Thursday, July 29, 2004

Good Point
LILEKS (James) The Bleat: "This is why I am not completely undone by the news that it may take a while to fully electrify Iraq. It took DirecTV ten attempts to fix one dish, and no one was shooting at the techs."

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Ron Reagan doesn't get it
In speaking in defense of Stem Cell research, Ron Reagan just said that it "cannot, must not be about partisanship." (that's paraphrased). The problem is, those of us who oppose it do not necessarily oppose it for partisan reasons. Some of us believe that creation and destruction of a fertilized embryo is equal to the creation and destruction of a life. I agree that the benefits of stem cell research are innumerable. And I recognize that the embryos in question are not intended to become fetuses, and ultimately human beings. But the fact of the matter is, they could. And my opposition to stem cell research is not my attempt to exert my theology on others. It is my attempt to prevent what I view as murder. The fact that you may not think it is so does not mean I have no right to legislate on the subject. Case in point: many in this country once refused to consider lynchings as murder. But it was right to condemn it as such, and enforce it as such.

And bear in mind, I'm speaking as someone who could greatly benefit from stem cell research. Alzheimers runs in my family, and I am very likely to get it. I hope it's cured. And I support President Bush's decision to fund existing lines to further investigate the viability of this research before we allow the creation of further ones. Also, notice that he did not push for legislation to make the research illegal, and I am not advocating that either. I just do not believe that the government of the United States of America should participate in something to which so many of its people object.

Clinton Endorses Bush??
In his concluding paragraph last night, Bill Clinton said: "Since we're all in the same boat, let us chose as the captain of our ship a brave good man who knows how to steer a vessel though troubled waters to the calm seas and clear skies of our more perfect union."

Is this a subliminal endorsement of Bush? The troubled waters of 9/11 were deftly navigated by our current President. He has, in fact, proven himself as an executive leader, while John Kerry has not. How could we possibly know that that sentence describes Kerry as well?

Monday, July 26, 2004

Clinton speaks to DNC
CNN.com: "Clinton told convention delegates they wanted 'a world with shared responsibilities and shared benefits' while Republicans wanted an America 'run by the right people -- their people. And I want an America run by me.'"

Ok, so he didn't say that last line. But we all know he was thinking it.

Baseball causes problems for me
As a Red Sox fan, I was obviously watching last night's game, and the repeated appearance of Kerry caused my first problem. You see, as my regular readers know, I am anything but a Kerry supporter. And yet Kerry is a Sox fan like myself, which forces me to acknowledge that he's not all bad.
Then, I get the news from The Weeky Standard that A-Rod (of hated Yankees persuasion) has contributed the maximum allowed to the Bush campaign.

Are these cosmic signs trying to tell me that I'm supposed to support Kerry? If so, of course, that's too bad.

UPDATE [7/26/2004 - 21:57]: Then again, The Weekly Standard also gives me reason to continue disliking the Senator from Massachusetts: "Kerry has long claimed allegiance to the Boston Red Sox and the New England Patriots. Yet last week, ESPN's Peter Gammons reported that, Kerry claimed to be a big fan of 'Manny Ortez.' Having fused the names of Boston's two biggest sluggers, Kerry then compounded the error by correcting himself and saying he meant 'David Ortez.' No word on what either Manny Ramirez or David Ortiz thought of the slip up."

Once again, we see that he is a total phoney.

Need I say more?
Taxes in 2004
It's a bit long, and I can't vouch for the statistics, but watch the whole thing...

Sunday, July 25, 2004

It finally changes...
There's a new mini-poll up on my sidebar to the right. Please make sure to vote!

Yet another misinterpretation of the First Amendment
CNN.com - Convention protesters demand more visible space : "At a news conference Saturday, protesters also complained that the fenced-in area is out of sight to most delegates and passers-by en route to the arena."

Look, guys, you have the right to protest all you want. The Constitution grants the following: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now, this protection has, over the years, been extended to any government agency, so that no public entity has the right to prevent anyone from speaking their mind. Here's the thing though: legal precedent says that speech may not be restrained based on content (with a few drastic exceptions, such as yelling "fire" in a crowd, or inciting people to violence), but it is allowed on the basis of time and place. Hence, the restrictions requiring a protesting group to file permits in advance of marches, and so forth. More importantly than this, there is absolutely no guarantee from the government that your speech must be heard by anyone. So, shout all you want, but you don't get to do it wherever you want, and there doesn't have to be anyone to hear it. So quit your whining.