Early History of Church and State

Justin at Dust In the Light , when commenting on how the Supreme Court voted Wednesday to let states withhold scholarships from students studying theology, made a pithy comment about secular humanism and Marxism which reminded me of something. I've long thought that perhaps the only way to stop the confusion about what the separation of church and state is SUPPOSED to mean would be to point out that so-called secularism is a religion of another sort. In fact, what it really is is the modern form of what was called Deism. Deism gained some adherents during the Enlightenment, though those were mostly of the aristocratic or intellectual class and were relatively few in number.

Deists believed in a sort of "watchmaker God" who basically set up the world to act according to specific laws of Nature and then stepped back to see what would happen. They believed that God and Rationalism could coexist and these deists and other Rational Christians were one side of the Great Awakening of the mid-18th century. (The other side was Jonathan Edwards and his Evangelical crowd). Some noted Deists (whether the average American realizes it or not) were Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Some historians believe that Deism was the first step down the road to secularism. That may be true, but what I want to focus on is how some of its adherents, such as Jefferson and Franklin, had religion at the top of their minds when founding our nation. As will also be shown, there were other religious figures who had interesting things to say about both formulating a new government and religious rights who weren't Deists.

Regardless of the version of religion practiced by the Founding Fathers, they were all heavily influenced intellectually by the Enlightenment. As such, the most important and lasting impact of the Enlightenment in America was its influence on the political thinking and government of the colonies and eventually the United States. The concepts of natural law, inherent freedoms, and self-determination that have been embedded in the American fiber were Enlightenment ideals as well as religious. Basically, the influence of the Enlightenment, through its many Deist proponents in America, didn't mean the abandonment of the Protestant ideas that originally inspired the settlement of America. In fact, if nothing else, the ideals of the Enlightenment combined with the traditional moral teachings of Christianity to inspire the ideals spelled out in the founding documents of our country.

For instance, the Enlightenment bedrock principle of reason is reflected in the appeal in the Declaration of Independence to "the Law of Nature and of Nature's God,"; the assertion in the preamble of the Constitution that Justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty were the proper purposes of government; and the Federalist Papers? preference for "reflection and choice" over "accident and force" as the foundation of political society is another example. However, it is important to note that these ideas had been inspired by the classical and Judeo-Christian thought that was much older than the Enlightenment. This emphasizes the relationship between Christian thought and Enlightenment ideals. Documents such as the Mayflower Compact (1620) and William Penn's Frame of Government for Pennsylvania (1682) show that ideas for government resting at least partially on reason and consent had been part of colonial political philosophy prior to widespread exposure to Enlightenment ideas.

Tangentially related to the historical relationship between religion and our government, it should be noted that religious figures took a central role in American political thought. John Wise stated in 1717 that civil government was not unlike church organization in that it could rest on reason and rational conclusions instead of being dependent on divine rights, archaic customs or even Scripture. In other words, man could use reason to discover and apply the proper principles to human government. Wise called these principles natural law, which he believed to be consistent with God's law. In 1744, the Puritan clergyman Elisha Williams declared that "all are born . . . naturally equal" and everyone "is a reasonable . . . moral and accountable Being: and therefore . . . must reason, judge, and determine for himself." This laid important groundwork for the freedom of religious belief and expression. Another Puritan clergyman, Samuel Hopkins, extended these thoughts to attack the institution of slavery in 1776. The slaves brought to North America had "never forfeited their liberty or given anyone the right to enslave or sell them," Hopkins wrote in his A Dialogue Concerning the Slavery of Africans. He also pointed out the inconsistency of a nation, America, championing liberty while maintaining institutionalized slavery. Reason abhorred this circumstance, he said. Yet, as the case of slavery is particularly good at pointing out, the ideals of reason, the Enlightenment, and Christianity in general did not always remain intellectually consistent or achieve practical results.

The subject of political obedience was also greatly affected by the linkage of Christianity and the Enlightenment. Jonathan Mayhew, in 1750, noted that Scripture and reason dictated that rulers be judged according to a "higher law." Fourteen years later, James Otis of Boston declared that every Briton in North America "is by the law of God and nature, by the common law, and by act of parliament . . . entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in Great Britain." Otis conflated divine, natural and constitutional rights into what to him appeared to be a rational and consistent whole. These examples are provided to show that the intertwining of religious thought and government goes back to the founding of our country.

In summary, the effect that the exposure of religion to the rationalism of the Enlightenment was a growth of rational religion and the idea of freedom of religion as a natural right. This led to changes in religious orthodoxies and traditions of churches throughout the American Colonies and a further splintering of religious sects. When it came time to unite against England, it became obvious that no single religious sect would prevail over the others and they all essentially agreed to disagree. This evolved into a realization that no one church could dominate a new nation, which resulted in the separation of church and state. This right of religious freedom, along with the difficulty of sustaining orthodox thought in the midst of splintered religious sects, led to guarantees of religious freedom in the constitutions of many states and the Bill of Rights.

However, it is notable that the God who grants equality in the Declaration of Independence is the deist version, not the God worshipped in the majority of the traditional churches of the colonies at the time. The Enlightenment's impact on religion influenced many of the leaders of the American Revolution. Jefferson and Franklin both spent time in France and were exposed to the French Enlightenment, which tended to be more antagonistic to religion than did the English version. This point is not intended to denigrate Jefferson and Franklin. They believed what they believed and recognized that it was important to allow all Americans to worship (or not worship) freely, without being dictated by the government the form their religious observances were to take.

Thus, the true intent of the "separation of church and state" was to permit citizens to practice their religion freely without fear of governmental prosecution. Implicit in this is the right to not practice any form of religion. The effort to divorce ourselves from the importance of religion to our national heritage may indeed point to the secularization of our society. To disqualify something from government funding simply because God is mentioned misses the mark. Our Founding Fathers, whether they be Deists, Congregationalists or Catholics, would have never imagined that the clause "separation of church and state" would have been perverted in such a way. Not in their wildest dreams.

* Believe it or not, I didn't know all of this just off the top of my head. Many of the ideas are my own, but it should be assumed that most of the "hard information" comes from the Encyclopedia of the North American Colonies, Jacob Ernest Cooke ed., Vol. 3. New York: Charles Scribner Sons, 1993. The many external links from this document are provided for further investigation, not to annoy.

Nader's IN

FOXNews.com is reporting that - Nader to Jump in Presidential Race. Apparently, thanks to the link from Drudge, there is a good chance he'll do it on Meet the Press this Sunday. I simply can't believe that this would be good for the Democrats. Perhaps President Bush will benefit from the same thing that caused his father to lose a second term; Ross Perot and his 3rd party enabled a two-term Clinton Presidency.

Could it be that Nader would do the same for the President? It's interesting that the last 4 Presidential elections (I include the upcoming 2004 race) could reveal that the winner has, or will have, never received a majority of the votes. There appears to be a desire for a legitimate third party in this country. The problem is that the only successful third parties in this nation's history have been populist in nature, and the Green Party led by Nader or even Ross Perot's cult of personality, Reform party of the '90's failed to tap into truly populist themes. The Greens are still too liberal for the average American and Perot was a bit too wacky and his main theme, economic stability and growth, had already begun to turn around by the time of the election. Not to mention the lack of confidence exhibited by Perot when he withdrew, then re-entered the race.

No, a successful third party would have to be in the middle. The Republican is the on the right, the Democrats on the left, only the middle remains. The opportunity is there for some organization to cherry-pick ideas, and presumably "interest groups." I bet that the vast majority of union members would go for a strong on defense, but protectionist candidate. One who won't be perceived as pandering to the extremes of either established party and who truly has "working Americans" in mind.

The greatest challenge would be to create an organization from scratch. That's why it would probably take a candidate who had established himself in one of the two parties to break away. John McCain is the obvious example, but there are others, such as any number of so-called Blue Dog Democrats. It would also take more than fielding a candidate at the top of the ticket. A successful 3rd party would have to simultaneously attempt to create state and local parties. It would have to be done on a broad front. Some states have recently had independent governors, such as Ventura in Minn. and King in Maine, who were relatively successful. Unfortunately, neither could really build a strong 3rd party even on the state level. So maybe it will be impossible, maybe one of the established parties will have to have a complete meltdown and then re-invent itself to appeal more to the "average American." Perhaps the United States can only really handle two parties. It's worked so far, but will it forever?

The cynicism that politics brings to the conversations of normal people can't be ignored. Americans are checking out of the political process because "politicians are all the same." The hold that the professional politicians have on our government is stronger than ever. It will take a genuinely thoughtful and charismatic individual to shake things up and reassert the ideals on which this country was founded. It may sound corny, but we really need to get back to a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Not one for the splintered special interest groups and the big money. Is this a pipe dream? Maybe . . . maybe not.

Me vs. Joseph M. Reynolds

After reading "Crushing discourse -- Taste of power corrupts Bush" by Joseph M. Reynolds on the ProJo's web site, I felt compelled to reply. Here is my response letter to the editors at the Journal, in total:

In his piece "Crushing discourse -- Taste of power corrupts Bush" of 2/19/2004 on the Journal's editorial pages, Joseph M. Reynolds asserts that there is a "trend toward excecutive sovereignty that President Bush is facilitating, as he runs roughshod over not just his political foes but also the branches of government that exist to check excecutive power." Further, Mr. Reynolds warns that President Bush's "method of governance" is "a method that is eradicating the sacred American tenets of judicial autonomy and citizen review." He claims the President has labeled those who oppose him politically as "unpatriotic" and "weak on terrorism." These are all very serious charges, none of which Mr. Reynolds supports with facts, only with his own assertions.

The cornerstone of his piece at first appeared to be the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi. Unfortunately, it was subsequently revealed that Mr. Reynolds use of the Hamdi case was merely window dressing and Mr. Reynolds did not see the need to truly delve into the particulars of the case. This is too bad, because there is a genuine question at the heart of the issue. Does an American citizen, captured while fighting against his country in the field of battle have the same rights of legal representation as if he had been caught robbing the corner store?

The President and his administration, as well as the U.S. Military, believe that a prisoner of war, regardless of citizenship, does not have the same rights as a citizen charged with a criminal act. Others argue that he does have those rights, that he is not an "enemy combatant" but more of an accused criminal, and some even argue that those rights should be extended to non-citizens, such as those currently held in Guantonamo for fighting against the U.S. This is an important argument and the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Hamdi's petition points to potential resolution of the debate.

However, Mr. Reynolds seems most eager to point out that the Court did so "over the objections of the Bush administration and its henchman, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft." As this is the first instance of many assertions made by Mr. Reynolds acusing President Bush of a power grab, it appears as if it is not Hamdi's case in particular that is important. Rather, Hamdi's case is important only in that provides Mr. Reynolds with an opportunity to show that the President is bent on establishing some sort of autocratic rule.

Perhaps this lack of focus on the real debate at the heart of the Hamdi case, combined with the priority that Mr. Reynolds places on asserting that the President is being corrupted by power, is why Mr Reynold's ends up contradicting himself. Later in his piece, Mr. Reynold's asserts that the President is somehow "eradicating the tenets of judicial autonomy," forgetting that he led off his piece with an instance of the Supreme Court proceeding with hearing Hamdi's case despite the Bush Administration's objections. If the President is intimidating the judicial branch to such a degree, how come the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case over the objections of the all-powerful and unchecked President? This internal contradiction in his piece probably explains why Mr. Reynolds cleverly removes any need to provide real supporting data when he states that his piece "does not call for anything specific" because "we haven't reached a point at which there are proposals to debate." Would that be because debate requires that facts be put forth instead of unsubstantiated polemics?

To summarize, Mr. Reynolds, while writing in a fine style with plenty of bold words and impressive literary styling, has warned the reader about a power hungry President with dreams of monarchy. This same President is supported by such "henchman" as John Ashcroft and runs roughshod over the judiciary (as shown by the Supreme Court having agreed to hear a case over the "monarch's" objections). Additionally, as Mr. Reynolds asserts, the "king" attempts to quash political opposition by calling those who oppose him "unpatriotic," yet somehow Mr. Reynolds managed to bravely shed light on the President's autocratic aspiration by utilizing the "free press."

Mr. Reynolds states that his column "calls for conversation" and that "[t]he need is dire." Mr. Reynolds states his hope for a Presidential election filled with true, ideological debate rather than "the catch-phrase-driven, image-conscious politics that have poisoned too many contests." A very interesting proposal given the imagery laden, factually challenged piece to which Mr. Reynolds had just subjected his readers. He calls for a Presidential debate filled with ideological substance over style. He did so in a piece full of literary style and little factual substance.

I'm for a Federal Marriage Amendment

Justin Katz over at Dust in the Light sorta/kinda responded to some of my post on gay marriage. He's been fighting the battle against the likes of Andrew Sullivan for quite some time and is understandably exhibiting some attributes of burnout. He pointed out a letter to the editor at the ProJo from Richard A. Matera (Providence) that ran today. To pull from Justin's post:

"If the courts are saying that all couples, regardless of who they are, are entitled to the rights of marriage granted by the state, then the religious ceremony should be separated from the civil. This would preserve marriage as defined by religious groups while opening it up to everyone. (It would mean that those having a religious ceremony would also need a civil ceremony.)"

My argument does run similar to this, but I maintain that the religious ceremony for heterosexuals would automatically be legal. Now, I suppose some of the more liberal Protestant religions, or at least some churches therein, would (and have) allowed gay marriage. This would result in the perception that my solution creates a double standard. How come gays getting "married" in a church wouldn't be automatically legal whereas heterosexual, religious ceremonies would be legal. How can this be separate but equal? That's a valid point. I will attempt to address it a bit later.

Justin goes on to point out a "fatal flaw" in my "more-reasonable" approach (other than the one just mentioned):

"... Mr. Matera cuts right to the fatal flaw in Marc's more-reasonable approach: this movement is subversive to its core. There are no two ways about it. In order to force affirmation of a minority lifestyle, homosexual activists and utopianist dictator-in-a-bottle liberals will push culturally established, nationally understood acceptance of religious ceremonies out of the public square. To liberate sex from the restraints of parenthood and responsibility, religion must go in the closet.

It wouldn't, apparently, be good enough to declare that homosexuals can be married by whoever will marry them, whether religious or secular; either the movement will seek to force churches and synagogs to perform the ceremonies, or they will, as Matera has suggested, seek to make religious ceremonies irrelevant in the civil sphere. That somebody as considerate, respectful of religion, and conservative as Marc has come darn close to the same solution shows how persuasive the argument could be."

Justin is correct, it is a persuasive argument. But I think my insistence on the fact that religious, heterosexual marriages are automatically legal compared to the not-automatically-legal religious "gay marriage" is my line in the sand. Yet, again, how is this rationally, logically, consistent. I'm afraid it might not be. And I guess that's the rub. My priority isn't on "equal", I guess. Instead, my priority is on limiting the power of a minority to dictate to the majority a new set of rules that, in the eyes of many, would sully a cherished institution.

My point is not whether "gay marriage" is right or wrong, my point is that those on both sides have a right to legal union between two consenting adults. But I note that I often hear of how the "religious right" just wants to foist its views and morality onto others. Well, isn't this a case of a different morality being foisted upon others? Must a time-honored interpretation of a valuable institution have its definition altered because of the desires of a minority? At what point does perceived equality become paramount, even if it impinges upon the religious rights of others to practice their faith, including maintaining cherished institutions (such as marriage) as they define them? Especially if there is a method of accomplishing the goals of equality in a legal way, one in which legally-bonded homosexuals will have the same rights and privileges as married heterosexuals. It's called a civil union. But that may just be the problem. It's not called "marriage."

Could it be that it really is just about the word "marriage?" That "gay marriage" proponents feel that "marriage" must be the term applied to their desired legal union? That only that one word, "marriage," confers legitimacy upon their legal union and without the word, they will feel like their union is somehow second class? This thinking is flawed in many areas. Whether they think that calling a legal union between two homosexuals "marriage" would confer legitimacy or not, those who oppose the idea would never, in their hearts and minds, consider their "gay marriage" on equal terms as that of a heterosexual marriage. To my mind, the important thing is that homosexuals attain legal, equal rights and all of the privileges thereof via some sort of civil union. A term does not automatically confer legitimacy. All it will do is antagonize those who will never recognize you as truly married. But, they may be more inclined to recognize that you have legal rights equal to those who are married if they don't feel you are jamming your definition of "marriage" down their throat. They will tolerate you, never accept you. As a conservative, I feel like I'm being merely "tolerated" every day I live in Rhode Island! The right to be left alone is all we can really ask for, isn't it?

Another point is that many would probably refer to you as "married" anyway, even if you "only" had a civil union. Perhaps this semantical argument is just too shallow, but I think it probably has a ring of truth. Instead of going for the home run, "gay marriage" advocates can "settle" for a three-run double; you can get all of the rights of a married heterosexual couple. Sure, it's a "civil union," but you and your friends and like minded people will probably just call you "married" anyway. You can even find a church to have the ceremony in. No state or national government is going to make it illegal for homosexuals to have a church wedding ceremony. If this sounds condescending, it isn't meant to be. But if all of the religious trappings are there, doesn't that satisfy any desire for religious approval that you may have? In summary, you can have a civil union, with equal rights to married people; you can have a religious ceremony, which in and of itself doesn't make your union legal, but does cast religious approval over your union. How is this not really "marriage?" Just because some "right-wing wacko envangelicals" say it isn't? Since when did you worry about what they thought? Remember, you'll get equal rights as a couple and have the option (as you do now, if you can find a willing minister) of a real "church wedding." Haven't you gotten everything you wished for?

But I miss the point again. This is about the state defining marriage for all to include unions between any two consenting adults; straight, gay, or otherwise. Maybe Justin was right when he said:

"In order to force affirmation of a minority lifestyle, homosexual activists and utopianist dictator-in-a-bottle liberals will push culturally established, nationally understood acceptance of religious ceremonies out of the public square. To liberate sex from the restraints of parenthood and responsibility, religion must go in the closet."

Does the government have a right to redefine something on a large scale based on the request of a minority without the consent of a majority? Isn't this what was meant by a "tyranny of the minority?" This brings me right back to some sort of Federal Marriage Amendment. Here is an excerpt from a column from David Limbaugh that sums up my feelings on the necessity for an FMA (my emphasis in bold):

"Congress passed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1997. This law provides that, consistent with the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, federal territories and possessions and states may refuse to honor same-sex relationships that are treated as marriage under the laws of other states.

The FMA would go further by constitutionally defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Amendment would forbid Congress, state legislatures, and federal and state courts from recognizing same-sex marriage. It would also prohibit the courts from sanctioning civil unions, while state legislatures would be free to do so. One of the purposes of the Amendment was to prevent activist courts, like the Massachusetts Supreme Court, from 'legislating' into legitimacy same-sex marriages or unions.

Some conservatives oppose the FMA, believing it doesn't go far enough because it wouldn't restrict Congress and state legislatures from recognizing civil unions, which they believe severely diminish the institution of marriage. Proponents of the Amendment argue that it goes just far enough. It expressly preserves traditional marriage and prohibits judicially created assaults on the institution, yet leaves the decision to sanction civil unions in the hands of the state legislatures, where it ought to be in a federalist system.

I understand the argument that we should leave this decision to states, which have always had sovereignty over family law matters. But if a federal constitutional amendment prohibiting legislatures as well as courts from indirectly undermining traditional marriage by sanctioning civil unions or domestic partnerships could pass under the rigorous amendment procedures our constitution requires, I don't think the principle of federalism or state's rights would be significantly compromised. After all, in the ratification process, an overwhelming majority of states will have spoken democratically.

. . . And while the FMA would still allow state legislatures to recognize civil unions, it would not permit them to recognize same-sex marriages."

David Limbaugh also offers that "we must understand that homosexual activists consider marriage itself as the hill to die on." I guess this is where I have the biggest problem with the "gay marriage" advocates. Just as I disagree with those who would bar homosexuals even from civil unions, I disagree just as much with those who seek to redefine a cherished institution against the will of a majority in the name of equality. Especially when some seem to be doing it just because others cherish the current definition. Some seem to be taking joy in upsetting the apple cart.

I maintain that there is a middle ground. It is derived from something this country has traditionally had a deep reservoir of: pragmatism. American pragmatism may be dying as we find ourselves stratifying to the "left" and to the "right." I confess that I am most often one of those in the latter, but in this case, I'm on the side of compromise. Maybe it is "straddling the fence," but I do empathize with both sides. However, because my conservative nature and distrust of the activist left is strong, I hold that it is important to support enaction of a safeguard against any slippery slope down which the radicals would like to take us. Therefore, I favor a Federal Marriage Amendment. If the "gay marriage" advocates can one day muster up enough support to overturn such a law, than they, and their concept of "gay marriage," will have already gained widespread acceptance in this country.

I Favor Civil Unions

Gay marriage...I guess I'll go ahead and weigh in. First, I can't conclusively say whether homosexuality is a choice or is more of a genetic-type lifestyle. I'm inclined to believe the latter, so let's put it at 10% I think it may be a choice compared 90% sure it isn't. Truthfully, though, I don't think whether it's a choice or not is germane to the topic of "Gay Marriage."

As an educated, tolerant and rational individual, I concur that homosexuals have a right to a legal, civil or government recognized bond just as do heterosexuals. I believe that the nature of such a homosexual union can be defined so that it is limited in the same way as are heterosexual (ie; no polygamy, incest, marriage to minors, etc. is allowed), if it isn't already implicitly recognized that such is the case. In short, homosexuals have just as much right as heterosexuals to commit themselves to a legal union. My rationale comes from nothing other than an applicatoin of reason to the topic. If we are to accept that homosexuals are equal, than they should be accorded all of the rights that others enjoy.

I believe that deeply religious people have strong convictions and have a right to disapprove of homosexual unions. Reasonable religious people (be they Christian, Jew or Muslim) can "hate the sin and forgive the sinner" and are tolerant of homosexuals, if not their lifestyle. They believe in the teachings in the Torah, Bible, or Koran, holding them up as the center of their morality and believe that they state that homosexuality is a sin and not acceptable. They uphold the institution of marriage as a sacred union, more in the domain of the church than the state. To them it is a moral entity not a civil one. They believe that to allow those who they believe are sinners to be morally sanctioned by being allowed to marry would be a sin and against the tenets of their religion(s).

Marriage was "institutionalized" by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. In a common tactic, the Catholic hierarchy co-opted a heretofore Pagan ritual and legitimized it to assist in the conversion of heretics. Over the centuries, its nature as a fundamentally religious sacrament has been recognized and embraced. Although it is notable that after the Reformation, some Protestan sects, such as the Puritans, actually did not believe in a church marriage ceremony as it smelled too much of "popery," the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country has recognized marriage as a legal institution. As such, marriage has become firmly placed in the domain of both civil and moral jurisdiction. Regardless of the history of the institution, be it ancient, medieval, colonial or modern, the fact is that now marriage is regarded by secularists as an essentially legal entity and by the religious as an essentially moral and religious entity. This is where the conflict lies.

Neither side will be able to compromise their principled position on this matter. I truly see that both sides have reasonable arguments. The religious hold marriage as mostly sacred, the secular hold it as mostly legal. For those secularists who favor gay marriage to impugn those they oppose (whose opposite stance is based on deeply felt religious convictions) as "bigots" and "close-minded" and the like are unfair and exhibit a lack of sympathy for deeply held religious beliefs as well as, dare I say, intolerance. Those religious people who would refuse that homosexuals have a right to a legal union don't have a rational argument from a legal standpoint and are also exhibiting a degree of intolerance.

What is the solution? A civil union. Yes, it's a comprimise, and may have problems of its own. To my mind, the preferred method would be to allow the people of each state decide, either through their duly elected representatives or referendum, whether they want "gay marriage" or not.

(*Note on the Massachusetts' Supreme Court decision. Massachusetts Law made no provision for Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court made the assumption that as such Gay Marriage is condoned. Why didn't they conclude that, because there was no provision in the law addressing homosexual marriage, then it was up to the Mass. Legislature to define marriage such that homosexual marriage is included. In other words, why is the burden of proof, so to speak, on those who seek to maintain the status quo and not on those who seek to change it?)

Again, even if a particular state legislature should decide to ban gay marriage or define a civil union as the equivalent of heterosexual marriage, it wouldn't stand on its own. Should another state legislature condone gay marriage as defined by its current proponents, the "Full faith and credit clause" of the Constitution would be used to apply the broader definition nationwide. In other words, regardless of the decision of a particular sovereign state, it would have to submit to the dictates of other states.

This leads to the enactment of some form of Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This is a course I personally don't favor, but in the spirit of compromise, it may be the only solution. Obviously, the Amendment would have to be worded in such a way as to establish that legal union and marriage are the same thing, but that marriage is solely the legal union of a man and a woman while a civil union can be between any two consenting adults (or something similar). I realize this is the concept at its most simplistic, but the exact Amendment proposals can probably be found elsewhere. So, a so-called FMA would be one solution.

Another solution would be to take marriage out of the civil domain altogether. Everyone simply has a legal, civil union and marriage becomes simply a religious ceremony. It would confer no legal right and would be relegated to the status of a religious tradition. I'm fairly certain that the latter is unacceptable to all. To the religious for obvious reasons; to homosexuals and their supporters this would be undesirable because they seem to be seeking the implicit endorsement of their status that the term "marriage" confers. This leads to another point; maybe the problem does really just boil down to the word: MARRIAGE. Perhaps the solution would be as simple as making two types: Civil Marriage and Holy Marriage (or something like that, just be careful not to call it Secular Marriage, or S.M., may not work ;).

Attempts to equate this debate to that of Civil Rights are irresponsible. Civil Union and Marriage are not a Separate but Equal argument in the same vein as the entirety of our segregationist past. How is a simple, legal document stating that homosexuals are legally joined and have all of the rights that such a union entails somehow less legal, less equal than legal marriage? Blacks experienced inferior services, dwellings, etc. How can a legal concept such as civil unions somehow be inferior if it is clearly defined as equal to marriage. Are there degrees of legality in a conceptual or metaphysical plane?

Perhaps the real irony is that some of those who fight against the perceived attempts of the "religious" to push religion on those who don't subscribe to it are at the same time pushing their "religion," secularism, upon those same "religious." Neither side should push their view upon the other. Maybe this is the only instance, but separate but equal would truly be a solution given that it is strictly a concept, an idea, not a tangible, physically concrete entity.

Finally, I believe that the proponents of gay marriage have needlessly approached this from an antagonistic angle. They have essentially attempted to ram this idea down the throats of the public. Most Americans are tolerant. They don't really care, but if their cherished institutions, as they define them, whether historically accurate or not, are perceived to be under attack, they will resist. Polls indicate that the country is at least marginally against gay marriage. To most it is still an abstraction. It has been shown this past week in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal, and presumably gay marriage-friendly states in the nation, that passionate debate will break out as this issue reaches each state. It is by no means a slam-dunk for either side in Massachusetts. In fact, right now, the Constitutional Convention regarding this issue has been suspended for a cooling off period. Attempts to include provisions for civil unions have been rejected by both sides. This failure to compromise indicates the entrenched, all-or-nothing positions staked out by both sides. To my mind, compromise is possible, and it is called Civil Union.

***I realize this may be a somewhat rambling treatise, but this is how I feel, off the cuff, with no time to evaluate logically the construction and coherency of the above. Keep this in mind before assailing me on the finer points.

All that needs to be said about Bush's Guard tenure is right here.

Looking back at some old news stories, here's more conspiracy theory stuff for you regarding Iraq and WMD . . .


When the adminstration was making the case for attacking Iraq, they argued that Saddam not only had WMD, but that one day he might want to make more WMD, and this wasn’t acceptable. The administration seemed to be arguing that the potential for future production was itself a valid reason to strike. Military force is never "the first answer,' the President said, “but sometimes it’s the only answer. . .If Saddam isn’t stopped now, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, someway, I guarantee you, he’ll use that arsenal.'”

There was also the fact that this war plan had been prepared weeks before, in case Saddam stiffed the inspectors.

The President had a plan to go to war before the crisis flared! What does that tell you? Obviously, he was looking for any excuse! Halliburton! We all know about the ties between the President and Halliburton – he gave them a sweet no-bid contract , you know.

Meanwhile, there were terrorist links: Hezbollah, for example, swore it would strike Israel if the US attacks Iraq. (A poll of Palestinians showed that 94% supported Iraq, and 77% wanted Iraq to kill Jews if the US attacked Iraq.) Future Presidential candidates were quoted as supporting action but urging the President to seek Congressional Authorization. A story on the former President's reaction said he would completely support his successor if he decided to attack, though he urged to get more international support - which was lacking at the time.

If you haven't figured it out by now, I left out the names on purpose. It was Bill Clinton who was President, the time was February 1998. The real story, with names, is just as powerful and can be found at James Lileks' blog The Bleat. [hat tip Instapundit].

Victor Davis Hanson on National Review Online says:
"Weapons of Mass Hysteria If anything, the war was about 100,000 corpses too late."

Scientists win Kennewick Man ruling as the 9th Circuit Court rejects tribes' appeal to bury ancient bones. This is good news for science, particularly archaeology and history. For more on the Kennewick Man and the controversy surrounding him, try going here, here, and here and for the Native American point of view, try here.

In an editorial called "Arming Red China", the Washington Times points out the cozy nature of relations between those "Old Europe" countries that opposed our action in Iraq and Communist China. Scariest portion:

"During Mr. Hu's visit, Monsieur Chirac criticized Taipei for stoking tensions with mainland China. It was overlooked that it is Beijing that has 450 missiles aimed at Taiwan, and not the other way around. It was tacitly acknowledged, however, that the rationale for China's military expansion is to counter American power in the world — a goal that France is now supporting. Both Messers. Hu and Chirac referred to the partnership between their countries as 'strategic,' and the French Foreign Ministry mentioned the leaders' 'convergence of visions' about the need for 'a multi-polar world' in which their nations are not subjected to 'a uni-polar American worldview.'"

Can there be any doubt about the motives of the French? Is this the kind of "International" support that Sen. Kerry et al are criticising the Bush Administration for not courting? Of course, I suppose that the argument would be that because the Bush Administration so badly bungled the diplomacy of Iraq with the French, Chirac felt he had no choice but to turn to China for support against the Imperialist American Regime . . . in so many words.

Uh oh, looks like the FCC is going to launch an investigation into the halftime show.

Hey, didn't this happen already? Who cares? The Pats win again! Meanwhile, the national story isn't the great game, instead, it's all about how Janet Jackson's Superbowl flash, which has ticked many people off. For me, it's not about the Boob, it's about the manner in which it was exposed. Clothes ripped off aren't the kind of positive message that needs to be sent. It also seems much of the outrage is over the fact that the halftime show was essentially a talentless display of hacks playing to the lowest, basest instincts. P-Diddy and his bunch was pretty lame, singing about "I wanna take your clothes off" and Kid Rock wearing the flag. Concerning Kid, I don't think he intended to disprespect the flag or nation, I just think he was ignorant of the fact that the American flag is not supposed to used in such a manner. So, to sum up:

1) P-Diddy and crew - Bad, no talent, just looking to shock with gyrating, booty shaking song.
2) Kid Rock - ignorant attempt at patriotism, needs to learn about the flag rules.
3) Janet/Justin - real nice job, showing how a man can always rip the clothes off of a woman to get what he wants.

I'm glad my kids are a little too young to really understand what was going on. If the NFL wanted a quality halftime show, all they had to do was put the acts on that did the pre-game show. Now that was classy, especially Beyonce and the guy who sang the tributed to the Shuttle astronauts.

Victor Davis Hanson on the Iraq War:

"We are winning a difficult peace. It is not surprising that we have made scores of mistakes, since nation rebuilding in the Middle East has no recent pedigree — not targeting and storming into the Sunni Triangle from the very beginning, distrusting and defaming competent and patriotic Iraqi exiles, allowing thousands to stream in from Iran, dismantling the Iraqi army and police, restraining Americans in war from harming vital infrastructure only to allow Iraqis to ruin it in peace, lax security on captured weapons caches, keeping Iraqis in the shadows while we spoke about their reform, and trying to create a political utopia when the avoidance of tyranny was our real chore. Surely someone in the administration should have been explaining to the American people daily the historical nature of our victory, the critical issues now in play worldwide, and the humane nature of our sacrifice — if only to offer some counterweight to the monotonous negativism of National Public Radio, Nightline, the New York Times, and the Democratic contenders. Instead we have had mostly silence — reticence seen not as Olympian magnanimity, but rather as a sign of weakness that only emboldened critics and fueled the hysteria.

Yet throughout this tumultuous year, what amazes is not that we made errors, or major blunders even — but how quickly we reacted, adjusted, and learned from our mistakes. So we press on, learning as we go, combining power with justice, determined to leave behind something better than we found. We are comforted by knowing that for all the current yelling from Democratic candidates, our own intelligentsia, and the European mainstream, this has not been a war of conquest or exploitation, but something altogether different — a needed effort that, if we see it through, will end up doing a great deal of good for everyone involved.

Our efforts in Iraq to remove a genocidal murderer and inaugurate democracy are not a 'quagmire,' but one of the brightest moments in recent American history — and we need not be ashamed to say that, again and again and again."

This is the conclusion, for the whole thing, please go read it. VDH has a way of putting things succinctly that is simply brilliant.

One other, related thing I've been wondering about. If Bush lied to go to war in Iraq, why did he want to go to war? Are we really supposed to believe it was for oil? Or, as Howard Dean offered, the President wanted to get even with Saddam for Bush, Sr.? I haven't heard a really good legitimization for why the President would have lied to get into war.

ABCNEWS is on board with the list of 270 oil-for-food Saddam supporters. This is starting to snowball.

This is a good column by Dan Gillmor on a resource I use regularly called Wikipedia. I even contributed a bit on the article on Psychohistory. I was unaware that there were other "Wikis" out there until this article. A quote:

"Wikipedia, an encyclopedia created and operated by volunteers, is one of the most fascinating developments of the Digital Age. In just over three years of existence, it has become a valuable resource and an example of how the grass roots in today's interconnected world can do extraordinary things.

Almost anyone can be a contributor to the Wikipedia. Almost anyone can edit almost any page. (Only serious misbehavior gets people banned.) Thousands of people around the world have added their expertise, and new volunteers show up every day.

It defies first-glance assumptions. After all, one might imagine, if anyone can edit anything, surely cyber-vandals will wreck it. Surely flame wars over article content will stymie good intentions. And, of course, the articles will all be amateurish nonsense. Right?

Well, no.

Wikipedia does have its flaws -- including recent hardware problems that have made the site hard to use pending the installation of new server computers. But its very nature protects it from some of those other woes, and it has emerged as a credible resource.

Wikipedia is based on a kind of software called Wiki. A Wiki allows any user to edit any page. It keeps track of every change. Anyone can follow the changes in detail.

A Wiki engenders a community when it works correctly. And a community that has the right tools can take care of itself.

The Wikipedia articles tend to be neutral in tone, and when the topic is controversial, they will explain the varying viewpoints in addition to offering the basic facts. When anyone can edit what you've just posted, such fairness becomes essential.

`The only way you can write something that survives is that someone who's your diametrical opposite can agree with it,' says Jimmy Wales, a founder of Wikipedia."

Wales is right. They have flags that note if a topic is "controversial" and the user can view the debate. All and all, pretty cool.

Justin Katz has an interesting article about the Kay report over at Tech Central Station.

"Today's lull in the presidential campaign affords us an opportunity to look at the latest developments in the weird postwar debate over Iraq, in which certain American and British politicians and journalists, for reasons of partisanship, ideology or self-aggrandizement, have for months been trying to transform victory over Saddam Hussein into defeat for America and its allies." Go to OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today for a good, comprehensive wrap-up.

Paul Berman is accused of being a traitor to the liberal cause for supporting the President on Iraq and rebuts the attack while having 'A Friendly Drink in a Time of War' in the pages of Dissent Magazine.

I've been busy, hence the lack of posts, but I did catch this one. Apparently, according to some Iraqi newspapers, Saddam bribed Chirac with oil money. Wow! What a surprise! And Chirac wasn't alone either. This guy has some more information on the Russian links. Also, Hammorabi is an Iraqi blogger who delves a little deeper into who took what, but MEMRI has the best breakdown of all. Here are a few that I pulled from MEMRI about some of our "friends":

Canada: Arthur Millholland, president and CEO of the Calgary-based Oilexco company, received 1 million barrels of oil.

United States: Samir Vincent received 10.5 million barrels. In 2000, Vincent, an Iraqi-born American citizen who has lived in the U.S. since 1958, organized a delegation of Iraqi religious leaders to visit the U.S. and meet with former president Jimmy Carter. Shaker Al-Khafaji, the pro-Saddam chairman of the 17th conference of Iraqi expatriates, received 1 million barrels.

Great Britain: George Galloway received 1 million barrels.

France: The French-Arab Friendship Association received 15.1 million barrels. Former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua received 12 million barrels. Patrick Maugein of the Trafigura company received 25 million barrels. Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club, received 17.1 million barrels.

Brazil: The 8th of October Movement, a Brazilian Communist group, received 4.5 million barrels. Fuwad Sirhan received 10 million barrels.

The Indian Congress Party received 1 million barrels.

Russia: The Russian state itself received 1,366,000,000 barrels. The list also included the following:

Companies belonging to the Liberal Democratic Party received 79.8 million barrels - the list notes the name of party president Vladimir Zhirinovsky. The Russian Communist Party received 1 million barrels. The Lukoil company received 63 million barrels. The Russneft company received 35.5 million barrels. Vladimir Putin's Peace and Unity Party received 34 million barrels - the list notes the name of party chairwoman Saji Umalatova. The Gazprom company received 26 million barrels. The Soyuzneftgaz company received 25.5 million barrels - the list notes the name Shafrannik. The Moscow Oil Company received 25.1 million barrels. The Onako company received 22.2 million barrels. The Sidanco company received 21.2 million barrels. The Russian Association for Solidarity with Iraq received 12.5 million barrels. The Ural Invest company received 8.5 million barrels. Russneft Gazexport received 12.5 million barrels. The Transneft company received 9 million barrels. The Sibneft company received 8.1 million barrels. The Stroyneftgaz company received 6 million barrels. The Russian Committee for Solidarity with the People of Iraq received 6.5 million barrels - the list notes the name of committee chairman Rudasev. The Russian Orthodox Church received 5 million barrels. The Moscow Science Academy received 3.5 million barrels. The Chechnya Administration received 2 million barrels. The National Democratic Party received 2 million barrels. The Nordwest group received 2 million barrels. The Yukos company received 2 million barrels. One Russian company which phonetically reads as Zarabsneft received 174.5 million barrels. Vouchers were also granted to the Russian foreign ministry, one under the name of Al-Fayko for 1 million barrels, and one to Yetumin for 30.1 million barrels. The Mashinoimport Company received 1 million barrels. The Slavneft Company received 1 million barrels. The Caspian Invest Company (Kalika) received 1 million barrels. The Tatneft Tatarstan company received 1 million barrels. The Surgutneft company received 1 million barrels. Siberia's oil and gas company received 1 million barrels.

In addition, the son of the former Russian Ambassador to Iraq received 19.7 million barrels. Nikolay Ryjkov, a former prime minister of the USSR, received 13 million barrels. The Russian President's office director received 5 million barrels.


These are just a few. MEMRI has many more with sources cited.

It seems like many of the defenders and go-slow champions seem to have had less than entirely pure motives. Like I said before, imagine that!

I neglected to blog about the death of Captain Kangaroo, but it was felt, as much as the passing of Mr. Rogers. Streetcarmike.com does a good page on all things Captain. I started many a day with the Captain. He'll be missed. I only wish he could have lasted longer, both on the air and off. I'm sure my kids would have loved him.

One question, given that David Kay has said that he found no evidence, much less stockpiles, of WMD, does this mean Bush lied? I don't think so, but it does skewer the logic of the Bush haters who say he "conspired" and "lied" about the threat. How so? Well, if Bush is so evil, so conspiratorial with all of his "Imperial" power, don't you think he would have been sure that we would have found WMD ? Also, it wasn't only the US intelligence agencies that missed this one, apparently a whole bunch of others, including many in the UN missed also missed it. It's also important to restate, even if he didn't have WMD, why didn't Saddam say so? Spare me the "saving face" argument or the theory that he was hoodwinked by his own scientists. It was up to him to come clean, not up to the UN to prove he had none. This doesn't mean I excuse the obvious problems that appear to exist within the CIA. They need to be fixed. The President and his Administration should come forward and say so. On the other had, there can be no doubt that without pressure from the US and the UN "inspection regime," Saddam would have restared his WMD programs in a heartbeat. The war was justified. Iraq is and will be a better place for the average Iraqi now. Patience and persistance will prevail.

Bush to propose spending freeze says the Washington Times. Let's hope he sticks to this. The only problem I have with the President is his proclivity to spend. Now, this is still far outweighed by his leadership in the War on Terror and his other foreign policies, but it does cause some concern. I'm not sure about Keynsian economics (Boilerplate: in times of economic downturn, deficit spending is ok to spur the economy) as I'm not really an economist and I'm interested in looking closer at the economic theories of Hayek...but that will have to wait while I research the American Enlightenment, The Imperial Wars during the Colonial Era in the U.S., the French and Indian War and even a little bit of Medieval Women's literature. Phew. Meanwhile, only a little more than a week until 38. <-- (You should know what that means.)

Terrence O. Moore of the Claremont Institute has an interesting essay about "The Sons of Murphy Brown" and how they are either "Wimps" or "Barbarians." He begins:

"More than a decade ago the nation was in a stir over the birth of a fictional boy. The boy was Avery, son of Murphy Brown. Television's Murphy Brown, played by Candice Bergen, was a successful news commentator who, after an unsuccessful relationship with a man that left her alone and pregnant, bore a son out of wedlock. The event, popular enough in its own right, became the center of political controversy when then Vice President Dan Quayle in a speech to the Commonwealth Club of California lamented that the show was "mocking the importance of a father." Suddenly the nation polarized over this question of 'family values.' But the controversy over Murphy Brown's childbearing soon died down. The characters on the show became more interested in Murphy's hairstyle than her baby, as did perhaps Murphy, who eventually found a suitable nanny in her painter so she could pursue her career without abatement. The show was off the air before Murphy's son would have been seven. Vice President Quayle was not reelected. Eleven years later, it is worth pondering what might have happened to Avery had this story not been just a television show. More to the point, what is happening today to our boys and young men who come from 'families' not unlike Murphy's and who find the nation as divided now as it was then over the 'values' by which we ought to raise them?"

What does Moore think happened? Two things, some became "Barbarians" and some became "Wimps." The essay describes the differences, here is a sample of how they differ in relating to the opposite sex:

"... the wimp may take an interest in the opposite sex. But his approach to dating and relationships is different from the barbarian. The barbarian has simple appetites. His ideal is the Playboy playmate or the winner of a hot legs contest at Daytona Beach, and his ultimate aim in any relationship or encounter, whatever he may say, is sex. As an athlete, the barbarian is a hero of sorts. He walks with an unmistakable air of confidence. The wimp, on the other hand, has more complex reasons for wanting women. Although sex is certainly one of his desires, more than sex he needs affirmation. He desperately needs a girlfriend to boost his self-confidence. Having someone else notice him will somehow show the world that he is not a total loser. The wimp also needs someone to hear his laments, to commiserate with him when he is feeling down, to discover his secret self. Since he has few qualities or achievements to recommend him, he seeks to appear 'interesting' or mysterious. Initially, the wimp might seem amusing to an unsuspecting young lady and very different from the insensitive jocks and rowdies she has known. Ultimately, however, the wimp seeks to draw her into his web of melancholy and self-pity. The story always ends unhappily since romance cannot be based upon pity or the thin facade of personality. He might mope and whine his way into a woman's bed but will find excuses to avoid 'commitment.' The wimp will begin the relationship by saying, 'You're the only one who understands me' and end it by saying, 'You don't understand me at all.' The truth is that there is not much to understand."

He explains how we came to this, mostly from changing the way we raise our boys at home, in school and in society as a whole. He closes with this about what Murphy Brown's son may be going through now:

"So how is Murphy Brown's little Avery doing? He is 11 now. He has grown up under an overbearing mother who has occasionally brought men home, though none has stayed. While Murphy has pursued her successful career, Avery has been showered with material possessions to give him something to do during the long stretches of the day when he finds himself at home alone or left to an indifferent nanny, finished with his half hour of easy homework, which his mother will check over and often redo for him after they have eaten the pizza or take-out Chinese she picked up on the way home from work. Every time Avery has a problem at school or in the neighborhood, Murphy solves it for him with the same decisiveness she demonstrates at the network, thus proving to her son and to herself that she is a good mother.

Avery has posters on his wall of Eminem, Kobe Bryant, and Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit. He is becoming interested in girls but is still too shy to say much to them. Still, he has learned a lot about women on the internet, and his favorite rap songs tell him precisely how to relate to women and what women want. His mother, for her part, has told him a lot about the value of "respecting people." Avery has never been hunting or fishing. True, Avery and his mother used to have fun times at the park and on trips when she could get away from work, but now he is beginning to pull away from her when she rubs his head in an affectionate way. They are not as close as they used to be.

The next few, crucial years of Avery's life will determine what kind of man he will be. Will he rest in wretched contentment with the ease and luxury provided by his oft-absent, deep-voiced mother, or will he rebel with other boys his own age, raised much like him, by finding his own rites of passage in drugs and sex and acts of petty delinquency, or worse? Will he become a wimp or a barbarian?"

Victor Davis Hanson notes that "the president realizes that his singular leadership in this deadly struggle is such that unease elsewhere with his budget and immigration initiatives must remain for most of us just that — unease. Where the president is great the opposition is pathetic; and where he is on weak ground, they are still weaker — as evidenced by the collective ankle biting of Dean, Clark, and Kerry and the responses of Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle." My sentiments exactly.

Australian Caroline Overington lets her readers know this about Americans: they like Bush, and they are not stupid . She points out something many non-Americans either fail to see or ignore:

"Because I live in New York, I rarely get to hear the voice of this majority. Instead, I get magazines such as Vanity Fair, which last month had a column by the editor angrily listing statistics from the war in Iraq. Such as: number of American soldiers killed: 500. Number of weapons of mass destruction found: 0.

But, as some readers pointed out, there were statistics missing from the list. These include: number of mass graves uncovered in Iraq: around 260, containing as many as 20,000 bodies. Number of people liberated from brutal, murderous leadership: 12 million. And number of times Bush lied about receiving oral sex from a White House intern: 0."

Europeans and the world at large receive much of their information from these very same people in publications in cities like New York, LA, or Washington. Hence the view that not even we like or support our President. The belief is not tha America is a force for good in the world, but rather a pseudo-Imperial Hegemon led by a dumb, cowboy who is supported by culturally crass, ugly Americans. Caricatures such as that are tired and old and only expose those who hold them as ignorant. To those of you who think you know all about America from what you hear from New York media outlets or the BBC, I encourage you to shake-up your sources for information on America. Read some newspapers from the heartland online. Blogs are also a good source, BUT, to be honest, they are often written by those espousing one or other extreme who too often have turned a deaf ear to arguments opposed to their own. There are good ones, but when reading blogs, one should approach them with a critical eye, as they should all other media sources.

But that isn't really what Overington's column is about. She goes on to detail an encounter on an airplane:

"I remember sitting on a small plane, travelling from North Carolina to New York, when the war was a few weeks old. I was reading USA Today and, as I opened it to study a map of Iraq, one half of the newspaper fell into the lap of my fellow passenger. I turned to apologise, but he said: 'No problem. Actually, do you mind if I have a look?' Together we studied the picture, trying to work out how far the Americans were from seizing power. It was clear from the diagrams that troops were near Saddam's airport, and close to the centre of Baghdad. I turned to my seat mate and said: 'I don't think this is going to be a long battle, after all.' It was only then that I noticed, with horror, that he had started to cry. And then I noticed something else: a photograph, wrapped in plastic, pinned to his lapel. It was a picture of his 20-year-old son, a young marine who died in the first days of the war. The man's wife was sitting across the aisle from us. She had a round bowl on her lap, filled with water and some drooping tulips. The movement of the aircraft was making the water slop around. She was trying to wipe her hands, and her tears.

The couple told me they had just been to a private meeting with Bush to discuss the loss of their son. At the time, it was already clear that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. 'But I never thought it was about the weapons,' my seat mate said. And, although I can't remember his exact words, he also said something like: 'We have always stood up for freedom, in our own country, and for other people.'"

Touching and it really gets to the heart of the matter, as Overington further explains:

"Any student of history knows that this is true. America saved the Western world from communism. America saved Australia and, for that matter, France from a system that would stop you from reading this newspaper. Americans support the war in Iraq and, by extension, Bush because they see it as part of a bigger picture. Like everybody, they now know that Saddam was not the threat they thought he was (at least, not to them) but they still think it was a good idea to deal with him, before he became one. The price of freedom is high. You might think you would not sacrifice your life for it, but maybe you don't have to. After all, 20-year-old Americans are doing it for you, every day."

How true. This is not meant as an attack on our European Allies, but maybe it is a reminder that, yes, the United States may be the biggest kid on the block, but all in all, it's not a bully...more like the brother who watches out for his siblings and doesn't necessarily ask for anything in return. (By the way, I can hear the sarcastic saying, "Yea, Big Brother, hahahah," but I believe they are only looking to obfuscate the truth of what I say with pithy remarks.) Sure, a lot of the benefits gained by other countries for the United States' committment to its own agenda can be considered accidental, but they are still tangible. In working towards a safer and more democratic world, the U.S. is not only securing its own interests, it is doing the same for the world.

Victor Davis Hanson has a take on the Immigration policy proposed by President Bush. He is against it and explains why in his usual, logical style.

Next stop: Super Bowl

Charles Krauthammer explains the President's Modest Proposal for space exploration. I am an advocate, and Krauthammer puts it better then me:

"Establishing the first human habitation on a celestial body would not just allow for extraordinarily interesting science (from geology to astronomy) and be the locus for extraterrestrial manufacture. It would be -- those without an ounce of romance in their souls are advised to skip the rest of this sentence -- the most glorious human adventure since the Age of Exploration five centuries ago. "

I'm a Sci-Fi kinda guy, always have been. I'm also a "dreamer" (even Conservatives can dream) and have hopes for humanity greater than what can be attained on this world. Man has, is and always will be an explorer. It's time we rediscovered that core human characteristic.

This Russian girl may be the first real Mutant! Quick, contact Professor X!

Robert Roy Britt, Senior Science Writer for Spac.com writes today at MSNBC about the cost of humans on the moon and Mars. His tagline is that "Bush must quickly reorganize plans, fund one focus," and the best pull is this:

"The money is there
The 2004 federal budget is $2.2 trillion. NASA's is $15.5 billion. Reasonable estimates suggest the space agency's share of the pie would need to rise gradually to $20 billion within a few years if footprints are to be made in Martian dust within a generation.

First, Bush aides say, the plan will call for a return to the Moon, in part so new technology critical to a Mars mission can be tested.

In 1995, NASA scientists and engineers developed a plan to put astronauts back on the Moon by 2001 for $3 billion or less. Other estimates nowadays put the cost at around $15 billion over five years.

That's $3 billion a year. NASA has the money.

About half of the agency's budget is already spent directly on human spaceflight. Nearly $4 billion is earmarked annually for the shuttle program. The cost of the space station is elusive, but it exceeds $1 billion each year. Another $2 billion or more goes to supporting research and maintaining the infrastructure needed for all human spaceflight activity."

Finally, here is a Glance at Bush Immigration Changes Plan as well as a summary of the President's speech on the matter. More fodder for thought.

In October of 2002, Dan Griswold published an apparently comprehensive study that addresses many of the issues mentioned below. You can find the pdf file here. I'm digesting it myself and will remark more later.

I am initially inclined to tepidly support the President's new immigration policy, as I believe that there are just some jobs that the average American worker won't do, like picking apples or lettuce, or doing menial labor, etc. It sounds kind of elitist, but it seems true. Lo and behold, Mark Krikorian at National Review Online has an illuminating column titled, er...Jobs Americans Won't Do. Very interesting stuff.

I'm a dreamer, ok, so I dig this Mars stuff. Here's the first picture taken by the Mars rover Spirit.

The American Thinker is a new website I just found. It revisits the "stolen" election of 2000 to remind us all of what really happened. It's a long article, but this is the important part:

"The US Supreme Court decision over-ruling the Florida Supreme Court had two parts: the first a 7 to 2 vote over-ruling the vote counting system established by the Florida Supreme Court ; the second a 5 to 4 vote, requiring the vote count to be concluded almost immediately so that Florida could participate in the Electoral College process.

Had the second decision been 5 to 4 the other way, it is likely that the Florida count would not have been concluded in time for the state to determine a winner and select a slate of electors to the Electoral College. In that case, one of two scenarios would have played out. One is that the Florida legislature, Republican dominated, would have selected the Bush electors to vote in the Electoral College. Alternatively, no Florida electors would have been selected, and neither Bush nor Gore would have won a majority of the Electoral College vote. In that case, the US House of Representatives, voting by states (as in 1824), would have picked Bush since the GOP controlled more state delegations than the Democrats. So even if the 5-4 portion of the U.S. Supreme Court decision had gone the other way, Bush would still have become our President. "

Somehow I missed this one before...VDH strikes again! Victor Davis Hanson on War & Europe on National Review Online

Ah yes, the end of the year. To do something a bit different, and for pure mindless posterity, here are my 30 favorite albums of all time, updated to include 2003. Two rules: NO Greatest Hits and only one instance per artist. First, we start with the 20 Indispensibles and then the 10 "Desert Island Disks." Read on...

30. Aldo Nova - Aldo Nova: Highlights include "Fantasy" and "Ball and Chain." Pure Jr. High memories for me.

29. The Offspring - Smash: Punk meets sardonic wittiness. Hard, fast and funny songs highlighted by the ode-to-the-whipped, "Self Esteem."

28. REO Speedwagon - High Infidelity: Ahhh, Jr. High dances wouldn't have been the same without this piece of vinyl and it's anchoring hit "Keep On Loving You."

27. Journey - Escape: Or, for that matter, this piece of vinyl and it's anchoring hit "Open Arms."

26. Def Leppard - Hysteria: It was either this or "Pyromania," but the guy drummed with one arm on this one and the title track was a great power ballad.

25. Soul Asylum - Grave Dancers Union: Much more than just "Runaway Train" with "Black Gold" also standing out. It was also the peak of their career.

24. Tears For Fears - Songs From the Big Chair: My first real experience with "Alternative" music before it really became known as such. Just "Shout."

23. Fast Times at Ridgemont High - Soundtrack: A double album with a who's who of early 80's from Hagar to Oingo Boingo to Marshall Tucker.

22. Meat Loaf - Bat Out of Hell: We all need a little "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" don't we?

21. R.E.M. - Eponymous: OK, it is technically a greatest hits, but the songs are from a bunch of indie label offerings, so it counts to me.

20. Foreigner - 4: I always wanted to be a "Jukebox Hero" and "Urgent" has that classic saxophone solo, but "Break it Up" always stuck out for me.

19. J. Geils Band - Freeze Frame: "Centerfold" was the anchor, but "Freeze Frames" synth riff and the weird "River Blindness" sticks with you.

18. The Black Crowes - Shake Your Money Maker: "Twice as Hard" was the best track, but "She Talks to Angels" garnered the acclaim.

17. The Outfield - Bangin': Not the album with "Your Love," but the follow up. Mindless pop with catchy riffs highlighted by "Since You've Been Gone."

16. Bob Seger - Nine Tonight: Great Live album, and until recently the only place to hear "Trying to Live My Life Without You" and a lot of his other hits.

15. Third Eye Blind - Third Eye Blind: Debut with a slew of pop hits, best being the overplayed-but-catchy "Semi-Charmed Life" and "Jumper."

14. The Cars - The Cars: "Just What I Needed" and "My Best Friends Girl" just remind me of carefree summers as a youth.

13. Corey Hart - Young Man Running: The artistic zenith of this singer/songwriter who is perpetually overshadowed by his early MTV image.

12. Goo Goo Dolls - A Boy Named Goo: It hung around long enough for "Name" to finally break this bands career open. Many more good rock songs.

11. U2 - Joshua Tree: It's slipped over the years, but it turned me on to this great band and "With or Without" you is so full of delicious angst.

Now for the TOP TEN

10. Boston - Boston: Look, it may seem tired now, but at the time it was THE seminal work. Signature Guitar sound conjures "More Than a Feeling."

9. Big Head Todd & The Monsters - Sister Sweetly: Powerful "Circle" and "Bittersweet" stand out, but Todd Park Mohr's guitar playing is the real highlight.

8. The White Stripes - White Blood Cells: "Dead Leaves & The Dirty Ground" is still their best song ever and "I Can't Wait" is neo-classic rock at its best.

7. Led Zeppelin - IV: (Or whatever you want to call it) Yeah, "Stairway to Heaven" and all that. It just set the standard.

6. Guns-n-Roses - Appetite for Destruction: "Sweet Child O' Mine" is fine, but "Rocket Queen" is supreme.

5. Goober & The Peas - The Jet Age Genius...: Who? Dark, ironic cow-punk. Jack White's former band and the seeds of Blanche. First song is about cannabalism.

4. Kiss - ALIVE!: Yup. My first obsession (at 7!). Music is simple but effective. I guess you could call it archetype rock.

3. Counting Crows - August and Everything After: Unique sound at the time full of intricate music and heartfelt lyrics with "Murder of One" and "Raining in Baltimore" shining.

2. Lisa Loeb & Nine Stories - Tails: Much more than just "Stay." Her guitar playing is underappreciated and her lyrics are often abstract but interesting. More than glasses.

1. Pearl Jam - Ten: One of the pioneer works of the "Grunge" movement. I've always thought these guys were much better than Nirvana. They went from hard tunes like "Once" and "Evenflow" to tragic "Black" and the final track is an oft-overlooked masterpiece.

There, I've made my list and checked it THRICE. Maybe I'll do a book one next...

Victor Davis Hanson on National Review Online has an excellent piece on "The Western Disease: The strange syndrome of our guilt and their shame." It's about how "intellegentsia" of both the First and Third World have teamed up to espouse anti-Western rhetoric. As Hanson succinctly puts it:

"The so-called Arab street and its phony intellectuals sense that influential progressive Westerners will never censure Middle Eastern felonies if there is a chance to rage about Western misdemeanors."

An example would be:

"Both Western pontificators and the mob in the Middle East feed off each other. Paul Krugman would rarely write a column about how abjectly immoral it was that thousands mourned the death of a mass murderer when one can say worse things about an American president who chose not to use American dollars to hire French companies to rebuild Iraq. Bob Herbert can falsely rant about a Florida election 'rigged,' but seldom about an election never occurring in the Arab world."

Finally:

"It is precisely this parasitic relationship between the foreign and domestic critics of the West that explains much of the strange confidence of those who planned September 11. It was the genius of bin Laden, after all, that he suspected after he had incinerated 3,000 Westerners an elite would be more likely to blame itself for the calamity — searching for 'root causes' than marshalling its legions to defeat a tribe that embraced theocracy, autocracy, gender apartheid, polygamy, anti-Semitism, and religious intolerance. And why not after Lebanon, the first World Trade Center bombing, the embassies in Africa, murder in Saudi Arabia, and the USS Cole? It was the folly of bin Laden only that he assumed the United States was as far gone as Europe and that a minority of its ashamed elites had completely assumed control of American political, cultural, and spiritual life."

There is much more in this piece well worth reading.

Peggy Noonan asks: "Why are rich people afraid of the Virgin Mary?"

A U.S. District Judge ruled on the Narragansett Smoke Shop showdown of earlier this year and ruled that the raid was LEGAL. The most important line in the whole story, in my opinion, is:

"The Narragansetts may have some sovereign and self-government rights on their tribal land, but the tribe cannot decide on its own which state laws it will obey, Smith [the judge]said."

You can't pick and choose when you want to abide by state laws and when you don't, Chief Sachem Thomas.

After reading Jeffrey Overstreet's interview with John Rhys-Davies, I realized that, while I identify with dwarves physically (you know, kinda short, bit of a belly, like to eat, drink beer, etc.), maybe I have more in common with Gimli (er...John Rhys-Davies) than I thought. Here's what I'm talking about:

"How much of Tolkien’s Catholic beliefs and perspective resonate with you?

I’m burying my career so substantially in these interviews that it’s painful. But I think that there are some questions that demand honest answers.

I think that Tolkien says that some generations will be challenged. And if they do not rise to meet that challenge, they will lose their civilization. That does have a real resonance with me.

I have had the ideal background for being an actor. I have always been an outsider. I grew up in colonial Africa. And I remember in 1955, it would have to be somewhere between July the 25th when the school holiday started and September the 18th when the holidays ended. My father took me down to the quayside in Dar-Es-Salaam harbor. And he pointed out a dhow in the harbor and he said, “You see that dhow there? Twice a year it comes down from Aden. It stops here and goes down [South]. On the way down it's got boxes of machinery and goods. On the way back up it’s got two or three little black boys on it. Now, those boys are slaves. And the United Nations will not let me do anything about it.”

The conversation went on. “Look, boy. There is not going to be a World War between Russia and the United. The next World War will be between Islam and the West.”

This is 1955! I said to him, “Dad, you’re nuts! The Crusades have been over for hundreds of years!”

And he said, “Well, I know, but militant Islam is on the rise again. And you will see it in your lifetime.”

He’s been dead some years now. But there’s not a day that goes by that I don’t think of him and think, “God, I wish you were here, just so I could tell you that you were right.”

What is unconscionable is that too many of your fellow journalists do not understand how precarious Western civilization is and what a jewel it is.

How did we get the sort of real democracy, how did we get the level of tolerance that allows me to propound something that may be completely alien to you around this table, and yet you will take it and you will think about it and you’ll say no you’re wrong because of this and this and this. And I’ll listen and I’ll say, “Well, actually, maybe I am wrong because of this and this.”

[He points at a female reporter and adopts an authoritarian voice, to play a militant-Islam character:] ‘You should not be in this room. Because your husband or your father is not hear to guide you. You could only be here in this room with these strange men for immoral purposes.’

I mean… the abolition of slavery comes from Western democracy. True Democracy comes form our Greco-Judeo-Christian-Western experience. If we lose these things, then this is a catastrophe for the world."

He also clarifies it a bit with:

"By 2020, 50% of the children in Holland under the age of 18 will be of Muslim descent. You look and see what your founding fathers thought of the Dutch. They are constantly looking at the rise of democracy and Dutch values as being the very foundation of American Democracy. If by the mid-century the bulk of Holland is Muslim—and don’t forget, coupled with this there is this collapse of numbers ... Western Europeans are not having any babies. The population of Germany at the end of the century is going to be 56% of what it is now. The populations of France, 52% of what it is now. The population of Italy is going to be down 7 million people. There is a change happening in the very complexion of Western civilization in Europe that we should think about at least and argue about. If it just means the replacement of one genetic stock with another genetic stock, that doesn’t matter too much. But if it involves the replacement of Western civilization with a different civilization with different cultural values, then it is something we really ought to discuss[my (OSBs) emphasis]—because, g**dammit, I am for dead white male culture.

You do realize in this town what I’ve been saying [is like] blasphemy…

…but we’ve got to get a bit serious. By and large our cultures and our society are resilient enough to put up with any sort of nonsense. But if Tolkien’s got a message, it’s that 'Sometimes you’ve got to stand up and fight for what you believe in.' He knew what he was fighting for in WW1."

The great thing about blogging is you can point to the written opinion of others and let their words speak for you. This is such a case. According to Edwar Achorn, the Supreme Courts recent ruling on campaign finance reform has left us a First Amendment full of holes. I agree.

Boy, the New York Post has this on HOWARD'S HATEFEST, a comedian "riddled," profanity laced fund raiser for Howard Dean that somehow got missed by "Big Media." Essential point:

"Republicans are fuming. They say that if anything like this had happened at an event where a top Republican was present and did nothing to stop it, the media would rage about it for weeks."

Read it and judge for yourself if a Republican would have gotten away with it.

Michael Crichton made a speech at the
Commonwealth Club on environmentalism. Very interesting.

Nader eyeing another White House run...GO RALPHIE GO!

We all remember the Red and Blue map of the election of 2000. Well, the folks at the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth have come up with a 10-colored map. I found it extremely interesting. Take a peek.

Prehistoric man began global warming. Hmm. We've been a scourge to this planet since we came into being. That settles it, the kool-aid will be served at noon on January 1, 2004. Do your duty to Gaia and drink some, OK? ;)

STATION FIRE INDICTMENTS HANDED DOWN

Grand Jury hands down indictments in the Station Fire tragedy.

The charges

Manslaughter charges based on 2 theories

Not enough, families say

Station employees say others share blame

Lawyer: Band leader 'relieved' but not celebrating

State officials praise work, decision of grand jury

Multimedia look at the Station Fire

Three Indicted in R.I. Nightclub Fire

By BROOKE DONALD, Associated Press Writer

WARWICK, R.I. - The owners of the nightclub where 100 people were killed in a fire last February were indicted on involuntary manslaughter charges Tuesday along with the tour manager for the heavy metal band whose pyrotechnics ignited the blaze.


Club owners Jeffrey and Michael Derderian and Great White tour manager Dan Biechele were each charged with 200 counts of involuntary manslaughter — two for each death.


Jeffrey Derderian and Biechele pleaded innocent to the charges Tuesday during an arraignment. Michael Derderian was in court awaiting arraignment.


Attorney General Patrick Lynch planned to meet with reporters later Tuesday to comment on the indictments. He was not available for immediate comment.

OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today has the following observations on some of the media coverage of the snowstorm over the weekend:

"Is there such a thing as mental frostbite? Something about cold weather seems to make reporters stupid, even more so than they usually are. Consider a few items we noticed over the weekend.

This is from an Associated Press roundup on the big snowstorm that hit the Northeast:

Some high school students got a lucky break when several schools canceled Saturday's scheduled Scholastic Aptitude Tests.
Yeah, we suppose that's a 'lucky break'--unless they want to go to college!

Then there's this photo caption from the Jefferson City (Mo.) News Tribune:

Evening traffic passes by as Anita Walker waits for the city bus to take her home to Dulle Tower. She made a trip out to purchase cigarettes. Walker, who has emphyzema [sic], says the cold air makes it hard for her to breathe.

Yeah, it must be the cold air. And how about this Boston Globe photo caption:

Cherie Williams lifts the midsection of a snow person she and her daughter Olivia, 9, built while waiting for a bus in Asheville, N.C., yesterday.

'Snow person'? We haven't heard such a ridiculous case of politically correct overkill since the early episode of 'The Simpsons' in which Lisa insists on calling the mail lady the 'female carrier.'"

Blanche is getting ready to release a new CD (really their first), called If We Can't Trust the Doctors... on Cass Records

Orson Scott Card, Sci-fi novelist and Democrat on the state of his party:

"In one of Patrick O'Brian's novels about the British Navy during the Napoleonic wars, he dismisses a particularly foolish politician by saying that his political platform was "death to the Whigs."

Watching the primary campaigns among this year's pathetic crop of Democratic candidates, I can't help but think that their campaigns would be vastly improved if they would only rise to the level of "Death to the Republicans."

Instead, their platforms range from Howard Dean's "Bush is the devil" to everybody else's "I'll make you rich and Bush is quite similar to the devil."

Since Bush is quite plainly not the devil, one wonders why anyone in the Democratic Party thinks this ploy will play with the general public.

There are Democrats, like me, who think it will not play, and should not play, and who are waiting in the wings until after the coming electoral debacle in order to try to remake the party into something more resembling America.

But then I watch the steady campaign of the national news media to try to win this for the Democrats, and I wonder. Could this insane, self-destructive, extremist-dominated party actually win the presidency?

They might -- because the national news media are trying as hard as they can to pound home the message that the Bush presidency is a failure.

Even though by every rational measure it is not.

And the most vile part of this campaign against Bush is that the Terrorist War is being used as a tool to try to defeat him -- which means that if Bush does not win, we will certainly lose the war."

There's more, follow the link to read the rest.

Are we headed back to the Moon?

Another site update today. Removed some links even I don't use much (so why would you?) and consolidated on 3 major themes: Academia, Music, News/Opinion. Should be good enough. Also updated my Other Projects sections with links to my History and the Internet site and my Merchant Marine History site (which is pretty sparse). Later.

From InstaPundit.Com: "WHAT CAN PRESIDENT BUSH DO IN BAGHDAD THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN CAN'T? Appear in public. If that doesn't send a message to the Ba'athists and their would-be allies, I don't know what does."

The Habitant's Home Page looks interesting for those of a French Canadian genealogical bent.

An AP photographer seems to have caught on film the attitude that many in the military have towards the objective members of the press. Here it is before the AP, which is trying to pull the photo, gets it off of the Yahoo site from which I obtained it:

Sullivan on Bush in a column written to those in Britain working themselves into a mass hysteria in preparation for the President's visit with PM Blair.

Innocents Abroad plans to run a series of commentaries on how French "thinkers" of the day view their society. Should be interesting.

FOXNews.com - Top Stories - Weekly Standard: Intel Report Links Saddam, Usama. As if there were really any doubts. Anyway, this may just be the tip of the iceberg. It's a lengthy one, but, in this case, quantity does = quality.

Yahoo! News - Nader Blasts Democrats As 'Whiners':

"A media-sponsored review of more than 175,000 disputed ballots found that Gore would have won by a small margin if there had been a complete statewide recount. President Bush (news - web sites) won Florida, and thus the White House, by 537 votes out of more than 6 million cast. "

I don't remember that being the finding, anyone else?

Victor Davis Hanson on War on National Review Online has a good piece commenting on each of the now familiar arguments. With all of this mind, I wonder if the other shoe will drop, as Hansen seems to desire (as do I), when Bush gets reelected.

Found this in OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today:

"'It's not difficult to understand why somebody might pick up an AK-47 against us. Maybe we killed his father in the first Gulf War, maybe in this Gulf War, maybe he's just a dick.'--Sgt. Reginald Abram, with the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment in western Iraq, quoted in the Asia Times, Oct. 24"

Bush on Democracy in the Middle East from Washingtonpost.com:

"The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution.

Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.
As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export.
And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.

Therefore the United States has adopted a new policy: a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before and it will yield the same results.
As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. "

This could be a seminal speech in history...