Thursday, March 31, 2005
More on Monday.
For a lift and a smile in the meantime, Julie has answered the mail. See the post below. If you dare to be interviewed, let me know.
See you next week.
I mean her answers are good. They are almost as good as my questions. I mean, they're not as good as my comments to her answers, but they're good.
In all seriousness, in particular check out Julie's explanation of her ability to dialogue with ideological opponents -- and learn. Julie's liberal, but she's still the bomb (that's good, Julie ... a little young people lingo for you. I know that libs generally don't like militaristic thingies) ... and she's my friend. Now, go read.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
I will reiterate ... this is a tough issue. If you don't agree with me, I respect your views. However, if you are wishing for the death of Terri Schiavo, and/or you see in such a result some sort of personal vindication or political victory, then I can't respect your viewpoint.
And ... this fellow ... in spite of the fact that he is driving hits to this site through the roof ... is despicable. Not worthy of a shred of respect.
What do you think?
1) he is a good lawyer, particularly on appellate issues;
2) he is creepy and appears to be deriving way too much pleasure out of this ordeal;
3) every time he opens his mouth and talks about how wonderfully euphoric and peaceful it is to starve to death, I wish to deny him the euphoria of such suffering by inflicting excruciating pain upon him;
4) his Saturday news conference, in which he endlessly gushed about how great it is that Terri is dying, was sickening. He should hang with judges, not juries and real people; and
5) he is proof that even complete, raging geeks can find a place -- albeit unseemly -- in this world.
Frankly, I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I will tell you this ... I really don't care what his motivation is. If he is working to save Terri's life, then great.
So, last month I praised Barney Frank for his stance on Eason Jordan's slander of our military. This month Jesse Jackson and I are buds. If I say something nice about Ted Kennedy next month, I quit. The world will be coming to an end.
Monday, March 28, 2005
So, without any further delay or "a dew" ... whatever ... here are the answers to the penetrating questions of JulieB:
If you could be any historical figure from the 16th Century, who would you be and why?
What?! Thank God for Wikipedia. Oh, my. First, I have to do a little research. Yeah, I know some. Luther, Shakespeare. Not Luther. Why? I mean, I am an evangelical Christian ... one of his spiritual offspring. Hmmm. How about ... Sir Thomas More? He was a man of principle and his life and death counted. Plus, I learned a bit about him when I saw his picture hanging in the office of Dr. Marvin Olasky, a man I respect as much as any one.
How did you propose to Mrs. DC?
Hmmm. Wow. Let me see. As I recall, she begged me ... something about, "You are the most amazing man ever to live ... " I seem to recall. Maybe my memory is fading as I am far older than most, I repeat, most of my readers. Let's see. The year was 1985. I had surrepti ... whatever ... snuck up to Dallas and bought her little, and I do mean little, engagement ring. She did not know I had it. We went out that evening. She was living in an apartment in Georgetown, Texas at the time. I was still in school. Yes ... she's an older woman. Story of my life. But I digress ... We came back to her apartment. I had concocted some story about "making her dessert" when we got back to her place. We even went to the grocery store and I bought ice cream, etc. She was sitting on the balcony. I went to "make dessert". Put ring (in the holder) in the bowl and came back ... Surprise!! Oh, yeah ... I wrote a note ... "I love you. I need you. Will you marry me?" Or something like that. Or ... maybe she begged me. I don't know.
What movie do you watch over and over again, and why?
As discussed on this blog previously, "A Christmas Carol" ... the 1951 version with Alistair Sim as Scrooge. I watch it every year. I love it because it is the best version of my favorite Christmas story. Sim is masterful. But most of all, I love the story because it is a great picture of hope and redemption. It reminds me that the most important point is what became of Scrooge's life after the spirits visited.
If you could interview Barbara Boxer, what would you ask her?
Gosh, I don't know. This is really hard, because I really don't want to interview the senator. But ... what could I ask ... okay, "Sen. Boxer, list some of your favorite conservative Republicans ... and in case you can't tell the difference, John McCain is not one of these ... "What do you think makes most people conservative?" ... "Assuming that you don't think that conservative Republicans are bad people (and I don't think you do), what can be done by liberal Democrats like yourself to convince some of your ideological soul mates of this?" ... "What is your plan for fixing Social Security?" ... "What specific proposals are the Democrats in Congress FOR now, and what are you doing to see that these proposals are at least partially enacted into law?" ... "Do you think it is bigoted to advocate legal protections for traditional marriage?" ... "As a Jewish person, I would be interested in knowing your thoughts on how a Christian lives out his or her faith without in your view being unfair, dogmatic, prejudiced ... in other words, being true to themselves without interfering with the rights of others to do the same." ... "What do you think of Jesus and why?"
What is your fondest memory of your childhood?
This is hard. My childhood wasn't great. My parents divorced when I was seven. I had to grow up too fast in a lot of ways. But don't go feelin' sorry for me, please. A lot of this helped get me to where I needed to go. But I digress ... Probably my best memories as a kid were as a freshman in high school when I met a guy from Thompson, Ohio who was a friend to me and told me how to become a Christian.
Interviewing Rules ... For those who would like to submit themselves to an interview by the great DC (caution: I have, in the past, been paid to ask questions):
* Leave me a comment saying “interview me”. The first five commenters will be the participants.*
I will respond by asking you five questions.*
You will update your blog/site with the answers to the questions.*
You will include this explanation and an offer to interview someone else in the same post.*
Friday, March 25, 2005
Next Monday ... I will answer Julie's penetrating questions. I know you can't wait. Right? Oh, well. It is pretty interesting to think about coming up with some answers. And, of course, I see Julie working. She is making me do a little research and perhaps trying to get Sen. Boxer and me to be buddies. Okay ... I am game.
And finally, with all due respect to my friends who do not share my Christian faith and in the spirit of goodwill, I sign off this Easter week by citing the irony of being reminded at this time of year of the preciousness of the individual. Indeed, Jesus Christ cared so much for each individual that he gave His life for each of us sinners on Good Friday. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
Jesus' death on Friday could have been perceived as a tragedy, and indeed it was for a time. Actually for about two days. Because on the third day ... Sunday ... He actually, physically rose from the dead. Thus, I will look up.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
"There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations -- these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit --immortal horrors or everlasting splendors."Indeed.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic -- ostensibly over state's rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions.Also, check out this deep drive off the wall by Lorie Byrd of PoliPundit regarding the new-found faith that liberals have in husbands of all stripes to care for their wives:
These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?
At least conservatives on Terri's side have some history of supporting the cause we now embrace. And we will continue to hold to these views. But will the new advocates of states' rights, separation of powers, limited government, and .... for crying out loud, the authority of husbands ... still hold these views when a new set of facts arises?
Many of the liberals commenting suddenly seem to believe that a husband always has the best interests of his wife at heart. This evidently extends even to husbands who have taken a new common law wife and have had children with her. At the very least, the court should see the fact that he has a new family as a conflict of interest.
1) Endangered Vegetables Get More Protections than Terri Schiavo; and
2) In the Spirit of Pontius Pilate: Congress and the President be Damned, Terri gets no food or water.
It can't be said better. For those who wish to understand both what is at stake in this debate and the passion many of us feel, please check out Hugh's take.
Monday, March 21, 2005
I want to step back for a minute and acknowledge that this is obviously a difficult case for both sides. I am pulling for Terri's parents, the Schindlers. I am hoping that Terri will be allowed to live. Big time. Yet, I realize, as certainly any thinking person does, that both sides' nerves are frayed as this matter has come to a boil in full view of the nation.
Plus, Your Honor, there is this small detail: Terri is starving to death. Accordingly, time is of the essence.
Still, the Great Oz must not be disturbed. He will speak when and how he wishes. "Now, go away!!"
What complete arrogance. What pompous crap from this lawyer-in-a-robe. One of the lawyers should have looked him in the eye and said, "No, sir. That is not acceptable. We need this matter resolved, and now. We need to know what to expect. It's the only decent thing, after all we have been through." And the Schindlers' counsel might have added, "And since you can't tell us how long, Your Honor, would you please grant that the feeding tube be reinserted while you deliberate? There is some amount of evidence to review, and the law says we are entitled to a complete review of the record." Or they could have added, "Plus, your a federal judge. So, you can do whatever you want, any way. Please have the feeding tube reinserted." Or ... "If you can't find a standard that allows you to do this, just, uh ... 'evolve' one, how 'bout it?"
But the Great Judge Whittemore ... the all-knowing one ... he would hear none of it. "Go away, you little people!" Maybe he thinks we are little because we just accept such garbage dressed up as justice.
What an outrageous bastardization of our government. People are up in arms that the Congress would exercise its powers under Article III of the Constitution to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but where is the outrage over the runaway arrogance that is so prevalent in our judicial system?
Judges openly talk of inserting their own "evolving standards" for the collective wisdom of the states. They look to foreign friends and law to interpret ... American law? No, they are not. They are doing just what they want. They are exercising power. They are not to be disturbed. They are wise. They are good. They are our governors. They are protecting us children from ourselves, don't you see?
If the country does not wake up, we will have no freedoms left. These Wise Ones will have arrongantly absconded with them all. And if we are then left gasping for permission to take a few precious breaths of freedom, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
What animates me in the fight to preserve Terri Schiavo is that innocent life deserves the benefit of the doubt. Terri Shiavo is innocent; this we know. Her estranged husband Michael says now that she would not have wished to be on a feeding tube, but he said earlier that she had never made such a statement. Indeed, most of us don't have the opportunity or inclination to opine on such matters before we are 26-years-old. The point is ... we don't know what her wishes were.
Michael Schiavo now has a girlfriend, children by his girlfriend. His life is moving on. It is hard to fault him for wanting to move on. Meanwhile, Terri's parents want to keep her alive and are willing to care for her. It is a difficult situation for all concerned, to be sure. But the key issue remains in my view: Innocent life always gets the benefit of the doubt.
Doctors have debated Terri's condition. Some say she will not improve. Others say she might. I have my doubts she will improve, but does it really matter? We are not God. Innocent life should get the benefit of the doubt.
I have watched with some amazement as politicians who clamor for convicted murderers to get every possible benefit of the doubt -- including, of course, federal habeus corpus review -- seek to deny the innocent Terri Schiavo the same right to review of her federal civil rights. Now, I watch people very awkwardly quote ... states rights? What!? But life trumps marital rights. Life trumps states' rights. This is not hard. Have we become so callous as not to realize the preciousness of each person?
You will have to forgive me because, yes, it is true ... this belief of mine stems from my Christian faith. I believe that God loves the world. That would mean ... every one. Each person, each life is precious. I do insist upon acting upon this belief, if you will excuse me, please.
And friends, if we don't have life, we don't have much. We can't marry if we are not alive. We can't have children. We can't work. Can't own property. We can't have "states' rights" if we reside 6 feet under our state. If all the people are dead, there is no state. Beam me up.
Have we lost our ability to morally reason as a culture?
Without life, we don't have much worth living for.
Without each other, we don't have much. I was discussing with my friend JulieB via email this week the subjects of marriage, bigotry, tolerance, faith, etc. ... and I was reminded again that without each other, we don't have much.
Each life is precious. So, live today accordingly.
Friday, March 18, 2005
I heard Gov. Bush speaking today about the ironic tragedy of all of this and he made an interesting point: Why does it absolutely take forever to execute a convicted murderer, but the courts seem in a rush to starve this innocent woman to death? Again, innocent life should get the benefit of the doubt.
And Congress just couldn't get its act together to pass a measure protecting innocent people without specific directives when they become incapacitated. Why? Busy, I am sure. That's right. Talking about baseball and steriods. They have no business talking about baseball. Oh, I forgot. Sen. McCain, who is pro-life you remember, thinks it is important to talk about baseball. And the MSM thought it was imporant, and it was good theater. I mean, dang, if McCain/MSM thinks it's important to talk about steroids and a private enterprise ... with grown men playing ... while a woman is about to be starved to death, then Shazam baby, let's talk steroids. And by golly, let's get to that recess. Lord knows, those congressmen need a break.
Shame on Sen. McCain and the rest of the Congress for frittering away precious moments while action was needed on this case. Hope they enjoy their break.
Pray. Act in Terri's interest ... in some way. Check Blogs for Terri for continued updates and action items.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
The bill now goes to conference.
Awesome. Wonder how those nabobs named Reed voted. We'll find out.
It's BOTH Senator Reeds that need to be encouraged to support Terri - Urgent that EVERYONE CALL NOW - ONLY TWO HOURS LEFT!
ASK THEM TO PLEASE support: "The Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act."
Reed, Jack - (D - RI) Class II
728 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form: http://reed.senate.gov/form-opinion.htm
Reid, Harry - (D - NV) Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form: http://reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm
Note: I called Sen. Harry Reid's office (D-NV) and his assistant just told me that the bill was not up for consideration. He asked where I was calling from (Houston), and said he would pass on my support to the Senator.
However, when I spoke with Sen. Jack Reid's (D-RI) office and informed them I was calling from Houston (silly me), the nice young lady hung up on me.
The Party of Compassion strikes again.
So, call 'em. Bug 'em. Get after it.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
For me, the issue is pretty simple: Innocent life gets the benefit of the doubt. I am just continually amazed how we as a culture bend over backwards to protect every conceivable form of "rights", yet we continue to show little regard for human life.
Without life, no other rights matter.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Goomba’s commentary and humor have been uplifting and inspiring to me. He is a tremendous talent, and I cherished the Goomba News Network reports, particularly when the “You are lying” comments were mixed in. Okay, so some of those were mine. But, he had the ability to make serious points through humor, while keeping his perspective and not getting too personal with political opponents. This is a gift. And all the while he was teaching/helping me to be better just by doing his thing. Thanks, man.
I know some may have seen Goomba’s work differently. Certainly the hackers did. But … there are many of us in the blogosphere who are very saddened by his departure. If you didn't appreciate the talent and heart of Goomba Genius, it's on you, not Nickie G.
It won’t be the same without Nickie.
I wish he had left us a farewell post with a place to comment and tell him how much we enjoyed his superb blog, how he made this more fun and rewarding, how his site made ours better. How much we came to vicariously care about him. But alas, Nickie’s site is no more.
But … how about commenting below and sending ol’ Goomba some love? I think he’ll stop by and read.
As for me, Nickie, I am praying for you and wishing you well. Most importantly, I want you to know that I am with you and for you as a man first; yes, your genius blog is secondary. I wish you all the best in your personal life and endeavors … blogging aside.
If you don’t come back, there will be a hole in the ‘sphere. But there’s a mark, too. Your mark.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Good humor. Good nature. Good thoughts. Good blog friend, as good a blog friend as there is. How the American Warmonger does all this, stays employed, married, with a child, I have no idea. Maybe dude just does it because he is freakin' King of the Blogs. So, head over here now for instructions ... simple ones ... as to how to vote for the man.
Do it. The campaigning is killing me. But for Jeremy, I'll do it.
Monday, March 07, 2005
How do you say "glasnost" in Arabic?
How about ... "Fix it? No, nix it." That is more like it, at least according to that extremist, political hack Alan Greenspan (remember him? The guy that Pres. Clinton appointed, too). Some of the faithful would still unknowingly chant this for sure. I say give it a try.
What are the Demos for, any way? And don't say "clean air, good jobs, affordable health care". Because you know that conservatives hate those things, and it's just not fair.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Where do these lawyers get the authority to look to foreigners who agree with them to support their interpretation of the Consitution? It's pretty audacious, if you think about it.
Here are the scathing and right-on remarks by that extremist Justice Scalia:
"The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."Amen. And incidentally, Justice Scalia and I hold to our positions in spite of the fact that U.S. abortion laws are out of the "mainstream" of world opinion ... that is, abortions are easier to get here than most of the world. So ... I suppose that the foreign authority juggernaut will eventually hit the brick wall of liberal, result-oriented jurisprudence.
Please continue reading down for more ... Profiles in Extremism.
Old extremist. I know he is married to NBC's Andrea Mitchell, and the Demos/MSM worship him when he says things that are not helpful to the President (i.e., problems with the deficit), but you have to admit ... he's an old extremist. He's gone to meddlin' by not only touching the third rail of politics but dancing on it.
Clearly, he wants to take retirement money away from old people and make them chow down on Alpo. Can't a liberal blogger dig up some dirt on this old fascist? I mean, the only thing to conclude from all of this is that Alan Greenspan is an evil man that must be investigated. He must have some illicit scheme working. Clearly, he is bad. His views are odious. Plus, he is an ugly man. An ugly, old extremist.
Here's the bomb that Byrd set off in the Senate Chamber:
Captain Ed hit the following towering shot into the stands regarding the Byrd controversy:
"Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions in modern conditions are carried out with, and not without, not against, the power of the State. The correct order of events was first to secure access to that power of the State, and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality. He never abandoned the cloak of legality. He recognized the enormous, psychological value of having the law on his side."
"Byrd, with his attempted filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is the last person who should be standing in the well of the Senate, calling anyone a Nazi. Why the Democrats have defended this doddering old embarassment for decades is beyond any explanation but the most base and cynical: he votes the right way. Republicans shunned Trent Lott for waxing nostalgic for an old Dixiecrat on his birthday. Will the Democrats do the same for the lunatic who has befouled the political environment with this intellectually, morally, and historically bankrupt foolishness?"Man, you'd have to be a Klansman to think Hitler was so benign. Oh, yeah. I forgot ...
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
It seems the concept of “supporting the troops” has been kicked around so much as to lose all meaning.
So what does it mean? Surely, a lot of the well-intentioned letters, emails, and care packages qualify as supporting our troops, right? I suppose they do, but to find out for sure we would need to ask the troops themselves. Our perception may not be the troops' reality.
Thus, if we want to do something for our troops … and I take the many people at face value who say that they do … then we need to consider what they really want. Put another way, if we are to support the troops, we need to do more than simply feel like we are doing so.
The point here is not to denigrate or challenge any particular tangible means one uses to support or assist our troops in harm’s way. The point is simply to challenge the notion that we can ourselves define what matters to our troops and what constitutes meaningful support.
We should consider what is most important to our troops if our objective is truly to support them. And to the troops, supporting their objective -- their mission -- is paramount.
Matt Friedeman recounts how a recently-wounded Marine simply identified as Rick called his radio show in Mississippi. While recovering overseas, the Marine absorbed some of the MSM’s take on the war in Iraq:
"But the whole time I was [there, in recovery] we watched the news to see what's going on. And we saw the protests, and we saw what the media was saying about what's going on, and we were worried about what we were actually going to face when we came home. We didn't know what to expect, to be honest with you. From the news media we were seeing, the whole country was basically telling us we're a bunch of jerks.Let's be frank. The incessant negativism about Iraq that has dominated the MSM and has been the Democrats' mantra can very tangibly hurt troop morale and ultimately troop performance. There’s a reason why Zarqawi quotes Ted Kennedy’s garbage about Iraq being Viet Nam.
"I thank God that the troops that are there don't see the news coverage. I thank God every day, because there'd be ten times the number getting killed, just because it would so un-motivate [sic] them.”
Here's the punch line: The most important thing for our troops is to know that we are pulling for them, both to come home alive and also to have success against the enemy. The work they are about is hard enough without being second-guessed and criticized. And the troops don’t particularly appreciate criticisms purportedly directed up the chain-of-command or questions as to why they are doing what they are doing, either.
So, if you really want to help, then find ways to communicate to as many people who will listen that you are fully in support of what the troops are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan … and that you love the troops and you hope that they are wreaking havoc on the bad guys. I know some of you don’t want to hear this, but it is true. If you want to be on the side of the troops, one must not criticize their mission … their work … once it is underway. Once the political process has worked and troops are committed, be quiet. You have the right to criticize as an American, of course. But I likewise have the right to tell you that you are making our troops’ jobs harder, and that I will hold you accountable for such behavior.
When Rick, the wounded Marine mentioned above in Matt Friedeman’s column, returned to the States, he and his comrades were overwhelmed by a spontaneous greeting in the airport. Here is how he described it:
"[E]very one of us just started crying like babies. Everybody in the terminal -- I kid you not, at least two to three hundred people -- just started clapping, spontaneously. To me, it was so much worth what we were doing, to realize that people over here actually get what we were doing. We weren't over there because it's fun. We're over there doing a job.”So, if you support our troops, support their mission. And tell others you do.