A 3 Year Old's Sincerity

If she only knew, what has happened to the country that was once as pure as she....



God bless the America that once was. With any hope at all, perhaps her generation might restore what our generation and those before us have eroded away.

Right, Wrong, and None of Your D#$% Business

There is a current uproar out in California this month (I say out, due to the fact that I hail from the center of the universe, otherwise known as South Carolina), with people all in an uproar about this gay marriage ban that was apparently voted in by the people of the Imperial Province of...er.... State of California. Here's the scoop according to Reuters.

Long story made short: First the California Supreme Court extended equal rights to same-sex couples with regards to marriage, despite the fact that the state (believe it or not) has historically refused that right to same-sex couples. Now, thanks to a majority vote on November 8th, 2008, 52% of the people who voted decided to revoke that right. Now the fight is all about the legality of that vote in the first place.

The Argument
The argument of gay marriage is always a charged one, and almost nobody comes to the table without some large bias in one direction or another. Religion invariably plays a part in that bias, and with good reason. Religion, or lack thereof, more or less dictates a person's view of ethics and morals. Note that I did NOT say it dictates a person's ethics and morals, but on the contrary I said a person's view of ethics and morals. In other words, the source of one's beliefs will inevitably be the authority for what we know as right or wrong. If a person believes that the Bible is true, then that person generally will view his or her morals as being taken from the Bible (whether right or wrong). On the other hand if a person denies that God exists and believes that all mankind is basically good and simply believes that moral behavior is best for the greater good of all, then that's where they lay the authority for their belief system. So one might say that any discussion such as gay marriage, or abortion, or any such discussion dealing with these sort of topics, is invariably going to invoke what is at the very core of each person. This results in the heavily charged atmosphere in which these discussions take place.

Traditionally, for as long as can be found, the question of same-sex marriage has been discussed based on arguments of right or wrong. Is gay marriage morally right? Is it morally wrong? Those who say it is wrong want the government to enforce it's "wrongness" with laws against it, and those who say there's nothing wrong with it or take a position of moral relativism (what's right and wrong for you, may not be what's right or wrong for me) want the government to recognize and protect the rights of same-sex couples.

Here is my problem with all of this: Since when did the government become the deciding or ruling body in this country when it comes to morality?

Let me explain my position here, with a series of "If, then" statements. If marriage in general, whether hetero- or homo-sexual, is a religious rite, then it should be the jurisdiction of the church. If marriage is a civic rite or "civil union" as they say now, then it should be the jurisdiction of the government. If it is decided that is a religious rite rather than a civil one, then the government needs to stay the hell out of it, and give people the right to religious freedom that our Constitution guarantees them.

So what I'm saying here, is that it not really up for grabs as to whether gay marriage or homosexuality in general is right or wrong in these discussions, when the real discussion needs to be whether government or anybody else has the right to impose themselves in a decision of choice for morality.

At this point, I need to say that I am not a proponent for gay marriage. I think it's not only gross, but immoral. I believe that a marriage should be a union under God between a man and a woman, because my beliefs are based on what I think God wants for humanity.

That said, what I believe is right or wrong or even WHY I believe it does not amount to a hill of beans when it comes to what should be law or should not be law. The purpose of the law is not to enforce a particular set of morals or ethics. The purpose of the law is to protect people from being oppressed. Individuals decide what their morals are, not governments.

What I believe to be right, that marriage is a union between a man and woman, does NOT come into play AT ALL when it comes to what is legal. The stark fact of the matter is that a good many people believe that it is morally fine to be joined with someone of the same sex. That is on THEIR shoulders to deal with the morality of it, not on me to decide for them, or on a court or congress to decide for them. Does it violate the rights of anyone else if my male neighbor married the guy that he works with? NO! You don't have the right to not be grossed out or be offended! You do not have the right to have everyone else in your line of site following the same code of morals or ethics that you do!

Friends with Benefits
The argument that is then presented is all wrapped up in benefits. What about the benefits that married couples get, just for being married? The happy church-going family in the neighborhood gets themselves all bent out of shape because now the gay couple gets the same tax breaks that they've enjoyed for years exclusively. Or now at work straight Bob now has to live with knowing that gay Joe gets the same benefits package for his partner that Bob gets for his wife. So really this argument is all about preferential treatment over someone we think is different from us - or worse, below us. We, as straight and upstanding family men and women, enjoyed the tax breaks, the benefits, and whatever else came our way as congratulatory perks for being just what "society" wanted us to be, and now that those perks are being threatened, well we just need to take a vote and see about not letting gay Joe have his way at all.

That's not it at all, you say? That's not the reason people are all up in arms over two queers getting married? What reason then is left for sticking your nose in someone else's morality decisions? Because you see, "It's just not right," isn't good enough. It just isn't your business to decide someone's morality, and it sure as hell isn't the government's.

Beck on Georgia

Coverage on the crisis in Georgia, from Glenn Beck's perspective:

Commentary: Russian bombs' message is 'this is for America'

NEW YORK (CNN) -- "This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush."

These were the phrases that the president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvilli, told me were on Russian bombs falling before, during and after the numerous cease-fires that have come and gone since the Georgian-Russian conflict began.

He went on to say that he believed the Russians were not fighting a war with Georgia; in reality, they were fighting a war against the idea of Georgia, the governing principles behind it.

To have a flourishing democracy in a neighboring country is seen as a threat. It is a stark contrast from Russia's brand of state-controlled pseudo-capitalism. The Russians, he said, "want to kill the idea of freedom, and by proxy they imagine they fight a war with the United States."

Although the name Georgia is familiar to the United States, the country isn't. Most Americans don't know its remarkable story. The first time I spoke to Saakashvilli a few months earlier, it was under much more pleasant circumstances. I found him to be a young, energetic and well-spoken reformer who in many ways understands our founding fathers better than most Americans.

He spoke to me about his vision for Georgia, the vision that transformed it from a failed state to a burgeoning democracy with a quickly growing economy.

He said, "the government is going to help you in the best way possible, by doing nothing for you, by getting out of your way. Well, I exaggerate, but you understand. Of course we will provide you with infrastructure and help by getting rid of corruption, but you have all succeeded by your own initiative and enterprise, so you should congratulate yourselves."

Saakashvilli turned one of the most crooked nations on the planet into a place where people want to do business. His way of dealing with Georgia's incredibly corrupt police was amazing. No talk, just action.

"The first thing we did a few years ago when I became president: We fired the entire police force of the country." That's right, about 40,000 officers were fired, by his count. New recruits were brought in, and he told me that the public confidence in the police skyrocketed from 5 percent to 70 percent.

The notion that Saakashvilli believes in the ideas that formed our country isn't a surprise. He attended Columbia University Law School and studied our founding fathers, becoming determined to give the people of Georgia the same opportunities and freedoms that we take for granted here.

Imagine a nation with ideals forged in the traditions of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Monroe, sitting in what once was the Soviet Union. Now imagine how much that might be appreciated by ex-KGB agents like Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister.

When I spent a half an hour with Saakashvilli on my show this week, his mood was much different than in our earlier conversation. I told him that if Americans knew the story of Georgia, they would realize how important it was. I asked him to speak directly to America, tell us what is really happening and why we should care.

He said, "when the Soviet Union collapsed, when the Cold War was over, when I went to study in the U.S. and finally I realized my dream, I never thought that this evil would come back again. I never thought the KGB people would again try to run the world. And that's exactly what's happening now. What`s at stake here is America's -- America's ideals. If it will collapse in Georgia, it will collapse in other countries and in other places as well."

Luckily for Georgia, the world has generally aligned against Russia's aggression. Whether there are any teeth behind the talk is still unknown. Saakashvilli expressed gratitude for the supportive comments made by President Bush and both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.

Even the United Nations issued a statement to express "serious concerns at the escalation of violence." Incredibly, that didn't seem to stop Russia. Who would have thought? If things get worse, I'll expect the U.N. to issue a harshly worded letter, a disapproving glare and maybe even a mildly annoyed "tsk tsk."

It's hard to know for sure what is really behind this conflict. Analysts have theories; citizens have sides. But even if you look past the 'he said, she said," in the end, it still goes back to a war being fought over ideals.

Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan led the effort to bring down the Soviet Union, partly by spending them into oblivion. We had the resources, we unleashed our economy, and we won (at least temporarily). We won by using the same principles that Saakashvilli talked to me about.

But he wasn't the only one watching and learning. Russia learned as well, and they now appear to be doing the same things that we did to them back in the '80's. Unless we wise up, we risk seeing the same result. We taught them this game. We can't allow it to be used against us. iReport.com: Do you remember the Cold War?

The long-term solution is to make ourselves stronger and more self-sufficient so that when these problems arise, we can't be held hostage. We need to become energy independent and financially solvent. But in the short term? I'm just glad I'm not president so I don't have to make these decisions. (Yes, I know you are, too.)

For now, we have to do what we can to strongly support Georgia, start to get our own ship in order, and take seriously the messages sent by the bombings.

"This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush."

Why We Listen to Ahmadinejad

I have thought a lot about the events that unfolded a couple days ago in New York. If you have been living under a rock for the last week or so, then you may not have heard that Columbia University invited the President of Iran to speak there at the University.

Many many protests were made about it, and people were up in arms. I was rather distraught at the time, for the lack of grace that the American people showed this man. All we knew about him, before he was given the stage at Columbia, is what the media and our government had told us about him-- that he was dangerous, a lunatic, a madman with evil intentions.

Right or wrong, Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen has written a fantastic piece that articulates my thoughts precisely.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=85dc4876-2871-4fc8-8b23-676c1d135bee


Listen to Ahmadinejad
Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, September 26, 2007

The world is indebted to Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University. By allowing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to address the university yesterday, Bollinger not only gave us a revealing look at the character of this dangerous man, he gave us a powerful demonstration of why censorship is foolish.

"It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas," Bollinger said in his opening remarks, "or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honour the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible."

Bollinger then moved from the abstract to the particular, citing evidence of a growing crackdown on dissent in Iran, including the public hanging of up to 30 people this summer. "Let's, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President," Bollinger said, turning to Ahmadinejad, "you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."

When Ahmadinejad took the podium, he opened with a prayer to Allah for the return of the Mahdi and then complained that Bollinger's greeting was "unfriendly."
This was followed by a rambling story about the Almighty, angels, Adam and the prophets. Quotations from the Koran abounded. So did references to science, scientists and the nature of man.

It soon became apparent that what Ahmadinejad wished his audience to know is that science and theology are indivisible. "Science is a divine gift," he said repeatedly, "and therefore, it must remain pure. God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God. So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Muhammad to rule the world and to take us toward justice."

Now, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a stupid man. He knew he was speaking a subway ride away from where the World Trade Center once stood. He knew most Americans believe him to be as fanatical and dangerous as the men who destroyed the twin towers. He knew the deeply unpopular president of the United States is seriously considering pounding much of Iran's infrastructure into rubble. And he knew his invitation to Columbia was an opportunity to speak directly to Americans that is not likely to come again. If ever there was a time to smile sweetly and say what the audience wanted to hear, it was then.

And yet, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad chose to open his speech with a lengthy epistemological rumination of the sort that was popular in Europe during the era which we rather tellingly call the Dark Ages.

This man is a fanatic. A religious zealot. A bug-eyed lunatic. He could not have demonstrated this fact more plainly, not even if he had paraphrased the famous line of George H.W. Bush and declared to the audience, "Message: I'm nuts."

Ahmadinejad got slightly cagier -- very slightly -- when it came time to answer questions from a moderator. "Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?" he was asked. "We love all nations," Ahmadinejad helpfully replied. "We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran, living peacefully, with security."

What about the Holocaust? "I am not saying that it didn't happen at all," Ahmadinejad responded. He merely wants more research because, as he reminded the audience several times, "I'm an academic, too."

And homosexuals? Persecution in Iran goes so far as torture and execution. What about that? Ahmadinejad's answer was so informative that I reprint the transcript verbatim.

Ahmadinejad: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country."
(Audience laughs.)
Ahmadinejad: "We don't have that in our country."
(Audience boos.)
Ahmadinejad: "In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it."
(Audience laughs.)

Among the protesters who gathered to denounce the Iranian president and the university that invited him to speak, one man held a sign that read: "A man of lies does not belong in a place of truth." It is tempting to agree, but it is at precisely moments like this that we need to remind ourselves of the words of John Stuart Mill.

"The peculiar evil of silencing an expression of an opinion is that it robs the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation," wrote the great champion of liberty. "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity to exchange error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit -- the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

The "collision with error" is essential to truth's vitality, Mill insisted. Without it, "the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost or enfeebled." Unchallenged by falsehood, the truth will continue to be accepted by people but only "in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds." No longer will it be a "real and heartfelt conviction from reason or personal experience."

What happened two days ago at Columbia was a living demonstration of the wisdom of Mill's words. "Look at the reaction," a Columbia student named Ellen Miller told a reporter from Salon, gesturing to the mass of protesters around her. She, like many others, supported the university's invitation. "These groups would not have come together and come out like this and protested if there hadn't been this event on campus."

By inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Columbia University, Lee Bollinger created a "collision with error" that has given us all a "clearer perception and livelier impression of the truth." For that, and for the courage it took to do it, the world is in his debt.

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.