cb.blog

From the Times Online comes this commentary, which basically points out America’s historical reluctance to exercise its military might until forced to do so:

But the critics, in their eagerness to denigrate the country they regard as irredeemably simplistic, miss its complexity. There is another history of American military intervention which points to rather different conclusions.

Americans have proved to be extremely reluctant warriors…

The author points out – quite rightly – that the US does not exercise its superpower status indiscriminately. (And the author does not go into great depth that the American public is equally historically impatient when the American military is engaged. Even World War II did not enjoy unquestioned, unending support from the American public.)

Interestingly, the author comes to the following, three-point test for American support for war:

History suggests that for the American public to continue its support for a protracted struggle, three conditions must be met. They must be convinced that their cause is a noble one. No country in the world is as animated by ideals as Americans. But idealism alone will not suffice. Even Americans won’t in the end fight for abstract principles, or for somebody else’s freedom.

The second condition is that a war must be seen as being conducted against a threat, immediate or emergent, against Americans.

Thirdly, Americans will back a lengthy war only if they believe their leaders have a clear strategy for winning. In the end it was not lack of faith in the cause in Vietnam that undermined support for the war among a majority of the US population. It was a steadily strengthening conviction that their leaders had given up believing the war could be won.

In his own way (and likely, unbeknownst to him), the author has found yet another litmus test between Red and Blue America:

1. Red America will fight for noble causes and for idealism, and will sacrifice for someone else’s freedom. Blue America does not support American military action for any cause, save the most egregious, and despises any action taken under the Stars and Stripes rather than the UN flag. (Consider Afghanistan: Red and Blue America supported the action, but Blue America – led by such disgraces as MoveOn.org – called for understanding and restraint. Consider also Iraq: for Blue America, the liberation of 40 million oppressed Iraqis was not inherently sufficient reason for ousting Saddam Hussein.)
2. Red America understood the clear and present danger of the regimes of both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and supported the President’s policy of hunting down terrorists and those who support or harbor them Further, Red America understands that the liberation of 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq is not merely a beneficial side-effect, but a significant strategy in changing the global terror climate. Blue America keeps clamoring about a lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11. (Ignoring or denying the obvious and proven connections between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaida – as if such a link were even required, since no credible person will deny that Hussein supported and harbored terrorists, and continually violated not only the terms of his surrender in the first Gulf War, but also the several UN sanctions and resolutions passed since then.)
3. Red America understands that war is violent, painful, and lengthy – especially the Global War on Terror (GWOT), which Red America understand will take not days, weeks, months, or years – but decades. Blue America was shouting, “Quagmire!” before the first boots were in the sand in Afgnanistan; “Quagmire!” in Iraq weeks after Coalition forces first entered Iraq (and, fittingly ironic, only days before Baghdad fell); and continue to try to turn our efforts in Iraq into another Vietnam – a comparison that finds no basis in reality, and which serves only to advance Blue America’s true agenda: to undermine the American military in order to prove the ultimate illegitimacy of the action, and of the Commander in Chief who leads it.

Blue America will deny even the truth of this statement by the author:

Iraq today still meets criteria one and two. It remains a noble cause, in keeping with the highest American ideals — liberation of a people from a hideous tyranny. And it is a fight in defence of America’s interests. Establishing a democratic base in the Middle East remains the key to overturning the ideologies of fundamentalist hate that are the root causes of terrorism.

Red America understands these two fundamental truths about America’s action in Iraq. Blue America has become so rabid in its anti-Bush rhetoric that it finds itself in the untenable position of arguing against these truths.

However, the author somewhat misses the mark with his conclusion:

It is fulfilling the third condition that may be hardest now. Americans wonder increasingly whether their political leadership has a clear idea of where the struggle in Iraq is headed. At times they wonder whether their leadership actually knows or understands what is going on. No one can set out a detailed path to victory against an insurgent enemy. But the Bush Administration needs to demonstrate a commitment to getting the job done. That means not only protestations of resolve, but actions to back it up; specifically more troops if needed. Otherwise the steady attrition of support will gather ominous momentum.

Only Blue America – led by the seditious partisanship of the American Mainstream Media – continually questions the “Plan” for Iraq, and GWOT. Red America knows beyond doubt that the Administration in general – and President Bush in particular – understands depth and breadth of global terrorism, and the devastating consequences of pursuing any course other than taking the fight to the terrorists in the heart of the breeding ground of international terrorism.

Let us not forget: a mere seven months ago, a record number of Americans voiced their opinion of Bush’s grasp of GWOT – and overwhelmingly (and by both a record number of vote total and difference) indicated support for the President. Red America – and make no mistake, America has made a decided shift from blue to red in the past 10 years – stands in support of military action in Iraq, in support of America’s overall effort to eradicate international terrorists and regimes that harbor them, and to defend America’s borders from ever suffering another 9/11. Red America is in it for the long haul – and Red America has unending belief that America – and freedom – will prevail in the end.

Michelle Malkin mentioned this bit of ironic justice yesterday:

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home.

File this one under “adding injury to insult.”

And in an attempt to drive home the message:

The proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Café” and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”

I would love to see this request make its way to the Supreme Court…

In classic Savage Style, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder brings to a conclusion the author’s trilogy concerning defending America from Liberal assault.

Dr. Savage poses several problems facing America, and from his unique perspective presents “Savage Solutions” for each. Savage takes on such hot-bed issues as Iraq, Islamofascism, illegal immigration, assault-by-litigation on American businesses, revisionist history, the ACLU, and current American political shifts.

Savage holds no punches from either the Democrat or Republican parties, and reserves none of his disdain for lack of true political debate from the “Demicans” and “Republicrats” that run Washington. While the rhetoric is occasionally over-the-top, the underlying truths are undeniable for most of the issues covered in the book.

I am disappointed, however, that Dr. Savage has apparently bought into the liberal media’s propagandist views on Iraq, and takes a decidedly negative outlook on the eventual outcome – an outlook with which I wholeheartedly disagree.

That issue aside, I consider Savage’s views to be the far-right boundary, without being too extreme for reasonable debate – practical solutions to the issues addressed may or may not include his Savage Solutions.

In the final tally, Savage is right more often than he is wrong (in fact, his take on Iraq is the only one with which I take major issue). The book is a fun read – especially for the reaction it ilicits from Liberals who might happen to catch you reading it.

Tired of the hypocritical lifestyle and propogandistic, out-of-context, mis-informing, mis-directing, and outright-lying work of Michael Moore, authors David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke penned Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man to expose and refute this Liberal poster-child.

The book is painstakingly researched, tirelessly footnoted, pointedly critical, and brutally revealing; the book exposes the truth of Michael Moore’s life, lifestyle, beliefs, and work history; and most importantly for those taken in by the filmmaker and author’s work, the book uncovers the truth about Moore’s works, from Roger and Me, to Stupid White Men, Bowling for Columbine, Dude, Where’s My Country, and the pinnacle: Fahrenheit 9/11.

The book is a damning revelation of Moore’s complete lack of scruples, loyalty, or integrity in his life and work. From deceptive camera angles, to taking quotes and speeches out of context and chronology, to manipulation of sequence, to subjectively choosing facts, to intentional deception, and outright lies, the book unfolds the truth behind Moore’s manipulation and lies.

For anyone tired of defending the liberal non-arguments posed by Moore’s propogandist works, this book brings much-needed context and firepower to disarm Moore’s blind followers on the Left.

Letters To A Young Conservative, by Dinesh D’Souza, is, as the title implies, a collection of letters from the author’s correspondence with a fictional Conservative college student. The letters touch most of the major issues.

Since each chapter is a letter, the result is episodic with a logical progression from one topic to the next. The content can be consumed in chunks, or read easily in a few sittings – or even in a single sitting.

This book was my first exposure to D’Souza, but assuming it is indicative of his other writing, it will certainly not be my last. D’Souza has a firm, foundational, and eloquent grasp on the issues he addresses. His wit is nearly as acerbic as Ann Coulter’s, but his style, paradoxically, is disarming.

As part of the Art of Mentoring series, the book is comprised of 31 short chapters (ranging from 4-16 pages, with most less than 10), written as letters addressed to a fictional college student named Chris. Each “letter” addresses a different issue, beginning with modern definitions of Conservativatism and Liberalism, and continuing with Libertarianism, how D’Souza – from an Indian immigrant family – became a Conservative, political correctness, multiculturalism, classical literature, Ronald Reagan, government as a societal problem, class warfare, affirmative action, feminism, post-modernism, liberal academia, media bias, judicial activism, gun rights, debating liberals, liberal mis-education, Abraham Lincoln, self-esteem, environmentalism, gay marriage, family values, abortion, anti-globalism, immigration, anti-Americanism, the Republican party, and why Conservatives should be cheerful; and ends with an exhaustive book list for Conservatives.

Given the short, letter-style chapters, and D’Souza’s eloquence, this book is an easy and enjoyable read. While certainly geard toward 18-30 year olds, I would recommend this book to anyone as a primer on modern Conservatism from the mind of a young Conservative leader. To understand What modern Conservatism is, where it is, and where today’s generation of young Conservatives is taking it, you need look no farther than D’Souza’s Letters to a Young Conservative.

What is this?

Darth Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler brings us a classic Rottie fisking of more liberal clap-trap:

You better believe it. Every morning when we wake up in the Imperial Palace, we jump out of bed and set off to smother anything remotely resembling a sense of social well-being, whatever the Hades that might be.

Then, after a half a gallon of coffee and a dozen cigarettes, we’re off to a hard day’s work of shoving grannies in wheelchairs down stairs (having made sure to steal their Social Security checks first, of course), kicking puppies and writing long and indignant letters to PBS, demanding that they immediately send the entire cast of Sesame Street to Gitmo on charges of subversive activities.

And that’s just before lunch.

The afternoons are typically spent converting everybody in sight to Christianity at gunpoint by uttering deadly phrases such as “G-d Bless You” at unsuspecting secularists.

Read the whole thing; he holds no punches deconstructing this liberal waste.

As Michelle Malkin points out, the ’sphere has been up in arms in reaction to this week’s usurpation of the Fifth Amendment by SCOTUS in Kelo v. City of New London.

Amazingly, the Left and Right sides of the ’sphere seem to have found one of those rare issues on which to agree. However, as is to be expected from the Blame Bush crowd, the Libs – such as Bree Walker writing at the already blaming Bush for this decision:

Probably no one is really surprised at how The Supreme Court pushed its’ “eminent domain” authority to the limit with this latest ruling which gives cities unprecedented power to bulldoze even “non blighted” areas for local revenue. In fact, we should all be used to our growing Fascism by now. Corporate rule of government will continue under this administration because there’s no one out there in mainstream media allowed to call it what it is; Fascism, plain and simple.

[Skipping over a bunch of filler crap...]

It’s probably just a matter of time before we bloggers get our gag orders first from the D.C gang and then ultimately, from China, once the Administration finds a way to sell us all out. Another sad day in America. But hey, at least those Chinese know how to run a government, even if it’s the opposite of Fascism. Who knows? Maybe American Communism is the court of last resort for our droned out, dumbed down, tuned out, Hippie Capitalist population. I know I’m damned tired of watching the alternative loom larger everyday.

Before I go any farther, let me just point out President Bush’s consistent stance on the Judiciary (as excerpted by ConfirmThem):

[A]s Chief Justice Hughes has said, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” The Court, in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions, has improperly set itself up as a third House of the Congress — a superlegislature, as one of the justices has called it — reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there and which were never intended to be there.

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution — not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

I want — as all Americans want — an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written — that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power — amendment by judicial say-so.

President Bush has consistently stated that he wants – and has nominated nominated – strict constructionists on the bench.

[EDIT: Mea culpa. I should have followed the link. The quote above is actually from an FDR fireside chat. Here's a quote from President Bush, during one of the 2004 presidential debates:

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words under God in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

(That's the first quote I came across in a quick search; point being, Bush's views are the same as what was excerpted from FDR above.]

Once more, for the record, this abomination came down to a 5-4 decision – FOR: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, Beyer; AGAINST: O’Conner, Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas. In other words, those ideologically aligned with the current Administration OPPOSED the ruling, while those ideologically aligned with Bree Walker formed the majority opinion.

I’ll agree, infringing on personal property rights in such a manner is fascist. (Actually, eminent domain for private-sector use is more correctly socialist, given the redistribution of property. The underlying judiciary fiat, on the other hand, is clearly fascist.) However, to blame the fascism through Judicial fiat on Conservatives in general, and President Bush in particular, is preposterous and intellectually dishonest.

Bush keeps sending up judiciary nominees to protect our republic from such judicial activism, and the Liberals’ sole litmus test is the nominee’s stance on Roe v. Wade – a SCOTUS decision that , ironically, clearly was a result of gross judicial activism, and something the Senate Judiciary Committee is being forced to discuss, given the expected Supreme Court vacancies upcoming. The bottom line is, this action by SCOTUS is clearly in line with the Liberal view of the Judiciary. I was taught in high school History (excuse me, Social Studies) that Communism was the extreme of the Liberal POV, and Fascism was the extreme of the Conservative POV. Of course, I argued against that alignment even then. The extreme of the Conservative POV would more rightly be Anarchy, since the “spectrum” in question is one of balance of power and responsibility between the individual and government/society. If the left extreme is no personal freedoms, and complete control by society/government, then the right extreme is unchecked personal freedoms, and no control/existence of government/society.

But I digress… my point is this: Bree Walker just admitted – perhaps unknowningly – that Fascism is, in fact, an outcome of the LIBERAL ideology.

Need any more reason to implore President Bush to keep nominating strict constructionists (especially to the Supreme Court), and also to implore your Senators to support Bush’s nominations?

Right now I’m watching coverage of an explosion at Praxair Distribution in south St. Louis (Jefferson and Chouteau).

Early coverage from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

The blaze began around 3 p.m. at Praxair, a gas and tank company at 2210 Chouteau. As of 4 p.m. a policeman at the scene said no injuries had been reported. Explosions had slowed to perhaps one per minute from the frenetic pace of earlier in the afternoon. More than a dozen emergency vehicles were at the scene.

As I write this, Highway 40 is being shut down between the Poplar Street Bridge and Kingshighway – though tonight’s Cards game is not expected to be interrupted.

Additional coverage: KSDK News Channel 5 (including photo gallery), KMOV News Channel 4

(HT: Travis Benning)

Liberal/Conservative

Worldview

You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational. Cultural Creative 63% Fundamentalist 50% Existentialist 44% Idealist 44% Modernist 38% Romanticist 31% Postmodernist 25% Materialist 19%

What is Your World View? (updated)
created with QuizFarm.com

From the Media Research Center, Letterman does Saddam:

From the June 22 Late Show with David Letterman, the “Top Ten Reasons Saddam Hussein Loves Doritos.” Late Show home page: www.cbs.com:

10. Three-cornered chips remind him of the Sunni Triangle

9. Chemical Ali taught him how to convert the spicy powder into a nerve agent

8. The “crunch” sounds like the breaking of a dissident’s bones

7. Pringles are for Kurds

6. They are corn chips of mass deliciousness

5. Goes perfectly with a tall glass of camel milk

4. Endorsed by his favorite late night television host, Al-Asaad Muhammed Leno

3. “Cool ranch” flavor is a preview of the paradise that awaits a martyr

2. When beard is full of orange crumbs, he can do hilarious “Yosemite Saddam”

1. Delicious taste allows him to momentarily forget he’ll spend eternity in Hell

Glenn Reynolds links to a straw poll indicating Condi Rice would kick the snot out of Republican contenders in the ‘08 primaries.

The best part of the post, though, is the comments section, which demonstrates just how much Democrats just don’t get it. They still think that mainstream America holds the opinion that Republicans are the party of racists, sexists, and bigots in general:

Joefrommass: Just out of curiosity, why would R.W. republicans want to sink Condi? I thought she was their poster child.

Dude, no way. The Paleoright and the Christian Right have about as much time for her as they do for Arnold Schwartznegger. She’s black, she’s a woman, she’s an intellectual, she’s a social liberal, she’s single, she’s not detectably religious at all, etc. She’s a certain kind of right-winger’s worst nightmare. (Trent Lott, James Dobson, and Pat Buchanan for starters. Henry Kissinger and Brett Scowcroft probably can’t stand her either, for different reasons.)

Moderates and formerly liberal neocons like her, though. If you haven’t yet figured out that neocons are the left-wing of the Republican Party, not the right wing, well, I don’t know what to tell ya.

…posted by the original poster, and summarily rejected and corrected by other commenters.

Nominating – and electing – Dr. Rice could very well be the final and ultimate triumph of the Republican right over the Democrat left. The two remaining bastions of support for Democrats – women and blacks – are already beginning to erode. (And black support will continue to erode as they realize that they are nothing more than the pawns of the Democrats: used for their votes, with nothing substantive coming back in return. The values of the black demographic, in general, are much more in line with the Republican party, and Condi Rice on the Rep. ticket may very well open their consideration of the Republican Party.

Again, for the record, history demonstrates that the Democrat party has always been on the wrong/losing side of every meaningful civil rights debate, especially women’s suffrage and equal rights for blacks.

But lest anyone claim that a Rice candidacy would be used as only a “tool” or “trick” by the Republicans, Republicans – across the entire spectrum – adore Condi for who she is, what she believes, and what she has accomplished. We support her because we believe she is one heck of a Presidential candidate – in my opinion, the best of the field (even if she currently stands by her statement that she is not going to run).

Grassroots support has already begun: Draft Condi is attempting to do just that, and Condi Blogs is collecting an alliance of bloggers supporting Condi.

The St. Louis County Council is about to consider a proposal to ban indoor smoking:

After months of contentious debate and careful negotiations, members of the county’s Justice and Health Committee unveiled the latest draft of the proposed smoking ban Wednesday.

The legislation, which could be sent to the full council next week, bans smoking in restaurants and bars, while allowing Harrah’s casino, area bowling alleys and Lambert Field to maintain separately ventilated smoking areas.

Of course, the proposal is selective – and therefore discriminatory.

The fundamental issue, though, is what right the government has to tell a private business-owner whether or not smoking (which, last I checked, was still a legal activity) is allowed in his establishment. A private business owner has the right to operate his establishment as he sees fit, and has the right to take the risk of losing patronage by allowing or prohibiting smoking at his establishment.

Personally, I detest cigarette smoke. It smells disgusting, it makes me sick, it tastes disgusting, and it lingers on clothes. I think smokers, as a group, are among some of the most inconsiderate people with respect to violating public fresh air (huddling around building entrances, and forcing non-smokers to traverse the second-hand smoke “gauntlet”), and littering their cigarette butts wherever they want. At the same time, smokers are among the most maligned group in the country.

While an equal-protection and equal-opportunity balance needs to be struck in public, owners of private establishments (be they businesses or homes) have the right to manage them as they see fit. I think “smoking sections” in restaurants are about as effective as “peeing sections” in swimming pools. That said, I vote with my feet and with my wallet. If I do not want to subject myself to a restaurant, bar, or other business that allows smoking, I can choose not to go there. If I want to support smoke-free businesses, I can likewise do so with my own feet and wallet. If enough people agree with me, then the free market will dictate which establishments stay in business.

The government has no right dictating.

Yesterday, the US House of Representatives passed by 286-130 a Constitutional Amendment authorizing Congress to ban the desecration of the American Flag.

Several of my Conservative brethren would brand me as an extremist for supporting the measure. The arguments generally include:

• Flag-burning is an exercise of freedom of speech, which is a Constitutionally protected right,
• Expression is the same as speech, in terms of Constitutional limitations on abridgement of rights,
• Banning flag-burning will lead to banning the exercise of speech and expression in legitimate forms of protest,
• Giving Congress power to ban flag burning violates the entire embodiment of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

These arguments – which I will address shortly – miss the point entirely. American Flag burning has no place in civilized society. Granted, anti-Christian, anti-Semite, America- and Israel-hating Muslim fascists take great joy in burning the flags of both the USA and Israel; but to that point I respond: 1) see my previous statement, and 2) perhaps those who would burn the American flag here in the US have much in common with those fanatics.

It is completely illogical to exercise one’s freedom of expression by protesting the symbol of the guarantee of that very right of expression. The United States of America is the beacon of Democracy and the epitome of civilized society. Political dissent has been defended passionately since Bostonians turned the Harbor into the world’s largest cup of tea. Political (especially, minority – since protecting majority rights is not really an issue) dissent is one of the roots of the limitation on Congress to abridge the freedom of the people – freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, keeping and bearing arms, property, etc. These freedoms all embody myriad means of expressing dissent, including private and public speaking, publishing (dead-tree and internet), artistic expression, protest assemblies, or expatriating oneself. Burning the American Flag is not among their number.

That’s not to say that flag-burning never has inherent purpose. Burning a flag that symbolizes a tyrannical government that suppresses basic human freedoms is a perfectly legitimate and germane protest of the tyranny and suppression embodied by the flag. So, an Iranian who protests his government by burning the flag of Iran expresses a perfectly consistent statement. Only someone insane, or who hates America (or both) would attempt a serious correlation between an oppressed subject of a tyrannical regime burning the flag symbolizing tyranny to an American living in the most free society in the history of mankind burning the flag symbolizing the passionate and self-sacrificial defense of freedom.

A democratic society provides a means for the governed to hold government accountable. Representatives are subject to regular elections. Elected officials face recall or impeachment when warranted. Executive branches at nearly all levels of government are subject to term limitation. Legitimate means of protest against elected officials include watch-dog activities holding officials accountable to what they do and say while in office, formation of Political Action Committees and lobbyist groups, active campaigning against an incumbent, active campaigning for a challenger, or running for office oneself. Burning the American Flag contributes nothing to any of these endeavors.

Apparently, I am not alone in my assertion that burning the American Flag has no place in a civilized America. From the same article:

The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.

Again, what we really have is a Constitutional-amendment band-aid to reassert the right of the legislative branches of our Federal and State governments to legislate according to the will of the majority, against judiciary fiat – in this case, SCOTUS trumped the legally and legitimately expressed will of the citizens of 48 States, and and Federal statute. I will concede that I would much prefer that the wording of the amendment guarantee the right of the States to govern themselves with respect to the prohibition of the physical desecration of the American flag; however, even the wording as rendered would restore that right to the States, whether or not the US Congress ever chooses to pass legislation prohibiting physical desecration of the American flag.

To further illustrate the will of the people, consider this collection of (ten-year old) polls concerning support for or against flag burning as free speech.

To be honest, I’m extremely tired of attempts to justify flag burning as protected free speech. Just for reference, here’s the wording of the First Amendment:

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.

First point: the reference to freedom of expression, as written in the First Amendment, directly correlates to religion. Note the use and location of the comma, semi-colon, and the word “thereof”, which corresponds “expression” to “religion”. Thus, while I am no Constitutional or legal scholar, I do understand basic rules of grammar and can say that arguments that the First Amendment protects a carte blanche freedom of expression are baseless.

Next, I would like to reiterate the definition of “speech“:

speech
n.

1. 1. The faculty or act of speaking.
   2. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
2. Something spoken; an utterance.
3. Vocal communication; conversation.
4. A talk or public address: “The best impromptu speeches are the ones written well in advance” (Ruth Gordon).
5. A printed copy of such an address.
6. One’s habitual manner or style of speaking.
7. The language or dialect of a nation or region: American speech.
8. The sounding of a musical instrument.
9. The study of oral communication, speech sounds, and vocal physiology.
10. Archaic. Rumor.

Of all the definitions of speech, one common thread is clear: speech involves or originates from oral communication. Speech can be concurrent with Flag Burning, but the act of flag burning itself is not inherently “speech”.

As for the right of government to abridge the freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights, the prohibition of flag desecration would certainly not set a new precedent. A civil society should, can, and does impose reasonable limits on the exercise of personal freedoms. For instance, the Supreme Court has upheld that expressing intimidation via cross burning is not Constitutionally protected free speech. (And here’s a liberal’s attempt to compare and contrast cross and flag burning.) Further, speech that presents a “clear and present danger” (e.g. shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater:

As I pointed out, the excuse normally given by the government for oppression is that of necessity. This was precisely the reason given in 1919 when the Supreme Court ruled in Schenck v. U.S. that speech could be forbidden if it presents a “clear and present danger.” It was this same ruling that put the “shouting fire in a theater” test into the public conception of the parameters of free speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206 S., 25 Sup. Ct. 3. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439, 31 S. Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.

Although subsequent decisions went on to clarify that a “clear and present danger” was limited to violent actions and not political advocacy, that was not before this case was used as justification to imprison political dissidents. In any case, the idea was planted in the people’s mind that speech could be limited by the government, as long as the reason was good enough.

Yet again, speech intended to incite a riot is not Constitutionally protected free speech. Obscenity, child pornography, libel, perjury, contempt of court, and false advertising – these are all also not Constitutionally protected free speech. What about freedom of expression of religion? Even under the guise of religious freedom, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, public nudity and obscenity, and any other of a number of forms of “expression” (including oppression of women and children and beheading of “infidels”) are not Constitutionally protected.

The reason that American Flag desecration should be prohibited is not because it offers no inherent value or benefit to discussion of issues or political dissent in civilized society; it should be prohibited because it is an act of political dissent so base that it inherently incites violence and hatred, and aids, abets, and offers comfort to the enemies of the United States in times of war. Burning the flag is an act that illicits passion and emotion and stifles reasoning; thus flag burning is actually detrimental to civilized discourse.

The American Flag symbolizes everything that is America – the good and the bad. More importantly, though, the flag represents a system of governance of, by, and for the people – a system of checks and balances, and a system of self-correction. The American Flag symbolizes a system in which the majority must recognize and protect the rights of the minority, a system in which mistakes and grevious wrong-doing alike are exposed, rooted out, and atoned for from within. The Flag represents a system that provides the mean to be changed; a political dissident can change the system if gathers enough support – and that change comes peacefully, through the process defined by the system.

Thus, to burn the flag is to protest the most advanced, the most peaceful, the most civilized, the most humane, and the most successful means of changing the system of government by the governed in all of history. To burn the flag is effectively to end any discussion or debate that would otherwise come out of civilized political dissent. To burn the flag is to protest the sacrifice of thousands of American men and women who have fought – and died – to defend the freedoms symbolized by the Flag.

Having said all that, I don’t really expect the measure to pass the Senate. It is doubtful that it has the 2/3 majority support:

A day after a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning cleared the House, an informal survey by the Associated Press suggested the measure lacks enough Senate votes to pass.

The 286-130 outcome in the House was never in doubt, and amendment supporters expressed optimism that a Republican gain of four seats in last November’s election could produce the two-thirds approval needed in the Senate, as well, after four failed attempts since 1989.

But an AP survey yesterday found 35 senators on record as opposing the amendment — one more than the number needed to defeat it, barring a change in position.

Apparently, the American Flag Blog agrees, in reaction to an opinion piece by one Sandi Webb.

I will probably re-visit the issue later, mainly to take on more of the arguments against prohibiting flag burning.

Dear Lord, thank you for giving us the World According to Ann. In her latest take-down of the Lunacy of the Left, Ann Coulter takes down the ridiculous Gitmo rhetoric:

In the interests of helping my country, I have devised a compact set of torture guidelines for Guantanamo.

It’s not torture if:

• The same acts performed on a live stage have been favorably reviewed by Frank Rich of The New York Times;
• Andrew Sullivan has ever solicited it from total strangers on the Internet;
• You can pay someone in New York to do it to you;
• Karen Finley ever got a federal grant to do it;
• It’s comparable to the treatment U.S. troops received in basic training;
• It’s no worse than the way airlines treat little girls in pigtails flying to see Grandma.

This piece is Ann at her finest; best column in weeks. Perhaps one of her best two-liners:

Others claimed they were forced into uncomfortable, unnatural positions, sort of like the Democrats’ position on abortion. Next, the interrogators will be threatening to slightly undercook the Lemon Chicken!

I have to thank my mom for introducing me to Ann’s columns a few years ago. What a perfect ending to a Wednesday.

Being single and living alone does not go well with wine – especially since a full glass with dinner is almost more than enough for my tastes. I have turned more bottles of cab and zin into expensive vinegar than I care to admit. Well, along came this post from the Corktease blog, introducing me to vacuum wine stoppers, particularly those from Vacuvin.

I recently bought the Vacuvin Concerto vacuum pump, and so far it has worked great and is worth its weight in gold – or, at least, worth its cost in wine.

In a conclusion to the controversy of the past academic year at Rose-Hulman, embattled President Jack Midgley resigned June 11th. The resignation ends Midgley’s tumultuous tenure heading the nation’s premier undergraduate engineering institution. Coverage here from the Indy Star. The resignation comes prior to – and perhaps in anticipation of – any action taken by the school’s Board of Trustees, which had delayed a decision on Midgley a week prior.

Follow the background story here, here, and here.

With my laptop being down much of the past couple weeks, I’ve been getting a lot of reading done. Should have some book reviews forthcoming this week for Letters to a Young Conservative, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, and Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man.

While not generally a fan of “Hallmark Holidays”, I know that we rarely take the opportunities we are given every day to express our love to the people we are blessed to have in our lives. So, what better time than the present? To my father:

• To the man who taught me to throw and catch a baseball in the summers of my youth, when even my little league coaches ignored me,
• To the man who coached me in tennis in high school when I was not yet good enough to make Varsity
• To the man who taught me most of life’s most important lessons:
  • That sports are a metaphor for life: that life is not fair, that competition is healthy, that winning and losing are a part of life and how we deal with either tells a great deal about our character, that no matter how good we are at something, there will always be something better, and that truly – win or lose – what ultimately matters is how we play the game,
  • That a man’s word is his bond, and that to violate a trust will damage any relationship at it’s most fundamental level,
  • That self-esteem is derived from character, and that bullies are cowards,
  • That everyone makes mistakes, but to take responsibility for my actions and always to be honest are better than their alternatives,
  • To treat everyone as I would have them treat me, regardless of whether or not they ever do so,
  • That all men are created equally in the image of the Father,
  • That in humility I should consider others before myself, and that everyone has something to teach me,
• To the man who talked to me before I was even born, who read The Hardy Boys to me before bed every night, and introduced me to the love of reading and education,
• To the man who taught me to think for myself, to question all assumptions and to recognize all biases – mine and others’, and to stand for something lest I fall for anything,
• To the man who worked as hard as he could to provide opportunities he never had, who sacrificed and gave up things in his life in order not to set a bad example, but to set a positive example in the life of his children,
• To the man who stood up for me when no one else would,
• To the man who demonstrated that a father should not be a best friend, but a parent – and that a parent is closer, more trustworthy, reliable, and supportive, and loves more deeply than any friend could ever hope to do,

To the man who exemplified for me what it means to be a husband, a father, and a man – who continues to model these things for me,

• To the man whom I respect above anyone to give wisdom, advice, and counsel when I need them,
• And most importantly, to the man who instilled in me my faith in God the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior; who taught me that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God – and never to accept blindly what anyone teaches on matters of faith, but to test everything against the Word – whether from a Sunday School teacher, a Pastor, or from my parents themselves; that I must always be ready to give an answer when anyone asks of the hope I have in Jesus Christ; that to be a husband and father – the spiritual head of a Godly household – is the greatest calling and achievment and God’s greatest blessing; that I am to love unconditionally as Christ loves me unconditionally;

Dad, I love you. Not a day goes by that I do not thank God for the blessing He has given me. I only hope that I can be half the husband and father that you have always been.

Sorry for the delayed absence. I’ve suffered two catastrophic hard-drive failures in the past week. Hope to have everything up and running again by the end of the week.

Lots of excitement in the hometown this week:

After a standoff lasting nearly 20 hours, a hostage situation was brought to a sudden conclusion at Bigfoot Food Store, 2905 E. State Road 44…

The lengthy episode began at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday when [Dennis ] McAninch became involved in a high-speed chase with police officers that began in Batesville.

McAninch crashed his car at the intersection of Interstate 74 and State Road 44, fired shots at officers who were pursuing him, then entered the Bigfoot Food Store and gas station and took the hostage.

Can’t tell you how many times I got gas and drinks at that Bigfoot growing up. (And I’ve always thought of that rock out front as somewhat of a landmark; it’s rather an oddity – and potentially saved a teenager’s life that morning.)

Some follow-up on the story: the hostage-taker’s death is being ruled a suicide, and the hostage talks about her ordeal.

Indy Star coverage here, here, here, here, here, here, and here

Chesterfield’s Rajiv Tarigopula finished fourth place in the National Spelling Bee, having been done in by the word “odylic”:

Rajiv Tarigopula was eliminated from the spelling bee today, misspelling the word “odylic.” He had advanced several more rounds earlier, to the final four, by spelling the words “infundibular”, “gomphosis”, “inion”, “arytenoid”, “rejoneador”, “zouave” and “plumassier”, “mucedinaceous” and “tontiner.”

Congrats!

President George W. Bush is in St. Louis this evening, helping raise funds for Senator Jim Talent.

On the way to turning the seat into a red-lock: Talent is building a war chest and the Dems are struggling to find a worthy contender:

President Bush will headline a St. Louis dinner that is expected to raise more than $1 million for Sen. Jim Talent’s re-election bid next year…

Talent, R-Mo., has already raised more than $1.3 million this year, with slightly more than that in the bank, according to campaign finance reports. Thursday’s $2,000-a-plate fund-raiser would be Talent’s largest single haul since the 2002 race, when he ousted incumbent Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan…

Democrats hoping to turn back the tide have struggled to find a prominent candidate to take on Talent in 2006. National Democratic leaders have spent months courting State Auditor Claire McCaskill, who narrowly lost the governor’s race to Republican Matt Blunt last year, but she has been reluctant so far to enter the fray.

Talent is popular, solidly conservative, and making a good name for himself. He’s easily raising money while the Democrats scrape the barrel for someone to run against him. Off to a good start…

(Hat Tip: John Combest)

Ann Coulter nails the idiocy of the Seven Nitwits:

The deal they struck, this masterful Peace of Westphalia, simply put into writing the rule that the minority party controls the Senate — which will remain the rule until the Democrats aren’t the minority party anymore.

If the Democrats had a 10-vote majority, you can be sure they wouldn’t cow-tow to the Republicans under the guise of “minority rights”, “Senate tradition of deliberation”, and “fundamental checks and balance”. They would ram through their Liberal agenda – hard.

Kinda like what the American people want the Republicans to do with a Conservative agenda, as Ann points out:

But even so, didn’t we win the last election? Why, yes, we did! And didn’t we win a majority in the Senate? Yes, we did! To be precise, Republicans have won a majority of Senate seats the past six consecutive elections. (And the last six consecutive elections in the House of Representatives, too!)

I think that means Republicans should win. Republican senators support Bush’s nominees and Democratic senators oppose them. The way disagreements like this are ordinarily sorted out in a democracy is that a vote is taken among our elected representatives, and majority vote wins.

If the Senate Republicans can’t get it done, I have a two-word suggestion: Recess Appointments.