Rush Limbaugh, Valerie Plame, and the Mainstream Media

It's official, at least according to some, Rush Limbaugh has lost his mind. When the CBS Nightly News came calling and asked the Maha Rushie to do a 90 second spot under the title a "Free Speech", he accepted. HE WHAT!!! He agreed to appear on a mainstream media outlet, doesn't he know that they will savage him?
But wait a minute, CBS News attracts people like my in laws and my mother. People who are not tuned in to the "New Media", get their news from the mainstream outlets, (IE CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, and CNN). Most of what they hear they believe is accurate and correct. Our parents and many older Americans are form a generation when the evening news was sacrosanct. People like Walter Cronkite were revered and trusted to deliver the news without bias. They are naturally attuned to believe what this new breed of reporters tells them. In many a discussion with my mother and others, I usually as them where they got their information and almost without fail, they tell me it was from one of the major news outlets. My point here is that Rush was allowed to present, without edit or rebuttal, the conservative point of view.
Now to the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame debacle. In any other world, anyone who had deliberately fabricated information in order to attempt a political coup on the executive branch, that person would have been prosecuted. Instead, we have a presidential aide who is attempting to fight back against charges leveled against him by a prosecutor who's investigation we now know was initiated based on complete fabrication by those who claim to have been harmed. If there was ever any doubt about liberal political methodology, this incident highlights it for what it is. In short, when you lack a cohesive ideology to rebut someone, simply attack them personally using whatever method you can. This is to the detriment of all those out there who might actually be harmed by this behaviour.
The mainstream media outlets are now and have been part and parcel to the Valerie Plame affair. They took the story, embellished and ran it until they thought they created public outcries for the removal of President Bush. Let their be no doubt that this was their ultimate goal. Perhaps they figured if they ran the polls down far enough, then President Bush would come around to their point of view. Unfortunately for them, Mr. Bush is a man of principle and stuck by his guns, underscoring the fact that he does not lead by focus groups and polls like his predecessor did. Now I am not a Bush Fan, I will say that up front, many of his policy decision sit wrong with me on a personal level. However, his two opponents would have us in a much worse situation than we are in now.

Hezbollah's Provocation a Good Thing

       I can hear it now, people reading this and screaming "What is this Idiot Thinking?"  Hear me out

 

     First, from a loss of life standpoint, it is an absolute horror.  Hezbollah terrorists, backed by Syrian and Iranian training, money, intelligence and military hardware, violated Israeli territory and kidnapped Israeli soldiers.  When Israel sought the return of it's military personnel, Hezbollah began firing rockets into the homes and business of Innocent Israeli citizens.  These munitions were, and currently still are fired from positions surrounded by, and sometimes, right within the confines of innocent Lebanese citizens.  In addition, these terrorists have and continue to use the UN Forces in the area as shields for firing these missles.  Consequently, when Israel retaliated, many innocents including 4 UN peace keepers lost their lives.

 

     Now, to the point of my tagline.  The provocation by Hezbollah and it's subsequent actions has showed in the clearest possible way, exactly what the politics of mollification and appeasement result in.  It also, once again, has shown how completely inept the United Nations continue to be.  Last, but certainly not least, it once again exposes the left in this country for what it really is.  That is a bunch of whining, sniveling, mollycoddling socialists who are not acting in the best interests of liberty or the United States.

 

     Almost immediately, the left-leaning mainstream media outlets bgan their campaigns to portray Hezbollah as a political group that serves to provide social services to the large numbers of poor throughout the Middle East.  All the while trying their best to paint Israel as the agressor or instigator of the attacks.  Short of the few months immediately following 9-11, the left has consistently tried to portray the murderers of Hamas and Hezbollah as disenfranchised palestinian muslims.  What is almost never mentioned is that these groups use their social service arms to recruit impressionable young men and women with their particular brand of hatred.  This recruiting is done with the singular purpose of pressing their radical islamo-fascist agenda on all those who do not subscribe to their beliefs.  Their particular haterd of Israel and the US and it is directly related to our belief in Liberty and Religious Freedom.

 

     Recruiting, warfighting, and social services require money, LOTS of it.  Before the start of this recent round of provocations, Few were willing to investigate and report on where this money was coming from.  Hezbollah's attacks brought to the front and center the sources of this terror funding, Namely, Iran and Syria.  Syria, which by many accounts was the willing recipient of Iraqi WMDS just prior to the effort to rid that country of a despotic dictator.  Iran, who's publicly stated goal is the destruction of Israel and it's western ally the US, has openly supported Hezbollah and Hamas with money, intelligence, and munitions and military training. 

 

     At the end of the day, the provocations by Hezbollah have shown to the world the true face of religious fanatacism along with the complete ineptitude of the UN and it's so called "peace-keeping" forces.

 

Powered By Qumana

Hello Again

Hello again to all those who have patiently stopped stopping by here to see if there is anything new. I have a full time Job again and so have spent less time writing than I should...Soon...Very soon I will have my own take on the middle east situation and some of what I have to say may surprise a few of you. Look forward to writing again...Y'all have a great week

More ramblings

Freedom is Innate. Each of us are born with a requirement to be free. Free to think, Free to work and profit from that work, and free to act as our conscience dictates. This freedom should exist unless and until one infringes upon anothers right to or live freely and around it goes again. Mans mind, throughout history, has always been th most prolific producer of art and innovation and progress when left free to do so AND to profit personally from the product which it produces. Whenever repressed unnecessarily another or by governments, it's ability to produce and create is reduced to that of mere existence and is at it's lowest levels.One would think that as we progress, we would enjoy greater understanding of mankinds need to live in freedom. It seems self evident to me, that at some point we would be able to leave mysticism and it's accompanying tribal mentality behind. And yet, here we are, with the modern conveniences defined by logic and practical scienctific theory's. Advances which we would not be enjoying until the far off future were it not for the more or less free environment in which they were created. Again, historically, the greatest advances in technology and quality of life have come from those societies that have been the least encumbered by the oppression of government interference. Envisioned and produced by those who were least persuaded by the point of a gun.

Not only free to create, but free to reap the just rewards for their efforts. Instead of the socialist/altruist mantra, "from each according to his abilities...to each according to his ned", advancement comes from those societies that practice the Axiom of Reason. "mutual exchange for mutual benefit". Free market capitalist principles can be a logical process. Supply and demand, both determining the price of goods and services. Prices dictated by the requirements of the consumers and the manufacturing capabilities of the supplier. A manufacturer should have the right to request a premium price for their products or services. A consumer has the right to determine what they are willing to pay for a given item.
This equation if left alone will inevitably lead to a point in which manufacturers and buyers meet in the middle. At no point in the transaction does anyone FORCE anyone to make or buy a product. The transactions take place from a position of mutual equality. Only when a collectivist ideology or government intrudes into the equation is force a factor. A government that determines at what price a good or service can be made or sold and equates to forced production at the point of a gun.

Freedom is Innate. Each of us are born with a requirement to be free. Free to think, Free to work and profit from that work, and free to act as our conscience dictates. This freedom should exist unless and until one infringes upon anothers right to or live freely and around it goes again. Mans mind, throughout history, has always been th most prolific producer of art and innovation and progress when left free to do so AND to profit personally from the product which it produces. Whenever repressed unnecessarily another or by governments, it's ability to produce and create is reduced to that of mere existence and is at it's lowest levels.One would think that as we progress, we would enjoy greater understanding of mankinds need to live in freedom. It seems self evident to me, that at some point we would be able to leave mysticism and it's accompanying tribal mentality behind. And yet, here we are, with the modern conveniences defined by logic and practical scienctific theory's. Advances which we would not be enjoying until the far off future were it not for the more or less free environment in which they were created. Again, historically, the greatest advances in technology and quality of life have come from those societies that have been the least encumbered by the oppression of government interference. Envisioned and produced by those who were least persuaded by the point of a gun.

Not only free to create, but free to reap the just rewards for their efforts. Instead of the socialist/altruist mantra, "from each according to his abilities...to each according to his ned", advancement comes from those societies that practice the Axiom of Reason. "mutual exchange for mutual benefit". Free market capitalist principles can be a logical process. Supply and demand, both determining the price of goods and services. Prices dictated by the requirements of the consumers and the manufacturing capabilities of the supplier. A manufacturer should have the right to request a premium price for their products or services. A consumer has the right to determine what they are willing to pay for a given item.
This equation if left alone will inevitably lead to a point in which manufacturers and buyers meet in the middle. At no point in the transaction does anyone FORCE anyone to make or buy a product. The transactions take place from a position of mutual equality. Only when a collectivist ideology or government intrudes into the equation is force a factor. A government that determines at what price a good or service can be made or sold and equates to forced production at the point of a gun.

Objective Thoughts

12-14-03

It is a flash of self awareness that ensures we do not forget our ultimate goal. What is it that mankind searches so desperately for? Perhaps it is often times the idea that homosapiens are unable to function rationally. That their search is one of feeling and emotion, subjective qualities that make an absolute answer impossible.

Reason must be our guide and logic our road-map. Humans are at the top of the foodchain, the ultimate predators. Reason dictates that we strive for the freedom to live our own lives unencumbered by the "feelings" generated by "social consiousness". Humans should strive to maximize our return without encroaching on anothers right to do the same. We should further try to free of a system which holds as its highest moral principle "From each according to his ability To each according to his need".
It is imperative that makind escape from the inconsistency in our own moral context. Our innate need to act from a point of logic which some try to balance with the cry that we must "feel from our hearts". Feel what ...and for whom. Reason demads that we act consistent with our nature. Emotion demads that we disregard our nature all together. Logic states that absolutes exist and are irrevocable. "Feeling" claims that all is subjective and unlear.

And yet, we often find ourselves leaving logic behind in the interest of convenience. Feeling is so much easier. It allows us to suspend our natural tendency towards ethical behaviour. It removes barriers inmposed by our "reasoning" mind, allowing us to act in a manner inconsistent with our normal rational behavior.

Abortion, The Supreme Court, and South Dakota

In the landmark 1972 case of Roe V Wade, The US Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision, ruled that a woman had a "fundamental" right to an abortion based in part on a perceived right to privacy based in the liberty clause of the 14th amendment as well as in the penumbra of the Bill of Rights as determined in the case of Griswold V Connecticut.

 

The next major decision on the abortion rights front was the 1992 case of Casey V Planned Parenthood. The case upheld the primary holding of Roe but established a different guideline.  Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in his dissent, noted that the "Confusion and uncertainty (of Roe) complicated the task of the court of appeals".  Additionally, the Chief Justice argued that the court had "over-reached"  in aligning a woman's "right" to abort a fetus with those outlined in the in the Griswold case which established a precedent that right of an abortion to is "fundamental"

 

Why is all this so important?  First, it is necessary to expose the duplicity of the left on the issue of Supreme Court Justices and the issue of Abortion.  Democrats and their far left Special Interest groups, claim that they want Justices who decide cases based on the precedents (if any), The facts of the case, and the laws as enacted by congress.  But the reality of it is that they prefer justices who are willing to step away from the basic principles of Judicial Review on this very divisive issue.  Second, It helps us more clearly see the growing trend in the courts and congress to further dilute our federalist principles bay taking away from, and/or restricting the rights of, the states governments and making those decisions at the federal level. 

 

Recently, the Federalist principle "states rights" were brought back into the forefront by a law passed in the state of South Dakota banning most abortions.  My own reading of the South Dakota Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act leaves no doubt to this lay person as to it's intent.  The SD Bill would make it illegal to procure, prescribe, Distribute or administer any drug, chemical or procedure that would lead to the termination of a Fetus at any time.  The act clearly excepts contraceptive measures designed to and used prior to conception.  Additionally, it removes from liability and possible criminal prosecution those actions deemed necessary to preserve and protect the life of the mother.  However, it tasks the treating physician with the liability to perform their procedures with all possible care to protect and preserve the life of the fetus as well. 

 

This bill is a direct frontal assault on the above mentioned Roe v. Wade case and its subsequent precedents.  It acknowledges recent medical science that shows that an embryo is unique at the moment of conception...science that was not available until recently.  The state of South Dakota argues that it's constitution "Requires that it enact and apply laws to protect those who cannot protect themselves, in this case a forming fetus.

 

Roe will be revisited and might be reversed by the courts.  However, it would not outlaw or make illegal a woman's right to abortion.  What it would do is, in effect return the decision to the states to enable them to enact legislation regarding the right to an abortion. While I do not believe that the US Constitution explicitly grants a "Right to Privacy", it has been determined by the Supreme court that the founders did intend for the citizens to have a right to privacy in their person.  The government must have a compelling reason in order to obtain the necessary warrant to violate that privacy.  What is more private than your physical body.  Both the left and the right have it wrong on this issue.  One wants to go so far as to allow for the government funding of Abortion while the other side would make abortion illegal and take away control of their own medical health from women.  Accordingly, the reality of a distinct loss of personal responsibility and the adoption of situational ethics have lead us where we are today.

 

Most of us understand the possible ramifications of sexual activity between consenting adults when performed without the use of contraception.  An individual acting in a objective and reasoned process would lead someone to either forgo the activity (abstinence)  or use a reasonably effective form of contraception.  Understanding that a person acting on behalf of their own rational self interest, would not have a child until such time as they have decided that the time has arrived to do so. This issue really puts into perspective the major difference between those who truly believe in liberty and those on the left who preach liberty but practice collectivism/socialism and argue for an increased role of the Federal Government in our every day life.

 

Technorati Tags : Abortion, US, Supreme, Court, South, Dakota

 

Powered By Qumana

Where Is The Outrage

We have recently seen days of violent and even deadly protests which stem from a silly cartoon series printed in a Danish newspaper.

 

I have heard plenty of concerns voiced by those on the right side of the aisle and the President today stepped to the front of this issue decrying the loss of life and property because of these cartoons.  I have yet to hear, and perhaps I've just missed it, anything from the left in this country.  Accordingly, much can and should be inferred from their silence.

 

I'm not going to point fingers and call anyone un-American.  And yet, as I have said before, what is the left's true purpose.  We have senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy demanding of the Attorney General that he provide them, in open session, with the identities of those being monitored under the NSA program authorized by President Bush.  Both Mr. Leahy and the distinguished Senator from NY, Chuck Schumer, are making every effort to stop or make ineffective, this very important and vital intelligence gathering tool.  This, added to their reticence and in some cases outright rejection of the Patriot Act, creates with me at least some cause for concern.

 

I have heard and read some go so far as to accuse the left of treason.  I don;t believe they are that forward thinking.  In fact, I believe that their motives, underscored by their silence on the cartoon issue, are far more narcissistic and introverted.  The left knows, as do most of us, that the War in Iraq and the NSA program when combined with the Patriot Act, have managed to prevent of deter another terrorist attack on US soil.

 

Add to this their inability to get any real traction on their domestic agenda and the continuing improvement of the US economy, they have no other real grounds to attack on.  Their very political livelihood could well depend on this fight.

 

So, even in the absence of any objective proof, and in spite of the average Americans views on this subject, the left has staked out, many of them their very political careers, on this current avenue of attack.  And this requires them to stay fairly quiet about the cartoons issue despite the fertile grounds for blaming the Bush White house for the unrest.  Lets face it, the left have presented no plan or ideology of their own to correct what they are crying is wrong.  They are to busy politicking to actually have a plan.

 

And so, while I do not think we can accuse them of treason, they are in fact being what they have always been.  Blind to facts and truly out of touch with the American mainstream.

 

 

Technorati Tags : Democrats, Republicans, Politics, World, Events

Powered By Qumana

The Dem's Just Don't Get IT

With all the recent rhetoric from the political left about a judicially conservative judge being out of the mainstream, it strikes me as a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black. 

 

As I watched some of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings today it struck me how out of the mainstream the Democrats and their special interest group constituents truly are.  In correlation with the hearings for justice Alito, they maintain their advance in the face of popular consensus.  The public, by a 2-1 margin in even the partisan polls, supported Justice Alito.  The public, by a slightly smaller margin, agrees that the president has the legal authority to use his NSA program to keep Americans safe.

 

Despite the attempts by General Hayden and AG Gonzales to outline that this program does not nor will it extend to "domestic" surveillance, the democrats on the committee still accuse the president of "spying on innocent Americans".  It has been made very clear that any "domestic" surveillance has been routed through the proper entity, ie: the FISA courts.  And yet the senators insist that AG Gonzales and the president have used the program to "search peoples homes", "opened their mail", and "listened in on their private phone and email conversations" despite a complete lack of evidence to support it.

 

Not one individual has come forward claiming to have had their fourth amendment rights violated.  So I ask you...who is out of the mainstream?  My own view based on their complete inability to listen to the facts and interpret them...would be the Democrats and their far left special interest groups.

 

 

 

Powered By Qumana

Deity Discrimination

My friends, we have a severe case of "Deity Discrimination". We need to contact our representatives in Washington and demand that affirmative action be extended to cover this insidious form of discrimination.

In all sincerity, I am disturbed more and more by the mainstream media's newfound religious deference and sensitivity to Islam. This is a marked departure form their norms when the cartoon or article is related to the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. If my readers will reflect back a few years, you will recall that we were told that art exhibits (funded in part by the National Endowment for the Arts), depicting a cross in a jar of urine, or a picture of Christ covered in manure, are merely expressions of free speech. Now, these same media outlets won't reprint a series of cartoons by a Dutch cartoonist that are merely a reflection of the outrage of islamist violence. Where, I ask you, is this artists right to free speech.

To make my point I present this quote from the artist himself. "I personally cannot help contrasting the reaction to these cartoons with the reaction to those that refer to Jesus and are apparently quite acceptable. In fact, in the latter case, it is apparently the Christians who need to get "with the program" not the cartoonist.". Personally, I have to wonder where the Mainstream media's sympathies lie. The NY Times has severely hampered our ability to surveil potential Islamist terrorist in our own country with their outing of the NSA program established by the Bush administration. They have repeatedly hammered on this administration with regard to it's purported legality (or illegality as they claim). They have repeatedly mis-characterized the program as "spying on innocent Americans". Even though they have not presented any evidence or individual who has actually claimed they were harmed by this program.

In short, our own mainstream media outlets are guilty, in my opinion, of aiding and abetting terrorism on behalf of the extreme leftist special interest groups. They denounce and decry Christians and their beliefs at the drop of a hat, yet they will not support the right of an artist to say what many of us think with regard to the radical islamist religions that practice terrorism.

The Lefts REAL Purpose

Barring something truly unforeseen, Judge Samuel Alito will be confirmed as Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, strengthening its independence and perhaps slowing down it's slide towards activism.

But I have grave reservations with regard to the lines of questioning about Executive Power and the Unitary Executive Theory. If I had any doubt as to the lefts intention in asking it, Senators Schumer and Kennedy, no friends of the current administration, put those doubts to rest.

What is interesting, at least in part is the authorization granted by the legislative branch gave to the President which states as follows "IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." This seems pretty clear to me that the President, if he does not have inherent authority, would have the authority under this resolution to use the measures that he thought necessary throughout the law enforcement and domestic intelligence apparatus for our protection.

I think it is important to show the contradictions in the assertions of those democrats who have been so critical. Recall that, following the release of the 9/11 commission report, the Democrats were actively charging President Bush with a failure to "connect the dots". Now with the FBI and NSA attempting (and succeeding) to do just that, they conflict their own argument , stating that President Bush somehow acted illegally. Some on the left side of the aisle are even whispering impeachment for abuse of executive power.

The mainstream media and the Democrats have somehow forgotten that it was during the Clinton administration that the public first learned of the existence and use of an NSA program called "ECHELON". Interestingly, the NY Times was strangely quiet about the use of this program during the Clinton years and even defended it's use as a necessary mechanism to protect us from terrorists. In fact, it was under reported but well documented that the program had in fact been used to eavesdrop on Americans, in many cases for no objective reason at all. Mind you this eavesdropping was done without any FISA warrants, and they were done to American citizens who's phone numbers did not show up in any Al-Qaeda cell phones.

My own conclusions on this matter are bound to upset some of you. The Democrats power in Washington has been so depleted by their loss of the Senate, The House, and The Presidency, and their hatred of George W. Bush is so visceral, that many of them just can't believe that he actually to steps and has heretofore prevented attacks from occurring on US soil. The Democrats are weak on Defense and National Security issues and failed to take action and arrest Bin-Laden while they were in power. They disregard and hold up as civil rights violations the actions taken to protect us to date, yet present no coherent plan of their own. They lambaste the President over a lack of a post regime change strategy in Iraq, but, once again, have offered no strategy or plan of their own other than the complete and total withdrawal of US troops. Essentially their strategy is to admit defeat.

In the end, the public supports the President doing what is necessary to protect them. A recent Fox News poll showed that 58% of respondents were favorable to the actions taken by the with regard to NSA eavesdropping on potential terrorist subjects. My sense of this is that it will ultimately blow up in the face of the Democrats just as their attacks on Judge Alito did.

Days 2 & 3: Food for Thought

In two days of questions and answers, the detractors of Judge Alito have failed, in my humble opinion, to cast any shadow on the nominee's ability to act in any other way than with independence and impartiality.

In light of their inability to disqualify this judge based on some practical and objective standard, they have resorted to their time tested practice of attacking character and ethics. Apparently the lessons from the Thomas confirmation went unlearned as some members of the committee almost went so far as to call Judge Alito a Racist and a Bigot. Yet a couple of others have all but accused him of being hostile to racial inequity, gender and disability discrimination.

At issue is the Judges membership in the Concerned Alumnus of Princeton or C.A.P. It seems to me to be an attempt to cast doubt on his ability to be fair and impartial in cases in which racial and gender minority's are before him as a judge. Such a great deal has been made of this C.A.P. issue that one can't help but wonder where it is the Democrats on congress are trying to go with this. Every individual involved with this group have held that Judge Alito was not involved in any substantive manner be it fund raising, donations, and/or authorship of documents.

So why is this important? It goes to the continuing processes taken by democratic operatives and their counterparts in the special interest groups to attack a nominee's character. We saw a great deal of it during the last two presidential elections and we continue to see it within the confines of the Senates confirmation hearings. Now some of you reading this may attempt to claim that the right has engaged in the same behavior. However, I would challenge anyone to proved evidence where unsupported and unfounded allegations have been made about the ethics or character of a nominee from a democratic president. Two justices were nominated by former President Clinton. Both were overwhelmingly confirmed by over 90% of the US Senate. No one that I can remember attempted to attack the integrity or character of Clinton's nominee's.

Associate Justice Ruth Ginsberg was a known liberal activist. A former head of the ACLU and the other of contentious documents advocating the federal funding of Abortions in some cases. This view was obviously antithetical to the beliefs of the republicans not only on the committee but to those in the Senate as well. Although the Republican members of the committee questioned Justice Ginsberg extensively and perhaps somewhat hostilely with regard to her stance on abortion and judicial activism, they did not attempt to sully her character or intimate in any way that she had acted in unethical manner. In fact, the Republican senators took her at her word and finally voted 96 to 4 to confirm her to the nations highest court.

Taking a look at the last 4 (or is it 5 lol) Republican nominations, it is obvious that Democrat senators do not ascribe to the same process. For example, Judge Robert Bork, who by many legal minds is arguably one of the sharpest legal minds ever to be nominated. Yet he was attacked as if by a bunch of rabid Pit Bulls. Additionally, Justice Clarence Thomas hearings were even more contentious. I don't think, in my limited experience, that I have ever seen a more vicious attempt at character assassination. Justice Thomas's record as a jurist and as the head of the EEOC was of such sterling quality that the liberal special interest groups knew they would be unable to disqualify him on the merits of his record.

Accordingly, these same groups were able to initiate a malicious attack on the Thomas's character and integrity. Using a former EEOC colleague, Justice Thomas was blatantly accused of sexual harassment. Those who knew the judge best were so stunned by the accusation that there was a considerable lag in their ability to organize in his defense. History and the passage of time have more than born out the Justices claims of innocence and he was eventually confirmed to the court.

The practices used then have never been more evident in the modern era than the Democrats and their special interest group cronies to attack Judge Alito's character and integrity. Unable to find fault with an unassailable record as a jurist, several Democrat Senators on the committee have latched on to this conservative group in a last ditch effort to give the appearance that Judge Alito has ideas which would be unpalatable to the American public. This tactic is likely to fail with Judge Alito. And although they won't recognize it, those pressing these accusations are likely to end up with egg on their faces.

Technorati Tags : Samuel, Alito, Ruth, Ginsberg, Clarence, Thomas, Robert, Bork, Anita, Hill

Powered By Qumana

Day 1: What has happened to the process?

 

 

One need only go back to the nominations of US Supreme Court Justices Breyer and Ginsberg to see the vast difference in how the Republican senate acted regarding judicial nominations and how the Liberals in the democratic party approach the same.  Justices Breyer and Ginsberg were voted out of committee and out of the Senate with a vast overwhelming majority of senators voting for them.  But one need only look to the Reagan era nominations of Bork and Thomas and contrast it with those of Bork and Ginsberg. The Thomas/Bork nominations were nothing short of all out character assassination.  One successful and one not. 

 

Now, we have decidedly politicized a non political appointment.  Both sides bear some responsibility for this.  Republicans, being the majority party, should have stepped on this a long time ago.  And the opening statements from the Judiciary Committee today should have left no doubt on which side of the liberty spectrum our current legislative leaders fall.  Both parties, although for vastly different reasons, are arguing for greater government control of our every day lives.

 

The left side of the aisle believes that government should be able to dole out what liberties we as Americans share.  To them, the idea of private anything and/or  personal liberty are concepts that should be banned for the greater good.  The right, in it's effort to promote it's agenda would like it if all judges used a completely literal translation of the constitution.  This week it apparently comes to a head in the form of abortion and executive power.

 

How does all this apply to Judge Alito?  He is in the crossfire between the two competing groups. for instance:

 

• Senator Diane Feinstein, D :  She was quite adamant that in order for her to be able to vote for him he would need to explain why he dissented with a majority opinion establishing congresses right to thwart a states right in Intrastate commerce.  Additionally, she claimed to be extremely worried by a 1984 document in which Judge Alito stated his belief that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.  For obvious reasons that bothers her.
• Senator Chuck Schumer, D :  Chuck was UPSET that the President had the temerity to nominate an individual that might be more conservative then the decidedly centrist Justice O'Connor.  Senator Schumer also claims that he needs to know if the judge will uphold the presidents executive authority to act to protect the public during a time of war.
• Richard Durbin, D :  The most accusatory of Judge Alito and his record.  At one point all but calling the judge a racist based on a stance taken by the Judge at Princeton University against the school administrations decision to grant preferential treatment to those with gender and minority status.

This is but a small sample of some of the more vocal members that I heard.  But I never cease to be amazed at their abilities to contradict themselves.  In short, the two underlying things that reared their ugly heads were Abortion and Executive Power.  It is obvious that the democrats can't stand being beat by President Bush at every turn so they are using this opportunity in an attempt to get back at the executive.

Tomorrow, the real circus begins.  Some of the panel will actually have substantive and probative questions.  But those aligned with the Kennedy/Schumer side of the aisle are likely to begin their pompous grand standing yet again and I will be there to watch it all.  Till then...

Powered By Qumana

Who's Fault Is It Anyway?

Whom do we hold accountable?

Is it Mr. Hatfield, President and CEO of ICG, the mining concern that owns the Sago Mine in West Virginia. Is it the regulatory agencies for not ordering the mines production shut down? Or do we just chalk it up to an unmitigated disaster caused by mother nature?

To date we have no idea what went wrong inside that mine on an early Monday morning. Everything released so far is merely conjecture and supposition. It will take some time for the investigators to gather enough information in order to determine the point of origin and possible cause of the explosion. I have heard statements from the reporters on the scene that the explosion may have happened in a shut down part of the mine which was no longer being used and was in fact sealed off.

I was touched by the raw emotion in the voice of Mr. Hatfield as he tried to answer questions from the press at 3:00 this morning. He was visibly shaken and justifiably indignant at those reporters who kept asking in a belligerent manner that he tell them WHO mislead the families earlier in the evening. My hat is off to Mr. Hatfield for a job well done and for holding his ground with the media sharks circling around him.

Those reporters and their asinine questions prompted me to write another post on this particular subject. The sheer hubris of some of the reporters and their questions confounds me. Here is a company and it's employees and families trying to cope with a tragedy of titanic proportions, and these reporters continue to try and find someone to demonize and/or scapegoat for a story. It was not enough news that people had been trapped and all but one had perished, they wanted fresh meat. Despite repeated attempts, even this afternoon, to explain the complexities and personal issues that are involved, some reporters still acted as if the privacy of the families and the companies attempts to get things right did not matter.

In my opinion, and this is an opinion Blog, this showed us glaringly what the problem is with many journalists today. Recent problems with both the credibility of the press and the motivations behind it's power brokers and editors lead me to often times doubt the desire of the modern journalist to actually find or report the truth.

As A father, I am constantly reminding my children that "words mean things." And not only the words themselves but the way in which they are placed together in sentences, paragraphs and documents. The subtle leaving off of a word can make a sentence entirely different. Why the English lesson you ask? Several times just today have I heard sentences in which safety violations were mentioned without qualifying who was in charge of the Mine at the time of the violations. Seems a little important to me from the standpoint of the truth that a person would be very clear in identifying the proper company with which to place blame for multiple regulatory infractions.

ICG did not take possession as owners of the Sago property until late fall 2005. The previous owner was in bankruptcy and it is likely that they had not taken as close a look at the safety of the operation as they should have. In the end, this may or may not have led to the accident that occurred on Monday morning. But until the truth in the form of concrete evidence arrives, perhaps it's best if we don't crucify Mr. Hatfield and his company. After all, they might not have been able to prevent an act of nature in the first place.

Powered By Qumana

Human Life...Or Scapegoating

While watching a press conference this morning concerning the 13 trapped West Virginia Miners, I was struck by the sheer lack of knowledge of the mining process of those reporters I heard ask questions.

In one instance, after trying as well as possible to "laymanize" the complexities and terminology of the rescue efforts, a reporter asked if the speaker could put it in "plain english." Underground mining by it's very nature is a very dangerous occupation. Accidents can and do happen. Some tragic and fatal, and those that never make the nightly news.

Anyone who has ever been in at a mine site and in one of the tunnels could tell you. Mines are a vast organism of tunnels extending into the depths of the earth. The equipment used to mine the ores are a technological wonder. Violations on something that massica a scale are inevitible. Most are corrected as quickly as possible after they are recognized. And yet, with 13 brave miners trapped, the media seem to be pre-occupied with casting blame on someone. Additionaly, the number of Serious accidents in mines in this country are quite low.

Almost immediately after the public was made aware of the explosion in West Virginia, the media the media started their wailing about possible mine safety violations. This has only intensified as the day wears on. And of course the line has been blurred already, if not completely obliterated with some reporters, abour the company responsible for the majority of the reported violations. Of course ICG, the current owner/operator of the mining concern was not the owner when those violations were assesed. By every account, ICG had made amazing progress rectifying those safety concerns and creating a better and safer working environment for the miners working there.

The focus of course should be on the efforts to rescue the individuals trapped more than two miles in and two-hundred sixty below the surface. It has been repeated over and over that they do not know what may have caused the underground explosion. At present all that is known is that a serious explosion occured and the 13 miners who were bringing the mine back to life were still below.

My heart goes out to those families whose loved ones are lost down in that mine shaft. It is my sincere hope that this tragedy will end on a positive note. I believe that the best and brightest within government and the mining industry are doing there very best to rescue those individuals.

Perhaps those in the journalism profession should take a little more time to learn more specifically about those things on which they are reporting and/or asking questions. Lastly, once the rescue/recovery is complete, we can begin the process to assess the possible causes of the accident and attempt to correct it and prevent it in the future.

Technorati Tags : Coal, West, Virginia, MHSA, US, Government

Powered By Qumana