End of Year Quick Hits

We near the end of the year, (Hey! That rhymes!) and I'm submitting my final post of 2005 with the (I'm assuming) detested Quick Hits I've found interesting around the web.

I couldn't make it through "What If," a book on military conflicts gone wrong. So, I started reading Larry Elder's "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America." Good stuff. He's also posted another spot-on column this week. His writings are always a fun and easy read.

Ann Coulter's got an old column up exposing the craziness of Kwanzaa. For those who won't read it, the holiday was created by a convicted felon in 1966. On top of that, the seven principles of Kwanzaa happen (Coincidence? I think not.) to be the same principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, "killer of housewives and police." I'll stick to not celebrating other made-up holidays.

A quick "Did You Know" for all who praise the Kennedy brothers as civil rights advocates: John Kennedy wanted to wait until after the 1964 election to push for civil rights legislation (I'm not condemning the move.) fearing loss of the southern vote. Attorney General Robert Kennedy authorized wiretaps on Martin Luther King Jr. These two men were great leaders. This would would have been a better place if RFK was a President from '69 to '73. But some facts need to be revealed to show they were not the glorious civil rights leaders some champion them to be.

What happened to that bird flu epidemic? Did it pass over? Will it come back next year to boost the ratings of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC? I guess we'll have to wait and see. I still don't get flu shots.

Another reason to hate lawyers: Iyman Faris, a man who confessed to planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, is planning to sue the president. David Smith, his attorney, says Faris should get off because the NSA wiretaps that caught him were illegal. I'm surprised Ramsey Clark didn't hop on this one.

For those who didn't hear, I have become a contributing editor for Pardon My English. The columns and discourse there are excellent. Columns posted here will be added to their archive. Check it out.

Enjoy the rest of your year and may you be greeted with an even better '06

Planting Seeds in Foreign Media

The DoD is guilty of planting pro-U.S. stories in foreign media once again. This time, it's not Baghdad newspapers, but websites aimed at the Balkans and North Africa. I'm nearly positive you won't hear the controversy over this as opposed to the Iraqi press "propaganda," for the man who secretly ordered the website was ... (GASP!) Bill Clinton. In a cluster of nations ravaged by wars and genocide, is there a harm to plant factual stories with a pro-democracy/capitalism spin?

When we're competing with al-Jazeera, "a mouthpiece for al-Qaeda and a vehicle of anti-American propaganda," it seems only rational to spread our own factual and national "propaganda" into countries with anti-U.S. sentiments that breed suicide bombers treking their way to Iraq and other allied countries.

The only "backfire," as Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita calls it, we could face is if the foreign nations find out about our tactics through our own papers such as the L.A. Times. Oh, wait - that's what happened. I hang my head, once again, in dissapointment of the American media.

Protecting Our Children and Families

This month, for the sixth time in five years, an unelected judge struck down legislation fining businesses that rented or sold violent or mature video games to minors. In the case of Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) v. Governor Schwarzenegger, U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte issued an injunction on the statute set to go into effect January 1, 2006. Assembly Bill 1179, signed back in October, declared the following: "This bill would require violent video games to be labeled as specified and would prohibit the sale or rental of those violent video games, as defined, to minors. The bill would provide that a person who violates the act shall be liable in an amount of up to $1,000 for each violation." The reasoning for Judge Whyte's ruling was that "games are protected by the First Amendment and ... plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their argument that the Act violates the First Amendment." He also pointed to other states (MI, IL, and WA included) that have ruled similarly.

According to Title XVII of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) which is used in all 50 states, "Harmful to Minors" is defined as "any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that - taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors" or "depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what issuitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact." Few would dispute that sex and violence in 3-D controlled animation falls into the definition above.

The opposition to this argument could refer not only to the other mirrored decisions made by courts in the last half decade, but to the 2001 decision, AAMA v. Teri Kendrick, which ruled that "children have First Amendment rights." Precedent can also be found in Ginsberg v. New York which claimed "defining obscenity on the basis of its appeal to minors under 17, has no rational relation to the objective of safeguarding such minors from harm."

That's enough of the legal jargon. The constitutional question it raises is whether the First Amendment, in the form of violent and sexual video games, applies to persons under 18. The legal precedent rulings like Whyte's sets is damaging to children and families nationwide. A decision like this could be used in further cases to make the claim that renting and selling pornography to minors should be protected under the amendment as well. While they're at it, legislation banning children from x-rated internet sites could be found unconstitutional along with selling music with the infamous "parental advisory" sticker slapped on the case. With the deterioration of moral legislation, tobacco and alcohol might soon be allowed in the hands of children.

Through our representatives, laws have been made restricting children from becoming full citizens. Minors are unable to vote, own property, stay out past curfew, imbibe alcohol, be executed for a crime, enlist in the armed forces (without parental consent), and smoke cigarettes, among others. If these "partial-citizens" don't have the right to influence law through a vote, it is plausible to claim they should not have the right to buy violent or sexual video games without parental consent.

It is not my interest to start another populist movement with new moral legislation effecting every tiny action. But, in the interest of families, children, and the nation's future, prohibiting minors from involving themselves with immoral material that is deemed "harmful to minors" gives parents more comfort that their child is not shooting down helicopters, holding up stores, or ripping off prostitutes in Grand Theft Auto.

It also seems as appropriate to mention the strategy of liberals in America. Instead of influencing the representatives that make laws, they subvert the judicial system to find a way to see their crazy ideologies carried out. In cases such as VSDA v. Schwarzenegger, liberals strike down legislation approved by the masses. For a group that claims the majority should rule - they don't let it. You see these tactics now more than ever in the Ninth Circuit. Michael Newdow won his case in the last year that ruled "under god" unconstitutional for children to say in public school. Hopefully, decisions like Judge Whyte's will proceed up to the Supreme Court, where a majority of conservatives sit. It is in the best interest of families that children not get their hands on the figurative matches to start a firestorm of violence and sexual debauchery.

A History of Lawbreakers

Lately, Liberals have been looking to history to make a case against the warrantless wiretaps President Bush authorized the NSA to make. The Huffington Post looks to Nixon and Johnson - one impeached, the other nearly - to show how, historically, Bush's actions are worthy of impeachment. There are, however, other presidents that have violated the civil liberties of U.S. citizens for the sake of the security of the nation (Nixon excluded).

One of the highest rated presidents, Abraham Lincoln, in September of 1862 suspended the writ of habeas corpus as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Under this suspension, approximately 13,000 were imprisoned without the right of due process. Many who were arrested fell under Lincoln's order that "all persons who discouraged enlistments or was disloyal" to the north would come under martial law and be heald in military jails until the war's end.

Sixty-four years earlier, John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts which, in the sedition part of it, disallowed writing, printing, or publication of anything critical of the president or Congress. The acts were later ruled unconstitutional as the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants all citizens the right to free speech, which was squealched under Adams' legislation.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt imprisoned 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans under executive order #9066 in 1942 following the attack on Pearl Harbor. It wasn't until forty years later that, under Ronald Reagan's guidance, America accepted blame for the internment and proceeded with restitution for those who were interred or their children.

There are other less notable presidents that have violated civil liberties that caused controversy at the time, but fail to be mentioned in Liberal circles. Woodrow Wilson jailed thousands of World War I critics which included Socialist leader Eugene Debs. He also banned the German language from being tought in public schools.

On the topic of surveillance, Nixon and LBJ always get the attention, but Presidents Carter and Clinton deserve equal amounts. Jimmy Carter signed an executive order that said, the "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." This sounds quite similar to today's controversy. Bill Clinton legalized spying and warrantless searches of public housing following the Oklahoma City bombing. Less publicized was his Communications Decencies Act which, among other things legally discouraged talk of abortion on the internet. It is also less known that President Clinton was the first to authorize rendition, the transportation of criminals to other countries for the purpose of torture. Pro-Lifers (and sensible-minded people) could also make the assertion that he violated the right to life provided by the Constitution when he made legal partial-birth abortion, but that's a topic for another day.

It is easy to pick and pull events from history that support your argument, which folks like Ariana Huffington seem to be good at. Provided here are examples of presidents acting unconstitutionally, in times, for the sake of national security. If Liberals are calling for the impeachment of President Bush, they might want to look at the past actions of presidents and consider the time period. If an impeachment of Bush is what they want, is it safe to assume they would also call for the removal of Lincoln, FDR, Carter, and Clinton?

Festivus Quick Hits

Today we celebrate Festivus - a holiday made up by Frank Costanza on Seinfeld. Tonight the Airing of Grievences will commence followed by the Feats of Strength. Until then, here are a few things I've found interesting...

Saddam Hussein and Howard Dean agree that the White House is full of lies.

For those who don't like the Drudge Report, the Sludge Report throws a few punches at the administration. Quite amusing.

I bought Larry Elder's book "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America" the other day at Border's. I've been a big fan for a while and he posted one of the funniest columns a couple of weeks ago. Check it out. You'll be in for a chuckle.

Just a question... I watch the show "ellen" occasionally... Why does she have to dance? Seriously, it's every two minutes and it needs to stop.

YAF has posted some bizarre college courses being offered next semester around the U.S. Here are a few examples: 'Lesbian Novels Since World War II', 'Black Lavender: A Study of Black Gay & Lesbian Plays', and 'The Unbearable Whiteness of Barbie: Race and Popular Culture in the United States'. ...And I thought 'The Politics of Food' offered at NKU was a useless class.

The January MacWorld is around the corner and the rumors are flying. From OSX 10.5 being introduced, a new iPod shuffle, the Mactell (Mac with Intell processor) powerbook, dual-core iBooks, and new Mac Minis. Whatever the announcement, I know I'll be hovering around the warm glow of my G3 iBook keeping warm on January 9th.

A Satirical Letter to the New York Times

Dear NYT Columnist James Risen,

Like you and others at the Times, I hate America. Thank you so much for exposing the Bush administration's tactics to stop further attacks on national soil. The act of violating the civil liberties of a few to prevent possible murders of thousands is dispicable of the evil republicans. I know we're at war, but it's an illegal war that was sold to the American public on lies and trumped up information. War gives no excuse to listen in on phone calls or read emails of citizens in the U.S. that are talking with al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. It is our Fourth Amendment that gives American citizens - and those here illegally - the right to speak to whomever we choose without fearing the government will pick up on our treacherous activities without a warrant.

I know the neocons will blame you for trying to sell a book due out in the coming weeks. That's all the conservatives do though - attack the motive of the person undermining the administration. It's not treasonous... it's patriotic. Who considers the source anymore, anyway? I'm glad you used the Times front page to publicize your book. Before this, I hadn't heard of "State of War" and now I know of a good read to pick up to add to my collection of Michael Moore, Mary Mapes, Al Franken, and Wesley Clarke.

As for the purported "bias" of the Times, it's just a bunch of balogna. That's just a tactic of the evil conservatives to get their kool-aid drinking cult to read only the fascist-right Drudge Report. Please keep exposing the horrible job the troops are doing in Iraq and the Bush administration's attempt to save Americans from a future terrorist attack at the expense of a few. If it weren't for people like you and others at the Times and WaPo, who would we listen to?

Enjoy your day.

-Rich

Defending an Imperial President

It is growing more difficult to defend President Bush. Not because his policies are becoming harder to stand up for, but because of the seemingly horrible atrocities that are adding up against the president. There is no doubt that the Commander in Chief has acted imperially during his tenure. In fact, setting aside that tenure and elections, you could almost call him "King George." Especially in his second term, Bush has used his own beliefs to push new policies onto the American people. I, however, defend these actions.

All 43 presidents have acted, in some degree, imperially - ruling in their own way to accomplish a personal goal. In 1798, Congress passed and President Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts which violated the First Amendment. His defense was that is protected the nation against uprisings, as predicted in France and England at the time. Similarly, the current president has interred suspected terrorists without due process, authorized spying on American citizens, and become nearly half as paranoid as Nixon. Both presidents had one thing in mind - national security.

From the little experience I've had with constitutional law (one class), I see no legal way to justify the secret wiretaps on U.S. citizens. But, constitutionally, the people do give the president the luxury of being above the law in some instances. As followers, we look for the leader to make the best decision for the security of the nation. Bush gave the NSA authority to wiretap citizens and noncitizens suspected of terrorist related funding or activity. So far, no one has been indicted for illegal nonterrorism related activity under his secret wiretaps. At least one man has been apprehended for visiting Afghan training camps and attempting to procure an escape airplane for al Qaeda. Who knows how many others have been apprehended and are being secretly held at one of the many secret prisons or interrogation centers?

Many may claim his tactics are radical and stinking of Orwellian Big Brother government. To that, I note the cost of security. Benjamin Franklin spoke that the the promise of security came with the deterioration of civil liberties. Benjamin Franklin did not live in the world threatened by nuclear and biological weapons that could be used to wipe out unprovoked tens of thousands of citizens.

It is now evident that thousands of citizens' library records, grocery store habits, phone calls, and perhaps even movements are being tracked. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. I believe Bush has learned from the paranoia of Nixon and knows not to make an enemies list besides those of actual threat to the nation, not his reputation, as in the case of Nixon. Hopefully, the wiretaps and surveillance are temporary. Because, with temporary wiretaps are temporary threats. I see this new war on terror lasting as long as the cold war - hopefully ending as peacefully. When the threat of radicals exploiting a religion to destroy countless lives becomes an old threat, so should the wiretaps and surveillance. But for now, the threats exist, as should the minor violation of civil liberties.

Oh My God! What Have We Done!

Putting aside Howard Dean's comments, today and tomorrow's vote in Iraq marks another in a series of great accomplishments of the American mission to free Iraq and spread democracy. But what else has been accomplished in just under 3 years?

-A country that defied the United Nations and thumbed its nose at the rest of the modern world is no longer a threat to the Iraqi people, its neighbors, or the United States.

-A dictator that ran torture chambers, rape rooms, and slaughtered people just for dissent is now standing trial.

-The Iraqi people are participating in their third election - each time rising in number of participants.

-Women are free to have a say in the government and are now experiencing more equality.

-Young girls are being tought in schools.

-Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi policemen, guardsmen, and special forces are taking charge of military operations to route out insurgents that threaten the democracy of the country.

-Uday and Qusay Hussein have been killed.

Today is a great day for the Iraqi people. I am wearing my purple finger as a salute to their struggle to participate in democracy.

Brew-Ha-Ha

Over the last few months, I've tried my hand at different beers.

Here are some of my favorites:
Goose Island Otmeal Stout (This is my current favorite)
Goose Island Nut Brown Ale
Murphy's Stout (a beautiful beer with the best looking head I've seen)
McEwan's IPA (on draft at The Pub)
Black Moon (a mixture of Guinness and Blue Moon)
Blue Moon
Black Bear (a local brew down in Gatlinburg, TN)
Virgin Islands Pale Ale (I can't find this anywhere but in the Virgin Islands)
Sam Adams Winter Lager (a good winter beer that doesn't taste like the regular Sam Adams)

Cheap Standbys:
Newcastle
Honey Brown
Smithwicks

Most hated beers:
Any Flying Dog beer (I think they just had a dog pee in a bottle)
Miller Light
Bud Light
Sam Adams (It's not that I really hate it, I'm just burnt out on it)

"Unhinged" Review

In about 2 weeks, I read through Michelle Malkin’s newest book, "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild". It was exactly what I expected. For 28 bucks, she shows how crazy the left has become since the 2000 election. Her examples range from a chapter filled with wet dreams of Bush being assassinated and the hospitalization of John Ashcroft to how Hollywood celebrities feel the need to make the looniest claims. This is to include a "Charlie’s Angels" star claiming that if Bush is reelected in 2004, rape will be legalized.

Despite the mounting stack of documentation Malkin provides, examples are all that the book contains. Less than five pages at the end speculate the causes or effects of the craziness. I would have liked to have read some policy analysis of how the Democratic Party is failing due to this extremism or how the Republicans could use this unhinged behavior for its own electoral gain.

On top of that, her wit is as lacking as good commentary. Maybe I expected something on the same humor level as Coulter, and maybe that’s expecting too much. For a book lasting under 180 pages, $28 was too much. But, there’s a bad apple in every bushel. 2.5/5 stars.

Sunday Quick Hits

More of the same...

John Stossel put out a great column last week concerning smoking bans in public places and privately owned establishments. I, like John, don't smoke. I also enjoy walking out of a bar not smelling like an ashtray. However, even though the majority enjoys the luxury of wearing clothes unstained by cigarrette tar, the minority suffers with smoking bans. These laws are especially intrusive in private establishments. If I want to go to a place that does not allow smoking, bars will cater to me over time. The government should not step in to make laws striking the rights of businesses to run them how the owners please.

Jim Petro is running for Governor of Ohio in 2006. Due to name recognition, he doesn't stand much of a chance against Ohio Sec. of State Ken Blackwell. If you haven't seen Petro's new television ad, check it out. It's the epitomy of right-wing conservative. Quite funny, if you ask me.

For my Post-9/11 class, I read the book Unfinished Business by Harlan Ullman. It was a great policy book with great suggestions on how to deal with the new War on Terror. He points out failures in every presidential administration dating back to Reagan's. Since it was written in 2002, you could tell it was pushing for a more global and broad war against extremism, in result pushing for war with Iraq. It was a great read and gave me a few things to ponder on how the administration handles foreign policy as compared to previous ones.

It looks like Bush's offensive strategy is working.

"Forty percent now believe that the U.S. is safer than it was before 9/11. That's up from 34% a month ago. The number who say the U.S. is not safer has declined to 43 percent, down from 50% a month ago.

Forty-eight percent (48%) [of] Americans now believe the U.S. and its Allies are winning. That's up nine points from 39% a month ago and represents the highest level of confidence measured in 2005.

Just 28% now believe the terrorists are winning, down six points from 34% a month ago."

A Change in Force

Over the last four years, it has become evident that our military is not the force needed for the missions at hand. With the new War on Terror, it is now necessary to call up the nation's reserve forces for active duty. Prior to September 11th, the basic mentality of Reservists was "one weekend a month, two weeks a year." (And to quote the Simpsons, "and most of the time, you're drunk.") After reviewing the reserve mentality and preparedness carried over from the peace-time era prior to 9/11, I now believe our reserve forces need more training and cohesion.

Thanks to military heads, the recruitment and retention focus has changed. What once centered on giving kids college money and a quick bonus, now looks for the recruit high in patriotism and willing to serve in a combat zone. The organization of the reserves (I can only speak of the Army) has changed as well. Now, all reservists know that they will most likely be called to active duty to serve, whether in support of the War on Terror or in the war itself. As of FY06, Army reservists spend more time in the field and much of the training is geared toward the possibilities of combat instead of previous training that was focused on maintaining the unit and making sure everyone takes part in "busy work."

My main point is that the Reserves have gradually changed for the better in the nation's new fight against terrorism. However, there is more change needed. One weekend a month, two weeks a year may not be enough to ensure unit cohesion, leadership orientation, and combat readiness. I feel that although it may result in a recruitment loss, a complete reformation in the reserve structure may help boost the three areas mentioned. A few answers to the question of "how do we accomplish this?" may be more than the typical one weekend a month, two weeks a year. One month in the summer, training with an active duty unit and at least half of all Battle Assemblies (a change in rhetoric from "drill weekend") conducted in the field with concentration on combat and combat missions.

Another change must be undertaken by the NCO's (small-unit leaders) of the reserve units. Maintaining communication with soldiers outside of the Battle Assembly is more important than one can imagine. It not only boosts unit morale, but lets the soldiers know that someone is there for them if called to active duty. This communication also results in keeping good, well-trained soldiers in. It is a duty of the higher-ups and the leaders of the smaller units to take into their hands this humble responsibility of changing the reserves to fit the new War on Terror. Without the leadership, soldiers are hopeless.

Sack Up, Sallies

Well, the Democrats finally came up with a strategy for Iraq (something they couldn't do prior to the 2004 Presidential Election.) Rep. Murtha unveiled it a few weeks ago with support from Sen. Reid, Boxer, and other Democrats. His plan was to pull out our troops in the middle of a war. Even the most liberal of people go by the "Pottery Barn theory" - we broke it, now we must stay until it's fixed.

My grief isn't with his plan, although it does have one flaw - the plan itself, but with the Left's treatment of veterans. I hear everywhere that he is a decorated Marine Vietnam War veteran. That's nice and all, but does that prohibit being critical of the man? Why is the Right so scared to criticize this man? Even Rep. Schmit who called him a coward (let's face it, she did) retracted her statement. And the VP, Pres, and other Republicans preface their comments toward him with "he's a fine man" and "none of us should think of questioning his motives or desires for American troops."

Did Liberals ever give Sen. McCarthy or LTC North that luxury, that honor of a decent preface? How about Gen. Pace or Rep. Cunningham? Rep. Murtha's comments, along with other public figures deserve disection and analysis. The military service of a man does not place his opinions above that of non-serving officials and figures. It seems to me that Liberals get to criticize anyone for their opinions, but find it offensive when Conservatives point out the failures of the Democrats with a war record, i.e. John Kerry.

The Right needs to sack up. We've played by the Left's rules of engagement for long enough and it's about time we bring out the big guns to point out their looniness without the preface of "he's a good man."

An Elected Traitor

Dr. David Duke is (how Bill O'Reilly puts it) "on notice." Well, he's been on notice for quite some time, but most turned a blind eye to the anti-semetic former Klan leader and Democrat.

This week, he sunk to a new low when he visited Syria to support the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad. (By the way, al-Assad supports groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, and the Islamic Jihad.)

Here are some things Duke has to say:

"I have defended Syria for a long time, so I was admiring Syria, I have admired your president very much."

"Israel makes the Nazi state look very moderate in terms of its views."

"Judaism at its core - is a racist religion, a supremacist religion, and non-Jews are considered not even of human caliber. It's not all of the Jews, but it is certainly something that is strong in it."

"Our soul and our blood we will sacrifice for you, oh Bashar!"

"The Zionists occupy most of the American media and now control much of American government."

This man is an elected representative of Louisiana. If we were to go to war with Syria, or perhaps place sanctions on them for supporting terrorists organizations, which side do you think he would take?