country is racked by war? How is Palestine going to blossom under Hamas leadership under these circumstances?

Hamas needs to face reality. Israel is not going to let Palestine prosper on the domestic front while Palestine engages on war with Israel. Hamas can not have it both ways. Yassar Arafat was not able to make it work and Hamas is not going to be successful either. Hamas has to choose. Domestic progress is not going to be granted while they continue to engage in war. They are no longer the minority opposition, which makes impossible promises to the population, they now have the majority. Let's see them deliver on their promises.

And until the Palestinian government (Hamas) recognizes the right of Israel to exist let the Western World cut off aid to them. Let us see if Hamas can make Palestine blossom without any money.

I would counsel Fatah to remain outside the government while engaging in much needed reforms. Unless Hamas wakes up they are going to fall flat on their face and the Palestinian people are going to need an alternative to turn to.

Hamas Wins Palestinian Election

(See here) a BBC article reporting on the Hamas victory in Palestinian elections. I was going to wait until official results were announced before commenting, but the results are already pretty clear.

Please note the article quotes one Hamas official, Mushir al-Masri, as warning that Hamas would not hold peace talks with Israel.

"Negotiations with Israel is not on our agenda," he said.

"recognizing Israel is not on the agenda either now."

Senior Hamas official Mr Haniya called for the US to "respect ... the will of the Palestinian people and the result of the ballot," AFP news agency reported.

I am all in favor of that. Now if Hamas continues in acts of terrorism the US should respect that it is the official government of the Palestinian people that is carrying out the actions. It is not a small minority that supports the terrorism, it is the majority. The US should respect the "will of the people" and respect that the majority of Palestinian voters want to be held accountable for acts of terrorism carried out by their official government.

The article also quotes Ehud Olmert as saying Israel could not deal with a Palestinian Authority which included Hamas.

"Israel can't accept a situation in which Hamas, in its present form as a terror group calling for the destruction of Israel, will be part of the Palestinian Authority without disarming," Mr Olmert's office reported him as saying.

Perhaps the acting Israeli Prime Minister goes a little further in his demands then I would, however he is not too far out of line. I would not demand Hamas completely disarm, however it is not wrong to expect the Hamas militia to be absorbed into Palestinian Authority forces. It is also not wrong for Israel to demand that the Palestinian government recognize Israel's right to exist. If a majority of representatives within the Palestinian government is sworn to drive the Jews into the sea then I would think this would mean a state of war continues to exist between the nations of Israel and Palestine. Israel will have the right to retaliate against the nation of Palestine for any terrorist actions conducted by that nation. If Palestine expects Israel to conduct this war within the rules of the Geneva Convention then Palestine must also adhere to these same rules.

Now if Israel retaliates against "Palestine" for terrorist actions conducted by Hamas it is not collective punishment of the majority for the actions of the minority it is a justified reaction to hostile actions conducted by another freely elected government. Hamas should be forced to accept the facts. With their victory comes responsibility. If they continue to insist on operating as if a state of war exists they are now representing Palestine and Palestine should be held accountable.

If Hamas still wants a war, I say we should give them one. Of course Hamas could still have a change of heart. Under Yassar Arafat, Fatah was allowed to change its mind.

Does Hamas want war or will they be willing to settle for a just peace? They should be forced to choose, and when they make their choice they now represent the people of Palestine.

20060125

Bob Dylan and American Idol

(See here) as reported by MSN the latest developments on the hit American TV show American Idol.

First, let me thank American Idol for delivering "Since U Been Gone" by Kelly Clarkson to the American airwaves. I did not realize that this song owes its hitting the airwaves to American Idol. I really love the female voice in song and Kelly Clarkson owns a good one.

But what I want to know is whether American Idol possesses the ability to deliver to the American People a new voice such as Bob Dylan? Can American Idol rise to the level it will provide a new American Hero that sing songs that wrench at the American conscience like Bob Dylan did with his generation?

Every generation needs a Bob Dylan. I have yet to see anything out of "Generation X" or "Generation Y" that rises to the level of Bob Dylan.

Yeah, yeah, Bob Dylan was not perfect. Bob has sought to distance himself from his position as "voice of a generation". At times I sometimes think that Bob, too, is willing to sell out on us. I am waiting to see if Bob, in his present endeavors, can still be the voice of a generation and just what he thinks that voice should say. Is (was) Bob Dylan something special? Or was he just another facade that was out to make a buck?

I do not hold much hope for American Idol to present us with a "new voice" within the political spectrum. Bob Dylan would never have won the competition. His voice was not pretty enough, his physical aspect was not perfect enough.

Nowadays we try to submerge any group of artists that dare to take a position on any political position like what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Them Dixie Chicks had beautiful voices and they put together beautiful music. But because they dared express an opinion?

Perhaps I am being selfish, but I want songwriters who write and sing their own songs. I want artists who sing out to me on the radio songs that tear at my conscience.

When I did a google of one of my favorite songs from the old years I discovered that, after all, one of the songs I attributed to Bob Dylan came from Neil Young. It goes:

"Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming

We're finally on our own

This summer I hear the drumming

Four dead in Ohio

Gotta get down to it / Soldiers cutting us down; Should've been done long ago .... What if you knew her / And found her dead on the ground; how can you run when you know?"

I wonder what Neil Young has been up to recently? Perhaps he has not sold out on us like Bob Dylan may have?

Perhaps America needs a new TV program called "Canadian Idol"? (Neil Young was/is a Canadian!)

Defining Sexual Harassment

(See here) a Washington Post article that reports 62% of college students report being victims of sexual harassment.

First let me state that I believe that sexual harassment is wrong. No one should ever have to endure sexual harassment. But how should we define sexual harassment? According to the article "The roughly 2,000 18- to 24-year-old college students who responded to the survey in May were told that sexual harassment was unwanted behavior and could include anything from suggestive glances to spreading sexual rumors and forced contact."

I think we are trying to apply too broad a brush to what is defined as harassment. Suggestive glances? Give me a break. If a young woman wears a micro mini skirt and I happen to drool a little bit as she walks by this is harassment? If the woman is not trying to garner a little bit of attention by flaunting her sex appeal then why is she wearing a mini skirt? What, if the quarterback of the university football team smiles and winks at her this is not harassment because his attention is desired, but if the goofy geek dares to show some interest he is guilty of harassment because he is supposed to know ahead of time he does not meet the woman's high standards?

I am not exaggerating just how far feminists will take this. While I was in the US Navy I was forced to attend a lecture on sexual harassment. The woman giving the lecture stated that women should have the right to walk naked in public without having to endure wolf whistles and catcalls. I probably shot myself in the foot when I did it, but I got up and told her (and the crowd) that if a woman did not want to call sexual attention to herself then she should dress modestly. That if a woman dressed in sexually appealing garb, such as a thong bikini on the beach, she was going to call attention to herself because she was appealing to males more base instincts. While some of the attention she was going to gain would come from the cute guys she was trying to appeal to, she better be ready to handle the broad sections of the population who were going to be attracted to her. That if a woman was not ready to handle the attention she should at least dress modestly.

I am sorry. When I go to the beach, I am going to insist that I be given the right to drool at all the young lovelies that run around in bikinis. If the attention I give these young women is "unwanted" that is just too dang bad. If I stare at them in abject awe at how beautiful they are that is not sexual harassment, that is human nature.

I once again will state that I am against "sexual harassment", I am also against date rape, and feel that when a woman says no, it means no. But I do not think it is wrong for a man to ask the question to which the woman replies to. I also do not think it is "sexual harassment" for the man to whine or even whimper a little bit when the woman says no. I also do not think it is wrong for the majority of society to tell feminists that when they include "suggestive glances" in the definition of sexual harassment they are way out of line, they have crossed the line into declaring war on traditional male society and they have thrown down the gauntlet. American society is not going to resort to neutering all males to make them happy.

Besides, some women still desire the aggressive, traditional male. If feminists desire a wimpy male I am sure they can find one, but not all women want to make the first move, and not all males are quite ready to hand over our testicles to the National Organization of Women or the American Association of University Women just yet. I will, however, join these organizations in insisting that even aggressive males better be ready to take no for an answer.

I am willing to agree that no means HELL NO until the woman says otherwise. However I insist that men be given the right to express interest and even ask the question under appropriate circumstances. After all, the attention might be desired, and the answer to the question might be yes. How are traditional males going to find out? Not all women are so forward as to grab men by the crotch. Some are still waiting for the man to ask them to dance before they get up there on the dance floor, and some women's dreams are fulfilled when they are asked to dance even when they decline.

Charley Reese on Ariel Sharon

Charley Reese has written a fair but biting eulogy of Ariel Sharon. (See here)

Some might condemn him for kicking the man (Sharon) when he is no longer able to defend himself, however Charley kept himself busy kicking Sharon while he (Sharon) was at his peak of power.

Would Sharon have led Israel towards negotiations with the Palestinians if he had not been sidelined by his tragic turn of health? I guess we will never know. Charley's appraisal of how things would have turned out might be accurate. However there was at least a chance that Ariel Sharon would have surprised us once again.

Was there not at least a chance that Sharon could have become a man of peace? If there was not the chance then tell me Charley, just why did Ariel divorce himself from most of the right wing extremists in the Likud by founding Kadima? If the Gaza disengagement was all for show and part of a grand scheme like you put forth then why did he need to distance himself from the right wing? Why did Shimon Peres throw in with him?

I guess we will never all agree on just where Ariel Sharon would have led Israel (and the rest of us) as we caught a ride on his version of the "peace process". Already the right wing is starting to quote from what Ariel said decades ago while they try and steal his thunder. They (the right wing) say that "While Ariel might have did this (such as Gaza disengagement), he never would have done that (such as West Bank disengagement), because back then he said this" and then quote from one of Ariel's long ago, more right wing, outpourings. Perhaps the best hint of what Ariel would have done can be found in what interim Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert now does in trying to prove he is as capable of leading as was Ariel.

Ask yourself this, why does Ehud Olmert feel the need to antagonize the hard right wing within Israel, such as the Yesha Council, during the run up to elections? He is taking action against "illegal outposts" within the West Bank for what purpose at this point in time? Can it be that he is trying to appeal to those Israelis who supported Sharon and Kadima?

So Charley, there is no peace process? Perhaps this is an accurate summation if you feel, as evidently you must, that peace can only be achieved through negotiations. I myself feel that negotiations are the preferred path to a settlement of the issues, but at least I am pragmatic enough to realize that there might not be anyone left with whom to negotiate with. What happens if, for example, Hamas was to win a clear majority in Palestinian elections? Must Israel negotiate with an enemy that is sworn to look at anything negotiated as a temporary and partial step taken towards the ultimate goal of driving all the Jews into the sea?

Is there no path to peace EXCEPT negotiations? Can a "fair and just" peace not be obtained through any other means? What happens if the United Nations Security Council was to take up the matter of what final borders are to be? What if the United Nations came up with something like the 1947 Partition Plan? Could not this be "fair and just"? If the Palestinian side is unwilling or unable to negotiate, can not someone stand in for them?

While I, too, had my reservations about Ariel Sharon and his true intent, one conclusion I had reached was that at least he was capable of providing leadership to Israel. I might have disagreed with some of the steps and methods he employed, but at least under his leadership there was some movement and I felt this movement was towards some type of resolution of the conflict. It is my hope that whoever manages to grab the reigns of leadership from Ariel Sharon's hands will be at least as capable of providing the leadership Israel needs as was Ariel.

Where will this new leader then lead? Well why was Ariel leading where he was leading? What demands and expectations will the world community have of this new leader?

While I can not speak for the world, I can speak for myself. My own demands and expectations are that the felling of Ariel Sharon should not lead to an absence of progress to an ultimate resolution of the conflict. With Ariel Sharon we were seeing some movement. Anyone who seeks to fill Ariel Sharon's shoes had better be ready to continue with the momentum Sharon achieved.

20060124

Judge Alito to be confirmed?

(See here) a Washington Post article that seems to point to confirmation of Judge Alito to become a Supreme Court Justice.

What particularly draws my interest is the comments from White House spokesman Stephen Schmidt: "Democrats have repeatedly twisted and distorted Judge Alito's positions to the point where they are unrecognizable... Democrats' relentless politicization of a process that has traditionally been above partisan politics is disappointing." What would happen if we took the above quote, removed Alito from it and inserted Harriet Miers? Then let us go further and remove Democrats and insert Republicans. Would the quote not then hold true for the previous Dubyah nomination for the seat?

As for me I hope the Democrats filibuster the Alito nomination, I am that worried about it. The filibuster might not be successful, but it should be attempted anyway. What is the purpose of drawing a line in the sand if you only draw it after your enemy's entire army has already crossed over it?

As shown by the recent "Death With Dignity" supreme court decision, the right wing extremists already hold 3 of 9 Supreme Court seats. With the approval of Alito they will hold 4 of 9. We will be dangerously flirting with the edge of the precipice. I do not want to see us pushing the Supreme Court over the right wing extremist cliff. Judge Alito becoming Justice Alito brings us just one step closer to the edge.

20060123

NPR and Satellite Radio

Will NPR grow up and offer real programming on satellite radio?

I am not trying to belittle that which NPR offers on Sirius Satellite Radio. They offer some pretty good stuff, however they avoid the meat of their programming. "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" are not available via satellite.

Now I am a truckdriver. I am a prime candidate for satellite radio. Nothing would please me more then paying $12 a month to reliably get "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" via satellite. But that is not what Sirius is doing. Sirius is offering obscene amounts of money to Howard Stern for his brand of broadcasting while NPR can't figure out a way to turn the meat of their efforts into revenue. I have heard Howard might eventually turn his fluff into as much as $400 million from Sirius alone. Can't NPR figure out how to ride the cash cow?

I understand why NPR does not want to offer their "tent poles" to satellite radio. It might undercut local Public Radio stations and their bi-annual fund drives. But for me the local stations do not cut it. Broad swathes of our nation are not served by Public Radio stations. Don't let me start on how pissed off I get when I travel from one radio footprint where "All Things Considered" is just starting into another where it is just ending due to different programming schedules.

As for anyone else traveling trying to tune into public radio, stick to the low end of the FM dial. Notable exceptions include Des Moines, IA where NPR talk is on the AM dial (with a high power signal and a big footprint) but this is the exception.

All we can do is hope that NPR one day learns how to milk the cow instead of being run over in the stampede. You would think all the intellectuals in NPR could figure out how to turn a buck like Howard Stern. Is Howard really that much more brilliant then they are? I already know NPR has better programming then Howard.

Link addition and subtraction

I have added a new link to my blog.

For anyone who wishes to follow it, I think you might find Jake's "zenlunatique" interesting, I did. I hope he keeps at it.

With regrets I am deleting Boris's "Pyramid" from my list of links. Boris has been inactive for the past several months. The only thing he has posted within that time was eulogies to a couple of people who he felt dear. I guess Boris is busy with other things in life, and we can all understand how that can happen. Shortly before Boris became inactive on the web he became active actually doing something. He went down and involved himself in helping the victims of hurricane Katrina. I hope his lack of involvement on the internet is only because his hands are too busy applying a shovel to tap a keyboard. I am going to keep his blog bookmarked and if I see signs of activity I am going to link him again. I hope his inactivity is not due to his having given up or something. Boris was (is?) a reasonable mind trying to speak out. I valued what he had to say even when I disagreed with him.

Patriotic Songs and Global Warming

Recently I got to thinking how, due to global warming, America might need to change the words to some of our patriotic songs. Here's an example. In 1904 Katharine L. Bates penned the words to "O Beautiful for Spacious Skies". Below, with changed words in brackets, please find my opinion of how we will have to sing it in the future, if we take into the account the new reality of global warming.

O beautiful for [stormy] skies,
For amber waves of [sand];
For purple mountain majesties
Above the [flooded] plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood,
From sea to [encroaching] sea.

Bigotry Defined OR The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

As I was traveling the road this time out and listening to the broadcast radio I was upset about how the words bigotry and bigot are so often misused. This word is often used by extremists, and most normally by leftist extremists, to label anyone who refuses to agree with them.

First, lets define the words (according to Merriam-Webster) :

- bigotry : the state of mind of a bigot

- bigot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

What I have observed is that those who most often resort to trying to paint those who disagree with them as bigots are themselves bigots. They refuse to engage in rational discussion of the issues and fall back on the idea that anyone who is not swayed by their arguments is unconvinced only because the listener (or reader) is a bigot. Often the speakers themselves are bigots. They irrationally (obstinately and intolerantly) refuse to believe someone might legitimately hold an opinion different from theirs.

Take the issue of gay marriage specifically and homosexuality in general as an example. My opinion is that those who engage in gay sexual activity are strictly performing "unnatural" sexual acts.

But then, once again according to Merriam-Webster, let us define "unnatural" : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events.

God, or Mother Nature, (take your pick) specifically designed sexual organs for reproduction. That is why the man has a penis and a woman has a vagina, so that the seed might eventually penetrate the egg. This is the "natural" reason for sexual organs to have evolved (if you believe in evolution). Man did not evolve with a penis so that it would penetrate another mans rectum. What is the seed going to fertilize in there, the other man's stool?

Those who try and paint homosexuality as "natural" are engaging in fallacious arguments. They will point out how some animal species also engage in same sex unions, while trying to discount the fact that these unions do nothing to enhance the propagation of that species.

The purpose of sex is propagation, or procreation. It might be fun as a recreational activity, but God or Mother Nature only made it fun so that we would do it as often as possible. While heterosexuals might also engage in "unnatural" sexual activity at times, at least occasionally during hetero sexual activity the round peg finds the round hole.

I am not saying homosexuals should be punished. I think they have the right to privacy in the bedroom just like my wife and I do. If they want to engage in sodomy it should be as OK for them as it is for my wife and I, and I do not want the storm troopers breaking down my front door every time my wife and I try to experiment a little bit.

But what should we as a society actively encourage? Is it wrong for society to reward those who commit to lifestyles that result in "natural" propagation of the species while denying these rewards to those who do not?

In my opinion it is not, and I sure wish those homosexual advocates would stop being such bigots. They have a right to privacy. They do not have a right to marriage.

20060111

On the road again...

I am trying to return to the road today. I returned home for some mechanical repairs that have been completed. I expect to remain on the road till the end of January, that is if my truck cooperates.

20060110

Bird Flu Threat Overblown?

(See here) a Washington Times article that discusses the results of a Swedish study that concluded the threat from Bird Flu might not be as severe as many people believe.

From what the article says I find myself in agreement with one of the experts who is quoted. Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, called the study "terribly imprecise." "There need to be more studies like this, but with laboratory confirmation," the Nashville specialist said.

If there needs to be blood tests that could confirm that more people survive exposure to the disease then we are presently aware of let's do the testing. Surely the amount of money necessary to further our understanding of the threat we face is justified.

Personally I do not see anything wrong with the Swedish researchers going public with "terribly imprecise" results. Their going public might motivate others to come up with the funding to conduct the scientific studies necessary to confirm what they think might be true.

Even if the results of the study are confirmed Bird Flu will still remain a threat that must be dealt with. However possibly the threat is a little more manageable then the 50% mortality rate that we have been supposing is true. Let's conduct the studies necessary to find out.

20060109

Is The Woman Always Right In Sexual Assault Cases?

Is the woman always right in sexual assault cases?

(See here) where college athlete A.J. Nicholson has been accused of sexual assault and the fuss over his Coach's (Joe Paterno) reaction to the charge. NOW (National Organization of Women) is upset by Joe Paterno's opinion of what went on. I guess Joe should be publicly flogged for his insensitive comments, for daring to listen to his athlete's side of things, forming an opinion and then supporting his athlete.

I guess Joe just does not get it. When a man is accused of sexual assault he is guilty until proven innocent. The woman can make whatever claims she wants to against the man, the accusations can be publicly aired in the media, and the man has no right to defend himself. Pundits can drag out the man's sexual practices because he is the accused. No such public humiliation is allowed for the accuser. Once accused the man is always guilty, even if he is found not guilty in court. Thankfully we have not gotten to the point the man must register himself as a sexual offender based only on the accusation of a woman yet.

Let me share my own personal experience on a related episode.

I was alone with an attractive woman in my living room. I will admit we had no personal bond other then friendship. We were holding a conversation. During the conversation the woman kept suggestively licking her lips. OK, OK, maybe her lips were just dry, however the manner in which she did it led me to believe she was speaking in body language. During the conversation I got up, walked over to her, and lightly put my open hand up to her cheek. With nothing more then body language she let me know she was not interested in me. I accepted the rejection, turned around and sat back down. In my mind, "no" meant HELL NO. We continued on with the conversation for some time as if nothing had happened. Imagine my consternation when the next day, two mutual male acquaintances we had, accused me of trying to rape her. That is how she interpreted that which I considered to be a "pass" at her.

Talk about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? I was traumatized by this experience. Do you know that shortly after that I had a woman knock on my door and ask if she could borrow my razor to shave her bikini line. She was gorgeous so I said sure. She followed me into my bathroom, took my razor, shucked off her jeans and commenced pulling her panties back to where it barely covered anything and giving herself a shave. I was afraid to even smile or raise an eyebrow because I did not want it misinterpreted. Yeah, I will admit I was a real geek when I was young. If she wanted me she was going to have to make the first move. Shaving her privates in front of me was not enough, she was going to have to grab me by the crotch.

Would you believe that the woman who accused me of trying to rape her, when she fell on hard times, had the nerve to ask me to help her out? She was looking for a place to stay and I was afraid to have her in my home again without a witness.

When men are accused of sexual assault they are guilty until proven innocent. Anyone attempting to come to their defense will be pilloried just like the man.

Pat Robertson on Sharon's Stroke

(See here) as Pat Robertson weighs in on not just Sharon's stroke but also on the assassination of Rabin. According to Pat, you can blame God.

Let's see, it is not confessed assassin, Yigal Amir who, exercising free choice, pulled the trigger who is responsible for Rabin's death, God did it. So Pat, does that mean God is responsible every time some lunatic or depraved soul uses a firearm to kill some one?

Let's see, Pat, in your opinion it is not "normal" for a 77 year old man, who is overweight, to suffer a stroke. You see the hand of God in this. So then what happens when a toddler comes down with leukemia or some other disease? Is God's hand involved in that too? I mean if God "caused" (not just "allowed") Sharon's stroke is God then to blame for all the rest of human suffering? Does that mean that I can blame God if I come down with lung cancer even though I smoke?

I wonder what Pat made of the space shuttle Columbia disaster then? Think of it, first Israeli astronaut in space onboard an American space shuttle? The debris field from the doomed shuttle centered around the town of Palestine, Texas? Could God have been involved? Could God have been trying to send us a sign that he is displeased with what America and Israel have been up to over there in the Middle East?

Of course even if Pat Robertson thought the Columbia disaster was a sign from God, he would just think it was a warning to America and Israel not to "divide his land". Sigh.

Dubyah's deficit

(See here) a Washington Times article that describes Dubyah as basking in the credit for his tax cuts.

So that means Dubyah also gets the credits for our federal deficit being 668 billion dollars this past year? Dubyah cut taxes without cutting spending. Actually spending increased. He is not to blame for the spending increases? Well he thinks he is responsible for providing the leadership for the tax cuts, so why doesn't he use some of that leadership ability to cut spending?

Dubyah claims that what little strength there is in the economy is due to his tax cuts. But what happened during the Clinton years, before the tax cuts, when the gap between revenue and spending was narrowed? The economy mushroomed. Was that maybe because it forced investors (including China) to invest their wealth into something other then Treasury Bills? Perhaps they were forced to invest in industry and start up corporations?

Could balancing the federal budget even help narrow the trade gap? Would China be forced to either "buy American" or build a mountain of greenbacks in their backyard if they can't invest in T-bills? They would have to do something with the money!

The Washington Times article describes Dubyah as mocking Congressional leaders who have insisted the deficit is bad for the economy. In my opinion these leaders are correct. The American economy is like a house of cards. Just because the winds have not yet blown that will blow down the house does not mean the potential is not there. What happens if China and/or Japan stop buying T-bills Dubyah? Will you schedule a sudden trip to the Orient so you can humbly stick your hand out? If that does not work I guess you can try groveling.

Deficit spending is good for the economy Dubyah? I am saying it ain't so. If you do not want to believe me, then go ask Mr Greenspan for his opinion on the subject. Mr Greenspan and I might disagree on just how to narrow the deficit gap, however I believe we both would insist that income has to match expenditures.

The same market forces that brought down South American economies hold true for the American economy. One day the chickens are going to come home to roost and the American economy is going to end up smelling like a pile of chicken shit.

20060105

On the road again...

I am headed back out on the road. I do not expect to be back home until towards the end of January.

While on the road I do not have access to the internet.

20060104

Hamas hypocrisy

Hamas hypocrisy. (See here) this Haaretz article that reports on this.

The "cease fire" is now at an end? The suicide bombings from Hamas are going to start up again? Israel is expected to allow political leaders to openly campaign for the destruction of Israel while the political leader's warriors blow themselves up within Israel?

If this happens is it wrong for Israel to strike out against those who within Palestine who call for driving the Jews into the sea? Somehow they are expected to show restraint and only act against those who strap the bomb itself to their waists while holding harmless those who politically call for the suicide bomber to take action?

Look, I am only looking at the polls. Proof (from the polls) seems to indicate that the Israelis are more willing to accept a peaceful resolution then the Palestinian side. Even the "war monger" Arik Sharon campaigns on adherence to the Roadmap. Just how many members of Hamas campaign for office while stating the same?

Of course Fatah might not be much better. While Fatah leadership (like Abbas) speak peace the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (also part of Fatah) strikes out.

But in being fair, let us look at "our side". While the Sharon government of Israel speaks peace, and actually withdraws from Gaza, they allow the settlements within the West Bank to expand.

BOTH SIDES seem to offer peace with the left hand while they engage in war with the right.

It is going to take "adult supervision" to help resolve this conflict. Who wants to be an adult?

Let's Choose Sides

(See here) an interesting article from Leon Hadar that appears on Lew Rockwell's website.

It is a pretty decent analysis of the Iranian nuclear weapons development issue.

What Leon neglects to address is what happens if we force the issue of nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea into AGAIN choosing up sides. Who is going to side with North Korea and Iran and who is going to side with America?

We can up the ante on nuclear non-proliferation to that point. We'll make it a new cold war. Of course the other side can always turn up the heat and cause the "cold war" to flash into flames, their choice.

Let's force China, Russia and India to make a choice. Which side are they on? What about the rest of the world? Which side will they choose?

If the world refuses to follow American leadership it is not like we are somehow exposed like the "Emperor Without Any Clothes". We can always retreat back into Fortress America and wait until the rest of the world comes begging us to, once again, save them from themselves.

Yes, nuclear non-proliferation and the Non-Proliferation Treaty is that important an issue. The entire world political establishment should be forced to "choose sides" on where they stand. If need be we start up a new cold war on the issue, and we can aim our nuclear arsenal at everyone who chooses wrong just in case we are attacked with nuclear weapons.

Let's choose sides. Who wants to side with America and who wants to side with Iran and North Korea?

If too much of the world chooses wrong, well there is always Fortress America. We can rollick in our mirth as we watch CNN and see just how evil the world becomes without American involvement.

America is the Great Satan? Just what kind of world would you have had without our involvement in the past? More important, what kind of world will you have without our involvement in the future?

Your choice. Let's choose sides.

Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

(See here) this article from the British Guardian that discusses Iran's nuclear ambitions.

What intrigued me most about this article is that the intelligence assessment it reports on "draws upon material gathered by British, French, German and Belgian agencies". Notice no mention of "tainted" American or Israeli intelligence material. Perhaps it is a sign of the times, but I have been taking American and Israeli intelligence on Iran's intentions with a grain of salt after the "weapons of mass destruction" crap we were fed leading up to the Iraq invasion. Seems American and Israeli intelligence can be bent to match political objectives.

However the Guardian sites intelligence sources that might yet still be considered reliable, including the French who argued that the UN weapons inspections were working prior to the Iraq invasion. Perhaps there is reason to be concerned and it is not just another case of the boy who cried wolf.

I am concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. I think that if Iran (along with North Korea) is allowed to possess nuclear weapons it means the beginning of the end of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This would result in the world becoming an altogether more dangerous place.

"Scared Straight" and the Anti-Smoking Nazis

(See here) an MSN video where Matt Lauer discusses anti-smoking adds appearing in some portions of the US like New York state.

I do not oppose such adds. Adds like this enable a person to make an informed decision on whether to take up smoking or not. I also do not disagree with efforts to educate our young on the effects of smoking in our schools. I also think it is OK to restrict smoking in common public areas to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke.

What I object to are the efforts of those who are anti-smokers to become anti-smoking Nazis. To try to economically blackmail those who smoke into quitting by making it too expensive to smoke. (See here) an article appearing in the JPost where American anti-smoking "professionals" (Nazis) share tactics with Israeli anti-smoking "advocates" (Nazis) which include raising the expense of smoking in order to blackmail smokers into quitting. This article identifies that one of the stategies of the US Center for Disease Control is "raising taxes on products". The strategy of "hiking the price of tobacco products through taxes" has been effective. Why? Because it amounts to economic blackmail in making it to expensive for anyone but the well off to smoke!

There is no justification in raising taxes on smokers because of the costs to society of smoking. SMOKING SAVES SOCIETY MONEY, and that is even WITHOUT taking into account all the tobacco taxes the smoker pays. Tobacco taxes are not used to reimburse society for health costs of smokers, they are used to pay for law enforcement, roads, parks and everything else under the sun.

Why do we not attempt to tax out of existence other activities that really are expensive to society? If snow skiing and dirt bike riding are risks to our health, why do we not also throw burdensome taxes on them as well?

Adults in a free society who make the informed decision to smoke should have the FREEDOM to do so. Society is correct in protecting those who choose not to smoke from the effects of those who do. However raising taxes on tobacco products to absurd levels (like in New York state) amounts to coercion and persecution of the minority by the majority.

20060102

Libertarians are such an easy target

Libertarians are such an easy target. (See here) an article by Chuck George where he states Libertarians (while he claims they are not Libertines) are in favor of legalized prostitution.

Chuck seems to argue prostitution should be legal because it is between consenting adults. OK Chuck, so then what are we going to do to protect the public health? Do not tell me you are unaware of how ILLEGAL prostitution is responsible for spreading sexually transmitted diseases. Currently modern medicine can cure most of those who come up with STDs, however more and more of these diseases are starting to display immunity to all but a few antibiotics. It is only a matter of time before they become resistant to them as well.

Drug manufacturers are finding it increasingly difficult and expensive to come up with new "wonder" antibiotics. Diseases are developing resistance to existing drugs faster then new ones come out of the pipeline. Sexually transmitted diseases are going to become a public health threat even without legalized prostitution.

There are no victims of prostitution? Let's say Dad stops at the local legal brothel on his way home from work. Unfortunately for him, the "customer" before him had a drug resistant sexually transmitted disease, and now he has it. So Dad continues on home and passes on the disease to Mom. Mom has never fooled around and she never agreed to allow Dad to visit the brothel. Could she be classified as a "victim"?

Rather then contemplating whether or not society should be legalizing prostitution society should be contemplating the time when harsh penalties might have to be resurrected for simple "adultery" in order to protect the public health.

Chuck compares modern Libertarians to some of our Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson. Does that mean he thinks Thomas Jefferson was in favor of legalized prostitution?

As I said, them Libertarians are such an easy target. Good thing for the majority of us that they can attract such few votes come election time. Notice I did not even touch on the threat of HIV, and the Libertarians do not seem to have a plan for dealing with that public health threat either. Damn bunch of fools.

Replenishing Oil Reserves

(See here) an interesting article by George Crispin on the source of the world's oil reserves.

It fails to convince me that eventually the world is not going to be faced with more demand for crude oil then can be met. Google "peak oil" for the other side of the debate.

Even if some sources of oil extraction are being replenished from as yet unknown sources does not mean that world wide demand is not going to outstrip production. At most it might mean it will take a couple of extra years before this happens. Most oil fields do not show any evidence of being replenished. Just because a few of them do does not mean we have "solved" the problem.

Even if the earth somehow "naturally" continues to create crude oil does not mean the rate the earth creates it will be able to match the rate at which we consume it. Evidence would seem to point that the world economy is going to face a "peak oil" crunch even if a few oil fields are being replenished from still unknown sources.

Charley Reese on our War in Iraq

(See here) as Charley Reese pontificates on the war in Iraq.

I was motivated to point to Charley's most recent column out of a sense of fairness. I have pointed out when I disagree with him and I wanted to show an example of when I pretty much agree with him and show why I like reading his column.

It is not that I agree with everything in this column. For example I think he is going a little overboard when he states there are no positives to the War in Iraq. What would I point to as a positive? While it might be meager, how about we are no longer forced to put up with Saddam firing on our aircraft with relative impunity while they enforce the UN mandated "no fly zones"?

We could also progress into an analysis of whether or not a positive outcome might yet be achievable with what Iraq uses her oil profits for if she ever manages to export as much oil that would be needed to meet world demand. Sooner or later Saddam was going to be successful in getting the world to drop sanctions on his regime, and what would he have used the profits for as he expanded oil production? Will the new government, if they ever manage to increase exports, use the profits for something the world would find more acceptable? Only time will tell, but the potential is there.

However all-in-all I agree with Charley that the negatives far outweigh the positives. I agree that our invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

Please do not be fooled into thinking Charley is a Libertarian just because his column appears on Lew Rockwell's web site. Last time I heard Charley currently describes himself as a conservative Democrat (he flirted with being a Republican for awhile).

20060101

Memories from the womb?

What compromises a "memory"? Why do humans not remember the trip down the birth canal or the slap on the bottom they received after the trip?

I have read a little on this. Seems those who give this a lot of thought seem to think that the memories we have after we learn language become easier to remember. It is easier to remember thoughts from our later development because we have words to cue us in and associate what the memories mean. We can remember the black (or green) blackboard that our 1st grade teacher wrote upon because we understand what the words blackboard and chalk mean; and it is easier to recall this experience because of the word association.

But do we have no memories from before we understood language? Dogs do not speak. But dogs remember where the water bowl is and after a few beatings with the rolled up newspaper they remember that they better pee outside the house!

I am going to recall something from childhood to try and prove that some of us can remember back into the womb. When I was rather young, perhaps around 8 or 9, my parents bought some new appliances. The cartons from the appliances ended up in the back yard and us kids started playing in them. As we played, I crawled into one of them and closed the flaps behind me. Feelings of warmth and security started washing over me and I instinctively curled into the fetal position and soaked in the bliss. This lasted only until the other kids had enough of it.

I did not think about it at the time, but later in life I started to contemplate where did these feelings come from? I came to the conclusion that these feelings come from remembrances of what it was like to be in the womb. Perhaps it is hard for me to remember with pinpoint clarity these experiences because at the time I was in the womb I had no understanding of language. However the experience went on for long enough that my mind retained some echoes of what it was like to be in there.

Is a baby inhuman before it learns to speak? Were we not human before the time we can remember with pinpoint clarity?

Some humans are born lacking some of the senses. Some are blind, some are deaf. Since they lack these senses are they less then human?

If the fetus develops lacking some sensory input while it develops, is it less then human? If it does not yet know how to formulate thoughts into words, is that the criteria?

I have decided that when we can prove it "thinks" we are close to deciding things from an ethics viewpoint. A newborn is not born with the ability to speak, but it is still a human. From my own experience I feel that the point of "becoming human" extends into the womb. I regret we "humans" do not possess tools to define with pinpoint clarity at what point this happens. I am willing to error on the side of caution when we consider this. I am unwilling to accept the feminist (left wing extremist) viewpoint on the rights of the unborn.

At some point that which grows in the womb starts to think. When it starts to think, then it is as human as I am now.

Carl Sagan on abortion from a "human thought" perspective

(See here) a chapter from a book authored by Carl Sagan. This particular chapter was actually a joint effort by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.

In this chapter, the authors take up the abortion debate using "human thought" as the criteria for when an abortion, under most circumstances, should be permitted by society. To quote the authors, "If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible."

I am not saying that this dissertation settles the debate completely, but it certainly comes from an informed and educated point of view. I would still like to hear evidence on this issue presented by someone from a pro-life point of view. The authors point to what they describe as a "conservative" opinion of where they think the line should be drawn. To quote them, "But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think." However I will point out they are making their comparison to an adult human brain. Where would the line be drawn if we made the comparison to a viable, newborn infant (no matter how premature) for example? My own daughter was born one month premature and I have no doubts that as I held her on the day she was born she was already a "person". I fear that what they describe as "conservative" is actually a viewpoint coming from someone most people might call a "liberal" - grin.

However I am assuaged that the point I will accept "the line must be drawn" is probably not going to be so early that it will affect the majority of cases when a woman chooses to have an abortion. I have heard it reported that 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester. I would imagine that a healthy portion of the 10% that occur later are cases most of us could agree included circumstances, like the life of the mother being threatened, where exceptions should be granted.

Why do I describe myself as assuaged by this? Because I really am not trying to be an evil, male tyrant who is trying to take rights away from women. I feel we should infringe on the "rights of women" as little as possible. However, I feel one person's rights end where the next ones begin and I feel these rights probably extend into the womb. Carl Sagan seems to agree with me. He and I might yet disagree on where the line should be drawn, however we at least agree the line is drawn in the womb.