Sacrifice for Liberty in the 21st Century and Beyond

When we think of people sacrificing their lives in the name of Liberty, what usually comes to mind is somebody in a military uniform of some kind, dying on foreign soil in some complicated conflict over who knows what. I would like to assert, however, that there has not been a sacrifice in the name of Liberty in this manner in a long, long while. You might say, "We hear of people dying every week over in Iraq and Afghanistan." I ask you, who's liberty did they die for? As far as I can tell, the deaths of the soldiers in the Middle East are in the name of Empire, not Liberty. I can't even tell you when the last legitimate American death in the name of Liberty might have been.

On Thursday, July 26th, 2007, on American soil in the Mojave Desert, three Americans died for Liberty. They deserve our respect, and our gratitude. Their names were Eric Blackwell (38), Glen May (45) and Todd Ivens (33).

These men wore no military uniforms, and they didn't fight on foreign soil. Instead,they built spaceships. They died for Liberty, because they died while building spaceships for a private company, rather than for the government.

You may not see the heroism in their deaths. You may not appreciate their sacrifice. You may not understand the importance of their work. Allow me to give you a bit of the background on the company these men worked for, and died for.

Scaled Composites, formerly Rutan Aircraft Factory, is a private company, based on the dream of famed aircraft designer Burt Rutan. Since 1982, Rutan and his company have been designing, building and testing experimental aircraft. In 2003, they unveiled their plans to put the first privately funded manned spacecraft, SpaceShipOne, in space, in hopes of winning the $10 million Ansari X Prize. In 2004, they achieved that goal with human spaceflights for SpaceShipOne. All of this was achieved with no government involvement, except for the permits they gave out for the flights.

It was while working on a rocket test for SpaceShipTwo that the explosion occurred on July 26th. Until SpaceShipOne, there was no liberty in space. The U.S. Government's space program, NASA, has long held the monopoly on spaceflight and exploration. SpaceShipOne gave hope for the future, that the common man might one day reach for the stars, literally. It was to further that cause that these three heroes died. It was certainly a tragic death, and one that we wish could have been avoided. The men, however, will not be forgotten. They will be remembered in the hearts of those who love Liberty, for their unbridled pioneering spirit that refused to be kept on the ground. Godspeed gentlemen.

And to those at Scaled Composites who mourn the tragic passing of their esteemed colleagues, I exhort you to keep reaching for the stars and never give up. It may be that you hold the keys to Freedom for future generations. Press on, and light up the skies in the name of Liberty.

"... den var are da handcuffs, Darlink?"

Ordinarily I don't follow celebrity news... at all. I think it's an incredible waste of brain power as well as being a generally life-shortening activity. But here is a real head-scratcher and I just couldn't resist.

This guy -------->
is a complete nutter. And in case you don't recognize the picture, that's Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband, "Prince" Frederic Von Anhalt. He says he's a prince because some german princess adopted him. As far as I know, that hasn't been confirmed.

Not so long ago he was asserting that Anna Nicole Smith's baby was his, which was later found to be a false claim, thanks to DNA testing revealing who the real father was. Now this morning he was found sitting naked in his Rolls Royce. His story? He says he was mugged by 3 women who flagged him down on the side of the road. He stopped and they mugged him at gunpoint and then handcuffed him to the steering wheel. The problem with this story? No handcuffs were found at the scene.

Just when you think Hollywood was as wacky as it is going to get...
FULL STORY

US 'ignored' UK rendition protest

Of course we did. Apparently we don't give a rat's behind WHAT anybody thinks anymore. We do what we want, when we want, and nobody is going to tell us otherwise. And you've got the Bush Administration to thank for that. This is quickly going to turn into a "biggest kid on the block" contest. It's not going to be pretty when some of the other powers decide they don't like us calling the shots anymore. Somebody needs to put some responsibility back in place, quick. This kind of stuff just makes me shake my head. I genuinely am ashamed.

British concerns do not "appear materially to affect" US actions in its "war on terror", the UK's intelligence and security committee has said.

Read the whole BBC story here.

Bush Pushes Peace in Mid-East: Why it's a Good Thing

Over the last couple of days, we've been getting from many sources, such as the Los Angeles Times and others, that Bush is now ramping up a plan to push hard for a Middle-East Peace process. Of course this is a good thing, just for the simple reason that peace is always good (except for a government's defense budget).

But there is one particular reason why this talk of peace talks is good news for us, and the world. It means President Bush knows he's beat on Iraq. If you've been following the news from Washington over the last two weeks, you know that the Democrats and even the Republicans in Congress have had it with this war in Iraq, and smelling blood, they've poised themselves to go for the jugular. Time's up, and they want Bush's head over this thing before the President leaves office. And this new angle that the President is taking on a Mid-East peace process all of a sudden, will allow him to claim diplomatic victory and pull troops out of Iraq without looking like he's giving in to the demands of the Congress he disdains.

So here's how it will play out. Congress succeeds in building enough pressure to put the squeeze on the President, requiring him to give in to their demands to pull troops out on a time line. Bush knows he's a sitting duck and makes a move to begin diplomatically and cooperatively handing over military control to the Iraqis. There will be concessions made to the insurgents, but depending on how good the planners are at playing this, it will end with Bush claiming he ended the war in Iraq and accomplished whatever he wants to accomplish. We may even see a Berlin-esque wall through Baghdad. Who knows. But one thing is for certain, he will not admit defeat.

Make no mistake, however. This, in my opinion, seals the deal for a victory in the Presidential election for the democrats. There are still plenty of months left to change things, I suppose, but I think we better get used to the idea of having either a black president or a woman president. Neither one, of course, is a bad thing in and of itself. It is the individuals who will fill that role that scares me, regardless of ethnicity or gender.

Why Can't We Talk to North Korea?

That's a good question, and here's an article with a pretty good answer that makes sense (at least to me).

Excerpt:

"[F]or decades, North Korea has been trying to engage the United States in direct military dialogue aimed at winning one of its regime’s key policy goals: a permanent peace treaty with the United States to replace the armistice that ended the 1950-53 Korean War....

...There was no immediate U.S. response to the North Korean proposal on Friday.

But Washington had previously rejected such a proposal, objecting any talks that would exclude its ally South Korea and China.

China fought on the North Korean side during the war, while the United States led U.N. forces on the South Korean side....

...U.S. and South Korean officials envisioned four-way peace talks involving all major participants of the Korean War: the United States, China and the two Koreas. But North Korea prefers direct talks with the United States in a ploy experts say is aimed at driving a wedge between Washington and Seoul."

Here is the story in its entirety, from The New York Times.

No Respect for the Jury Process in Nebraska

State law in Nebraska (and other states for that matter) allows judges to ban words which they think may influence the thinking of the jury, and ultimately their convictions. CNN reports that Judge Jeffre Cheuvront has done just that in a rape case that has already been tried once, where the jury was unable to reach a verdict. So on the second go-round, Cheuvront banned the use of the words "rape" and "victim."

We will not, however, be able to see how such a trial would play out just yet, due to the fact that Cheuvront has declared a mistrial before it had ever gotten started. His reasoning for the mistrial? Apparently the alleged victim, Ms. Tory Bowen, publicly petitioned the court via a website and encouraged supporters to gather outside the courthouse in protest of the word ban.

So they have quite the muddled mess on their hands out in Lincoln, Nebraska. The trial itself seems like a farce to me. Apparently Ms. Bowen got so drunk one night in 2004 that she could not fight off the advances of the accused, Mr. Pamir Safi, who admittedly had sexual relations with Ms. Bowen, under conditions that Mr. Safi claims was consensual.

At issue, first and foremost it would seem, is the very definition of "rape." Ms. Bowen claims she was raped because Mr. Safi, she says, knew she was too drunk to make any sort of consensual decision. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Safi acted dishonorably, but criminally? That, evidently, is the question. But before they even get into that question, there needs to be the freedom to discuss it. That freedom is precisely what Judge Cheuvront has taken away, as well as the right to protest peacefully for that right.

It is a jury's duty to hear testimony and decide for themselves if what they hear is true, and if it warrants a declaration of guilt for the accused. If a judge is permitted ban the use of words the witnesses can use, it seems to me that the judge is potentially obstructing true testimony. If it is the testimony of the accused that she was raped, then she ought to have the freedom to say just that. She should be granted the right to point to the accused in a court of law, before a jury of her peers, and state very clearly "That man raped me." It is then the jury's job to decide if she really was raped, based on the representation of the attorneys and the consideration of the evidence.

To deny the jury its right and duty to decide based on the actual testimonies is simply injustice, as well as disrespect for jury process and the individual jurors themselves.

The Big Dig: Digging into the Pockets of Bostonians

The Rueters article leads with the headline, U.S. looks for lessons in Boston's Big Dig. But the problem is, they may be learning the wrong lessons, in my opinion.

The tone that the article sets looks to be drawing the conclusion that taking on the projects of burying congested and tangled highway systems, or stretches of roadways, is a good idea, but we just need to learn to do it better. Never mind the fact that 15 years and billions of dollars in tax-payer funds have been eaten up by the Big Dig, and we have a wrongful death suit filed due to a chunk of cement that dropped off the ceiling of the tunnel, crushing a car and the woman driving it. But at least we have parks. With trees. Trees are good.

But it looks like big spending is the name of the urban development game these days. Big projects are already being discussed for other big cities like Seattle, Philadelphia, and St. Louis. No surprise really, when we're talking about trimming 15 minutes off our busy schedules for the commute home. I mean, hey, maybe that 15 minutes is where we can finally squeeze in that family time that has been missing from our lives for the last several decades.

Think you Know About Scopes? Think Again!

In Liberty Papers No. 2 (also published at Strike-the-Root.com), I made mention of the Scopes "Monkey" Trial, as an example of how government controlled education can go bad. Most people think they know about this trial, but what they really know is the media depiction of the trial, including the Hollywood version Inherit the Wind, which, as entertaining as it is, doesn't even come close to depicting what happened in Tennessee in 1925.

Rick Barry, writing for AiG, brings us up to speed on what we don't know about the Scopes Monkey Trial.

"How well do you know the facts about the 1925 Scopes trial, one of America’s most famous trials of the past century? Is your knowledge based mostly on the Hollywood depiction of the “monkey” trial, or is it based on the actual accounts as recorded in the transcripts and other historical accounts?"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/monkeying-with-the-media

Let's stop letting the media make monkeys out of us, and get down to the real facts!

Take the Heat or Get out of the Kitchen?

"It would be a travesty for him to go off to prison. The president will take some heat for it. So what? He takes heat for everything."

That's what former Ambassador Richard Carlson says, according to BBC, about the possibility of a Presidential pardon for his friend Scooter Libby, who has now had his appeal for a delayed sentence shot down by a panel of three judges. The judgment on the appeal comes after the judges pronounced that there was not any "substantial question" raised by the appeal.

We should see shortly, whether or not President Bush decides to grant his loyal White House staffer the coveted pardon. And with conservatives largely in agreement for giving him that pardon, I'd put my money on Libby walking away from his ordeal a free man.

The man perjured himself under oath, and obstructed justice during the investigation and trial in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case. The truth probably would have incriminated the White House in the incident, and the blame may have gone right to the top, or very close to it. But old Scooter is taking one for the team, and I'll be highly surprised if he ends up taking it too hard. If the pardon doesn't come, he'll be serving 30 months in the slammer, or some ritzy Club Fed mock-up of prison anyway.