November 19, 2003
November 18, 2003
This is a Thief's Den... TOTALITARIANISM ALERT!!!
Your brain can now be scanned for racist thoughts.
Suddenly a tin-foil hat doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
As they say, you're not paranoid if they really are out to get you...
Via Allah. (Props be upon him)
Mass Insanity
The USA's judicially-forced march towards full gay marriage continues. The new decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court says it all.
"The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples." (Goodridge, at p. 3).
No, the real problem is that the SJC has no constitutioanlly adequate reason for giving civil marriage to same-sex couples. None. There is no discrimination argument to be made. EVERYONE has the right to marry, provided that your spouse is of the opposite gender. This is because the concept of marriage, as it has been practiced since, well... the beginning of the human race, has been based on complementarity of the sexes. (In other words, Tab A goes into Slot B, and in 293 days, barring any problems, you get Bundle of Joy C.) This action is so fundamental that every civilization in the history of the planet (yes, even the Greeks!) built civilizations and moral codes around the idea of marriage between one man and one woman. But ohhhh no... those codes are "outdated" and "exclusionary." Thus, in our feel-good, instant gratification society, they have to get torn down. But at least the court told the legislature this nicely...I think...
"In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." (Goodridge, at p. 36)
In other words, they just gave the Massachusetts legislature a Hobson's Choice. You can pass a new law about marriage, as long as it expressly allows gay marriage. Otherwise it's unconsitutional. It's a "choice" in name only.
Let me predict the next steps in the process. 1. Same-sex marriage becomes law in Massachusetts at the business end of a gavel. 2. Two gay non-residents get married in MA, return to their home state, and then sue their home state to require recognition of their marriage under the "full faith and credit clause." Home state balks, invoking the Defense of Marriage Act. 3. Gay couple goes to federal court seeking a) to have DOMA declared unconsitutional under "full faith and credit clause," or b) to have bans on gay marriage thrown out under the Equal Protection clause (citing Lawrence v. Texas with great ebullience). In both cases, the district and/or circuit courts, being courts, say OK (I can't imagine this not happening.) 4. Supreme Court a) strikes down DOMA and allows-gay marriage to happen state-by-state, or b) declared bans on gay-marriage unconstitutional on an equal protection basis. Not a single legislative act, executive order, or popular vote required. Isn't judicial activism fun? (And isn't this why a federal marriage amendment is sounding more and more like a good idea every day? )
One more thing: I'm agnostic on the subject of gay marriage. I think it may work out wonderfully and restrain the tendencies of gays and lesbians to make lewd, debaucherous sex their sole raison d'etre and turn them into average Joes and Janes who happen to be gay, or it may backfire horribly and send us on the slippery slope to polygamy and group marriage, consequences for children be damned. Either one can happen. I'm not thrilled with the idea of gay marriage, but I'm not totally opposed to the idea either. What pisses me off is the fact that a bunch of unelected judges are single-handedly forcing gay marriage down America's throat. Yes, it may win a battle for "gay rights," but if the gay rights movement continues to rely on judicial force rather than legislative consent to further its agenda, it is going to turn a good portion of this nation into sworn enemies, and if that happens, it will ultimately lose its war. And I, for one, won't shed a single tear over it.
Remember Charles Issawi's Rule on the Pace of Progress: Society is a mule, not a car... If pressed too hard, it will kick and throw off its rider."
You never can tell...
This is something that I never knew.
WASHINGTON Nov. 18 (AP) — The Pentagon said Tuesday it has uncovered remains from the site in Laos where Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean's younger brother was believed to have been killed nearly 30 years ago.
The remains have not been positively identified, but they were found along with some of Charles Dean's personal items, Howard Dean said.
Charles Dean was a 24-year-old graduate of the University of North Carolina traveling the world when he and a companion, Neil Sharman of Australia, were arrested in Laos by the communist Pathet Lao.
The two were detained Sept. 4, 1974, during a trip down the Mekong River, and held in a small, remote prison camp for a few months before being killed. They apparently were suspected of being spies, although the U.S. and Australian governments said they were merely tourists and strongly protested their detention.
The Dean family has been trying to piece together the details surrounding Charles Dean's death for three decades. Dean said the discovery would be painful not only for his family, but relatives of every POW and MIA.
Even though I disagree with most, if not all of Howard Dean's politics, it just goes to show you that your political enemies are human beings too. Also, consider that all of the other Democratic presidential candidates have been exploiting their family and personal histories for gain (Kerry and his Vietnam service, Gephardt and his lesbian daughter, etc.), yet Dean never spoke a word about this until now.
Say whatever you will about how angry Dean is and how he's steering the Dems into the wilderness, but at least the man has class, something in short supply in the Democratic field. Our condolences, Mr. Dean.
November 17, 2003
The 1337 Prayer
Our Father, who 0wnz Heaven, j00 r0ck!
May All 0ur Base someday be Belong to you!
May j00 0wn Earth just like j00 0wn Heaven.
Give us this day our warez, mp3z, and pr0n through a phat pipe.
And cut us some slack when we act like n00b lamerz, just as we teach n00bz when they act lame on us.
Please don't give us root access on some poor d00d'z box when we're too pissed off to think about what's right and wrong,
And if you could keep the FBI off our backs, we'd appreciate it.
For j00 0wn r00t on all our b0x0rs 4ever and ever, 4m3n.
November 16, 2003
Citizen check? Or Peace At Any Price?
Let it never be said that the military doesn't know how to fight the last war. Or not fight it.
Check out this piece from the Washington Post:
The current U.S. military structure -- known as the "Total Force" -- was implemented after the Vietnam War. The system was designed to require activation of Guard and reserves personnel in order to wage war. Defense officials ensured that war-fighting capabilities were integrated across the active and reserves components to such a degree that, as an Army chief of staff, Gen. Creighton Abrams, is said to have claimed, "they're not taking us to war again without calling up the reserves."
But the Total Force had another goal as well -- to act as a check on indiscriminate or capricious uses of military force. Recent experience in the Balkans and the Middle East demonstrates that it is easier to send troops abroad than it is to bring them home. And history shows that Congress rarely has acted against a president to limit the use of force. Thus, the Total Force was designed to compel Congress to scrutinize military operations. As employers give up workers and as families say goodbye to soldiers augmenting active forces, Congress should be pressured by constituents to act. In sum, the sacrifices of waging war -- or even keeping peace -- are supposed to spread throughout our democratic society to such a degree that our elected officials are forced to debate the wisdom of sending troops abroad.
So in other words, we have a National Guard not to provide a surge capability in case our regular forces are insuffiicent to fight a war, but to hurt the nation's economy and social fabric so badly that we won't fight any long wars.
What this is is another symptom of America's post-Vietnam hangover. It is a policy that is designed not to ensure that America stays out of pointless wars, but to ensure that America stays out of all wars that cannot be ended in 90 days. It is designed not to spread the burden of warfighting between full-time soldiers and reservists, but to give America a Pavlovian shock every time we go to war, no matter how just the cause is. What Ms. Davidson is arguing for is a policy of "peace at any price." John Stuart Mill had this to say about seeking peace at any price:
War, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice--is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.
And may I add, sometimes the "democratic debates" have to take a back seat to doing what needs to be done to keep this country safe.
UPDATE: Another Apropos quote on the subject:
"There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." --George Washington
As I said, the "Total Force" policy is not about helping the US be at all times ready for war, but to make it so we can't fight real, hard, slogging wars at all without doing damage to the nation. Washington would be ashamed.
November 04, 2003
Brief thought on the ICC
IM Discussion with RandomFriend..
(RandomFriend's friends want to do a simulation of the International Criminal Court at a Model United Nations conference, and they want RandomFriend to run it.)
Me: "No, I think it's just that MUN naturally attracts lefties who have their lips firmly locked on the idea of the ICC."
Random Friend: "And I'm guessing by the ICC you mean cock?"
No further comment needed.
UPDATE:
http://will.fellate.the.icc.forfood.org/