Ran across this quote today in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web Today (January 26th, 4th item down), written by an editor of a leftward-leaning magazine…
“And if a new Supreme Court overturns affirmative-action laws, Democrats will need to pursue equality in ways that avoid treating whites and blacks differently.”
Ya think? (Maybe that's what they should have pursued to begin with…)
Last year, I wrote a quick blurb about the the sanctity of human life, and a longer piece about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that is, as of yet, unfulfilled. This year, I'm combining the two occurrences (and putting it out 5 days late, but who's counting?) with a single entry.
First up is the sanctity of human life. Dictionary.com defines sanctity (definition 2) as “The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.” What this means is that human life is sacred - something that is to be valued, and not to be taken lightly. It also means that life is not ours to create (ever, outside of the God-given means) or to destroy (save for the Biblically-based governmental duties of defense and punishment). There is encouraging news on the abortion front - Norma McCorvey, “Roe” in the (in)famous Roe v. Wade case, has entered a petition to the Supreme Court to review her case in light of new medical evidence of the effects of abortion on the women who have them. Together with Operation Outcry, which has compiled quite an array of statistics on medical issues with abortion, she hopes to get that ruling reversed. As an original petitioner in the case, she is in the unique position of being able to do this, and more details, including the briefs that were filed, can be found here.
There are others who have recently written about abortion as well. Chuck Colson's recent article entitled Destroying Abortion Myths demonstrates that they hysterical “dangerous back-ally abortion” crowd actually made up their statistics. (And they say Bush lied and people died? How about “NOW lied, babies died”?) Marvin Olasky compares two tidal waves: the tsunami and abortion. (Did you know that as many people as died in that tsunami are killed every few months before they breathe their first breath?) Another site is Right Thinking Girl's entry A Woman's Right to Choose - it illustrates the absurdity of the “fetus as property” argument. I've also been active in the comments for this entry, in which folks have been debating the issue from pretty much all sides - my entries are the ones from “Daniel”. (Be warned, some comments may contain strong language.) And finally, this isn't recent, but my entry about abortion being a bad idea whose time has passed still lays out, from a non-religious perspective, why abortion is wrong.
The numbers of abortions that have been performed is staggering - the latest numbers from Census 2000 show blacks as 11.4% of the population, but the CDC's “Abortion Facts” website's numbers show blacks have 33.9% of the abortions in this country. That means that blacks are overrepresented in abortion by 200%. This is not good, and (as we segue into the MLK portion of this entry) it's something I think Dr. King would have worked to end. So much of his dream has been fulfilled, but I believe he would be horrified at these statistics. The people for whom Dr. King gave his life working for (and, lost his life as part of that work) aren't being killed and suppressed by the “white man” anymore. Take this abortion statistic together with gang and prostitution statistics, and you see that they're suppressing and killing off themselves!
Dr. King's legacy has been hijacked by the pseudo-civil-rights activists of our day. His was a message of peace, and of equality; not of oppression, not of violence, and not of reversing the inequality. Though he was taken from us much too soon, his work endures - and to hear gay marriage proponents use his words in support of their agenda must make him look down on us and shake his head. His dream of equality in all areas, but especially economically, is beginning to be realized.
However, popular black culture does not encourage activities that lead to prosperity. When was the last time you heard a rapper rap about his mutual funds, 401K, or real estate investments? How about consumable goods (cars, electronics, etc.)? I'll give you a hint - one of those is a lot better at building long-term wealth than the other. Bill Cosby is taking a lot of flak for his comments that have been critical of the culture. I'm glad he's saying these things, because he has a lot of respect from folks in the black community. Maybe if the message comes from someone who is so respected, it will sink in. Children who are trying hard to achieve shouldn't be ostracized from their peers and accused of “acting white.” Learning to speak the language properly isn't selling out, it's setting yourself up for success. (Now, since I'm not black, I guess I should interject here that I know plenty of white people who are foolish with their money, and whose grasp of the English language is less than it should be. I also know plenty of black people, some my very good friends, who do not conform to the pop culture image with which they're bombarded on a daily basis.)
By realizing how precious life is, defending those who are defenseless, and empowering people to make their own destiny, we will honor not only Dr. King, but all those who follow after us. May the next generation look at us and say, “You know, they figured it out, and they lived it the way they should.”
I am just sick up to the top of my neck with prime time programming's incessant infatuation with homosexuality. The latest egregious display was at the end of last night's Law and Order, where Serena, the Assistant D. A. played by Elizabeth Rohm, was fired. Throughout the four years she's been on the show, we've really seen nothing of her family. After being told to pack her things, she replies, “Is this because I'm a lesbian?” Now granted, the writers hadn't developed her character out enough for anyone to know whether this was true or not, but why bring it into the last episode? It wasn't even a very good scene - it seemed unnatural for Ms. Rohm (and I have no idea if she actually is gay or not - doesn't really matter to me).
Now, in re-runs, it won't be consuming me - I really have no obsession over knowing someone's (or even a fictional character's) sexual proclivities. But, the principle of it left me with a bad taste in my mouth, and this “ambush homosexuality” will tint my view of her character when I see re-runs on A&E or TNT. (I'm also a little disappointed that Fred Thompson was part of that scene, but that's just something I'll have to get over, I suppose…) I watch ER too, and they have a required gay character - but at least they've developed the character; and, whether I agree with the statements the character made or not, it wasn't something just thrown up in the audience's face at the last minute.
I sure hope that future “farewells” for folks have a bit more substance, and less statement-making…
Offensive language and topics are a concern for many folks, myself included. The American Family Association has a history of fighting to maintain standards of decency in print and over the airwaves. However, their recent decision to protest ABC's airing, in its original format, the film Saving Private Ryan as a tribute for Veteran's Day, I believe, misses the point.
ABC did not “sneak” that onto the airwaves - they warned their affiliates in advance, and some chose not to carry the network's programming that evening. When the movie came back from commercials, there was a warning each time that the program contained strong violence and language. It was rated “TV-MA (LV)” which indicated that it was not suitable for children (and so that V-chip programmed TVs would not let the program through). And, this was not the first time ABC has aired that movie it its original uncut format - I know it has aired at least twice before (usually surrounding Memorial Day), and I believe the first time, it was aired commercial-free. Why this showing seems to have generated such controversy, I'm not quite sure.
I would venture to say that the men that this film portrays are not the ones offended. True, the film has coarse language, but so did many of the folks in the Greatest Generation. And, while the language in the film was quite strong, I can't remember a single instance that was sexually oriented. This is also not the first time a network has aired an “uncensored” program - I remember when I was growing up, CBS aired the program “Scared Straight”, which was filled with rather strong language.
The AFA usually does some great work, but in this case, they're missing the point. More than that, rather than allowing ABC's honoring of our veterans to receive the focus, they are going to get the focus instead, and most of it is going to be something along the lines of “These Christians are at it again, trying to tell us what to do.” It's always wise, in most things, to “pick your battles” - only choose the ones that matter, and I don't think that this was a wise choice, especially given the fact that we have folks making similar sacrifices today.
Instant Replay has been used in the NFL for a few years now, and this year, the NCAA's Big 10 conference has instituted it as well. I prefer the NFL's rules, where the coach is allowed two challenges, and if both are overturned, a third. Challenges are not allowed during the final two minutes of play, so they can't be used as “extra time-outs” during the game; and, if a challenge fails to result in a changed call, the team is charged a time-out. In my opinion, it has been quite successful in helping to correct some pretty bad calls.
The most recent contender for a clearly overturnable call was the non-call of pass interference in Saturday's LSU/Alabama game. An LSU defender pushed the Alabama receiver down, intercepted a pass, and ran it back out to the middle of the field. It was a game-changing ruling - Alabama had been struggling (and continued to struggle) to move the ball, and was close to scoring. Now, I'm no Alabama fan (Go Vols!!!), but that call was flat out wrong.
College football is such big business these days - we've got human rankings, computer rankings, and a collage of them together helping us decide a “national champion.” Nobody likes a tie, it seems - that's the reason for the NCAA's overtime rules. While we're at it, let's take the technology of today to help make the game more fair for the kids who are playing their hearts out Saturday after Saturday.
There is word today from the fight for Fallujah that we have now uncovered a kidnapper's area where they housed, and eventually butchered, innocent civilians. (Story linked here) This is the place we couldn't find back when they were taking what seemed like a hostage a day, in a mostly futile attempt to get nations to pull their troops or businesses out of Iraq.
This makes my blood boil, and I'm tired of skirting the issue. Our pre-election policy on Iraq was driven by what appeared, to the President, to be an unwillingness on some parts of our nation to continue a large push - plus, had he started the Fallujah offensive before the election, he would have been accused of wagging the dog. Thanks to this delay, several people who were not combatants (oil truck drivers, reporters, construction workers) have been kidnapped, their families tortured beyond belief by seeing their loved one on Al-Jazeera, and eventually killed. There has also be a toll we've paid in servicemembers' lives, due to ambushes that have been set up by holdouts in Fallujah.
Those who oppose our troops when they are on the ground are traitors. Debates over what plan to use are valid, but this “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” rhetoric wasn't intended to spark policy debate - it was intended to pander to anti-war and anti-American people here and abroad, while still trying to pander to those who feel that a strong defense is essential to our national security. Now, we find that if we'd just pressed into Fallujah the way we did in Baghdad, no matter what “sacred” landmarks may be there, we would have denied these kidnappers their capability to carry out these dastardly acts.
Whether you're for or against the war - whether you like or don't like President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld - it is vitally important that, now that we're there, we don't tie our military's hands, especially with partisan political concerns. The only way out of Iraq that will keep us safe is to go through it - anything less will be seen by the terrorists as “the point” up to which we can be pushed, at which point we'll back down. I'm all for “bringing the troops home” - but not in a way where we'd have to send more over in a few years. Fight on!
By the way - they just came on the news and said that Yassir Arafat has died. That's the best news for peace in Israel we've gotten this century. The man was an avowed terrorist who did nothing but foment hate among his people against the rightful occupants of that land. Let's hope that their next leader will put an end to violent groups such as Hezbollah, and denounce rogue terrorists.
John Kerry and John Edwards (“Kedwards” hereafter) are making some significant claims about their plan for this country, and using some pretty strong but rather hackneyed rhetoric to get their point across. The term “demagoguery” is defined as “impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace.” Democrats are renowned for this, from the “New Deal” to Clinton's famous “I feel your pain,” Democrats base a lot of their policies on what they can spin to appeal to emotions, rather than facts. Let's take some of these areas, specifically some of those having to do with economics, and see why, I believe, Kedwards is wrong for America.
This has been a favorite claim of Democrats for ages, and it shows a basic lack of understanding regarding basic economic principles. The biggest thing that Democrats have wrong is their belief that taxes are the governments, to be “given back” to the people. Taxes are the people's money, given to the government to fund needed programs, such as national defense, highways, etc. Tax cuts are not “giving back,” they are letting people keep more of their money.
Another problem with their rhetoric is that speaking of taxes in dollar amounts is inherently going to sound skewed to someone who isn't paying attention (which, sadly, represents a lot more of our current electorate than we'd like). Imagine that there are two people - one makes $10,000 a year, and the other makes $200,000 a year. In this imaginary world, everyone pays 10% taxes. This means that person A pays $1,000 in taxes a year, and person B pays $20,000. Now, here come the media reports about a budget surplus, and Congress and the President decide to cut taxes by 1%. Person A saves $100, and person B saves $2,000 - in both cases, a 10% reduction in the total amount of taxes they have to pay. If you use Democrat thinking, person B got 95% of the tax cut.
Tax cuts benefit everyone. Those who make more, by virtue of simple mathematics, will receive a larger amount reduction whenever tax rates are lowered. However, these are also people who will use this money to reinvest in our economy, either through business expansion (which leads to more jobs), investments in stocks and bonds (which helps fund the economy), or through charitable donations (which improves the quality of life in local communities).
Another point on tax cuts - sometimes a reduction in the tax rate can actually increase tax income. If done correctly, tax cuts don't have to be “paid for,” they pay for themselves. If a gas station lowers its price for unleaded gasoline by $.02 a gallon, they will more than make up for their $.02 loss with their increase in volume. Taxes work the same way - when the rates are reduced, the economy grows; so, while we all pay less rate-wise, we pay more in real dollars. Everyone wins.
Yet another favorite topic, and another place that Democrats don't understand economics. A wage is a negotiated contract between employee and employer. Most often, all negotiating is done on the part of the employee, as an employer would say “Here's a job, and here's the pay - want it?” Very few people are raising families on minimum wage, and in their “average annual minimum-wage salary” statistics, the Democrats are including teens, college students, and spouses who work as secondary wage earners in their household. When the government interferes in business by forcing them to pay their entry-level workers more, what do the businesses do? There are either fewer entry-level jobs, or the products and/or services the company produces begin costing more.
There is one segment of the population who benefits from minimum-wage increases - union members. Many union contracts stipulate their wage in relation to the minimum wage - when it increases, their wages increase as well.
Again, more cries of how these evil corporations are trying to get out of paying their taxes. And, yet again, this is a place that the Democrats don't just get it. They miss it because, economically, there is no such thing as a “corporate tax”. There is a finite amount of money in this country, and corporations only have money if they extract it from the general public. The most common method is by providing a good or service for which people will give their money. With this money, they have to cover their operating expenses, the cost of the good or service itself, the cost of paying their employees, and what is left is called “profit.” Under the current structure, they also have to pay taxes with that money, which eats into profits. The company sets their price based on a few factors, two of which are desired profit, and the market value of their good or service.
With that, what happens when the government takes more money from the corporation? Who pays that tax? The general public, that's who. Corporate taxes make everything cost more, while giving no benefit to the economy whatsoever. All they do is penalize success.
(Things have been pretty crazy here lately - lots of work and family events, with little free time. I hope to have time to attack some other lines from Kedwards in the next few days.)
Ivan has now reached Montgomery - right on the verge of being a category 1 hurricane. So far, the power is still on at our house, although the back door is leaking like a sieve, and water's coming in the stove's exhaust fan. My wife and children are in Greenville, SC, avoiding this weather. I don't think I've done this much mopping in quite a while! Please keep all of us in your prayers during this time.
(This one's long, but I hope you take the time to read it and think…)
Three years ago, our country was attacked. It was not the first terrorist attack on our interests, or even the first attack on our own soil. But three years ago was, by far, the most successful (from the terrorists' point of view) attack on us yet. Over 2,500 innocent Americans lost their lives over the span of a few hours. Looking back, the fact that this number is so much lower than it could be (around 100,000 people were employed in the two WTC towers) is due to the grace of God, and the heroic efforts of firemen and policemen who helped thousands of folks flee to safety after the towers and the Pentagon were hit. Still, the fact remains that we were attacked on our own soil, and that attack resulted in a large loss of life.
Sit back from the computer for a minute or two and think back to where you were, and the thoughts that went through your mind that Tuesday morning. I remember very vividly where I was. A co-worker said “someone flew a plane into the World Trade Center!” It clicked for me right away, although it took some time to accept it - with all the talk about it being an accident, I didn't buy that. Moments later, as we all watched on our IPTV windows, we saw the second plane hit. All the talk of an accident evaporated in an instant - we were under attack. More bad news - another one hit the Pentagon - was there an explosion outside the State Department? - a plane went down in Pennsylvania - FAA grounds all flights - international flights are turned back. We went to FPCON Delta, the post-attack posture under which every vehicle coming on and off base is searched, and, for a time, no traffic is allowed on or off base.
I also remember clearly that all these things weren't what was foremost in my mind. My oldest child was going to school only during the mornings on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, so they weren't gone when it happened. I live on base, so I knew that I wouldn't have to leave the base, and neither would my family. I was still concerned for them, though - what if our base is on the target list? At this point, we didn't know nearly as much about al-Qaeda as we do now. I came home and just held my wife, then my kids. My second child was barely over 1, so he was pretty much oblivious; but my 2 1/2-year-old (who even then was very bright) couldn't understand why they would fly those planes into those buildings. He also didn't understand why mom and dad were crying, or near tears, the whole time.
I'm going to link that amazing site that's linked at the bottom of the page - never forget what happened that day. Since that day, we've engaged in two major theater wars - one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. Despite warnings of quagmires the likes of which we haven't seen since Vietnam, we have been successful in both these operations, installing democracy and freedom into two areas of the world that desperately need it. During that time, we've lost 1,000 combined in those two theaters. In Vietnam, that number was over 58,000. (source: DoD) It's a tribute to our men and women in uniform who have shown ceaseless dedication to their country, and to the development and use of the best tools of war on the planet. Although some may classify me in that category, as stateside support, the only thing I've sacrificed for this war is a few longer hours. I am deeply grateful to my comrades in arms who are out there in the desert, on the lines, loading bombs, driving patrols, doing everything they can to keep us free and return home to their families.
This is the reason it is so important to have a leader in this country who is not afraid to stand up to terrorists. When the WTC was attacked the first time in 1993, we did nothing. When the Kenyan embassies were bombed, we did nothing. When the USS Cole was bombed, we did nothing. Could we not see this coming? When I was in school, I was told that studying history was important, because “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.” I believe that. We've seen what inaction brings, and we cannot afford inaction any more, not even if it's cloaked in the term “diplomacy.” Since 9/11/01, al-Qaeda has struck in Bali, Madrid, and most recently, in Russia, as well as cooperating with Hezbollah in bringing terrorism to Israel.
Americans are, collectively, the most kind-hearted people in the world. We recognize the true threat that lies before us, and we are choosing to take the fight to them. I have a really hard time not questioning the intelligence of someone who thinks we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who used instant execution, limb removal, and rape as methods of governmental punishment. He used WMD on his own people in the north, and was completely uncooperative with United Nations inspectors who were verifying that he had stopped production. And the “there were no WMDs” crowd doesn't seem to consider enough Sarin gas to kill 60,000, or a large stash of low-enriched unranium, to be weapons of mass destruction. I say to those folks, how would like for what we've found to be detonated or released in your neighborhood? Would it become a WMD then?
So, we've got a dictator, who rapes, mutilates, and kills his own people, who has taken a hit out on a sitting United States President, and who is sympathetic to terrorists. Even the most obtuse among us should be able to see that we do not need that man in possession of WMDs, or even parts that can be made into such. Russia is our ally, and even they have some suitcase nukes they can't find. How much more easily would it be for nuclear or chemical weapons to find their way into terrorists' hands if the leadership of the country just hands it to them?
During the Republican National Convention, just after President Bush's speech, I listed to the talking heads dissect it. (I think the channel was on CBS.) The folks there said that the parts of the speech that dealt with domestic issues got applause, but with nowhere near the passion of the applause in the national defense portion. I think that's because the vast majority of Republicans (and a lot of Democrats, which is why I predict Bush will roll in November) know that without a secure national defense, domestic programs are meaningless. You may have seen this, but I'm posting it here in case you haven't. Stephen Ambrose said “It is the soldier, not the poet, who gives us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the reporter, who gives us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us freedom to protest. It is the soldier who serves beneath the flag, who salutes the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives the demonstrator the right to burn the flag.”
So, on this Patriot Day 2004, remember the lives of those whose crime was only that they got to work early that morning. Remember the 1,000+ defenders of freedom who have lost their lives while ensuring that anything like 9/11 never happens again. Remember the sons and daughters who will be celebrating Thanksgiving and Christmas this year, for the first time, without their mom or dad. Remember the spouses, who have lost a life partner and best friend. Thank the Lord that you live in a country that does not let these acts of aggression stand, and thank the Lord that George W. Bush made the tough decision to defend our nation. May God bless this great nation.
The Republican Party is missing an opportunity this week in New York. I don't think it'll be a fatal mistake, by any stretch. Britney Spears, former virginal Mouseketeer who has become a bit more sensual as of late, is a Republican. There had been some folks considering inviting her to the Republican National Convention to entertain the delegates. However, some groups within the RNC claimed that her presence would send the wrong message to the nation.
Britney has, in the past, done much to make the nation blush. From her appearance on Nickelodeon's Kids Choice Awards wearing a white tank top and no bra, to her kiss with Madonna last year during MTV's Video Music Awards opening act, from her initial video that some said played on the “naughty schoolgirl” image, to her more recent videos that are quite sensual (the award-winning “Toxic” being bounced from daytime play on MTV after the Super Bowl incident), she has given folks plenty of room to develop these concerns. For many of these folks, the straw that broke the camel's back was her 55-hour marriage last year.
However, Britney seems to have turned a corner. She's been dressing a bit more conservatively (and, no matter what she wears, she's still going to be smokin'), and she seemed to be willing in initial overtures to her to perform at the RNC. The inclusiveness already demonstrated at the convention is great, and I think that a Spears appearance would have gotten the GOP some votes among younger voters. And, with class acts such as Martina McBride and Faith Hill there for her to hang out with and learn from, who's to say that an invitation might just have been the acceptance that she needed to continue her transition to becoming a real woman.
Acceptance is a powerful motivator, especially to someone who is trying to make a change. Jessica Simpson originally wanted to be a Christian singer; but, due to her well-endowedness, no Christian label would sign her. How different would her life and music be if she had received encouragement from the Christian community, and spent her teen years among Christians, instead of out in the pop world?
The true irony in all this is that Kid Rock was invited to play an after-party at the convention. If Kid Rock can lend his support, why not Ms. Spears?