Quote of the day

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States." --Thomas Jefferson

The last two sentences are interesting. If I'm reading them correctly, Jefferson was saying that state governments *could* make laws respecting an establishment of religion. In short, states could have official state religions. Only the federal government could not. This goes back to the phrasing of the First Amendment which starts with "Congress shall make no law...." This restricts this prohibition to the federal government. Others of the first ten amendments are blanket prohibitions. For example, the Second Amendment doesn't say that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress."

Of course, I would say it's a bad thing for *any* government at any level to have an official religion. And I expect that the constitutions of most, if not all, of the states have similar language to the First Amendment (haven't read them all, don't know for sure).

Some Democrats are unpatriotic

So says Orson Scott Card, himself a Democrat.

The Campaign of Hate and Fear

Some choice excerpts:

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? It might--because the 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.

You hear about this all the time from the right, that the media is actively working to undermine the administration and bring about a Democrat win in 2004. To hear it from a Democrat only gives it additional weight.

But Iraq is not Vietnam. Nor is the Iraq campaign even the whole war. Of course there's still fighting going on. Our war is against terrorist-sponsoring states, and just because we toppled the governments of two of them doesn't mean that the others aren't still sponsoring terrorism. Also, there is a substantial region in Iraq where Saddam's forces are still finding support for a diehard guerrilla campaign.

In other words, the Iraq campaign isn't over--and President Bush has explicitly said so all along. So the continuation of combat and casualties isn't a "failure" or a "quagmire," it's a "war." And during a war, patriotic Americans don't blame the deaths on our government. We blame them on the enemy that persists in trying to kill our soldiers.

Anyone who persists in comparing Iraq to Vietnam, or calling it a "quagmire" is just parroting a line that is demonstrably false.

It's not just the war, of course. Notice that even though our recent recession began under President Clinton, the media invariably refer to it as if Mr. Bush had caused it; and even though by every measure, the recession is over, they still cover it as if the American economy were in desperate shape.

This brings to mind the famous quote: "It's the economy, stupid!" Actually, it can be shown that presidents have a lot less real control over the economy than most people think they do. Yet that doesn't stop the detractors of the current administration. Though, to be honest, it doesn't stop the detractors of the Clinton administration from blaming him for the recession either.

The goal of our troops in Iraq is not to protect themselves so completely that none of our soldiers die. The goal of our troops is to destroy the enemy, some of whom you do not find except when they emerge to attack our forces and, yes, sometimes inflict casualties.

This is the cold hard truth. I hate to see our men and women in uniform pay the ultimate price. But we must make sure that the price is worth paying. To do less, to cut and run, would be to render their sacrifices meaningless.

And the final paragraph:

And if we elect a government that subverts or weakens or ends our war against terrorism, we can count on this: We will soon face enemies that will make 9/11 look like stubbing our toe, and they will attack us with the confidence and determination that come from knowing that we don't have the will to sustain a war all the way to the end.

I really do need to read more of Mr. Card's books and stories.

Like we didn't see this coming

Rep. Jim McDermott, who gained notoriety for his visit to Baghdad in 2002 where he said that President Bush would mislead the public to justify an invasion, had some comments about the capture of Saddam Hussein. Predictably, he is questioning the "timing" of the capture.

There is a phrase that I've been seeing a lot of recently. It is "drink the Kool-Aid" and various variants thereof. This is a reference to the 1978 Jonestown mass-suicide where they drank Kool-Aid (or some other similar drink) containing cyanide. The page linked above defines this term as:

v. To become a firm believer in something; to accept an argument or philosophy wholeheartedly or blindly.

In the current context, the argument or philosophy is that of the extreme Left who loathe President Bush with such a passion that they will say and do absolutely anything, including advocating the death of our troops and our failure in Iraq, in order to remove him from office.

I hereby declare that Jim McDermott has drunk the Kool-Aid. Or, it may be better to say that he drank it some time back and is now actively serving it up.

And, although this is not as current, Howard Dean has drunk deeply of the pitcher himself. And see my previous post on how Dennis Kucinich used the names of our honored dead for his own political gain, especially given that the first statement of the video is an outright lie.

Of all the candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, the only one I have any respect for is Joe Lieberman. He actually gets it. Unfortunately, Dean and the others have pulled the Democrat Party so far to the left that Lieberman doesn't have a chance, especially not after Gore's endorsement of Dean over his former running mate.

Dogs, guns, and cops

A woman in Arizona was mauled and killed by three pitbulls owned by a neighbor.

Response in fatal dog mauling case questioned

This one article brings up several issues for me.

• Once again, the cops usually can't protect you at the time you are in danger. It took an hour and ten minutes for a sheriff's deputy to get there and, by that time, it was already far too late. It doesn't matter if your assailant is human or animal, a gun is still the most effective form of personal defense that currently exists.


• What is it with people who own animals like this? What do they get out of it? On the way to work yesterday, I was sitting at an intersection where I watched a man and his dog cross the street. The dog looked kind of like a pit bull, but I don't think it was, the head wasn't shaped right. It had bobbed ears and a pair as big as mine hanging down between his legs. I watched this guy and his non-neutered dog walk by and wondered why he had that particular dog. If I had to guess, I'd say a big reason was machismo. He had this very "masculine" dog because he wanted to show the world how manly he is, or compensate for a sense of inadequacy in that department. Oh, I'm sure the dog is friendly and he cares about it, but this particular type of dog provides him with something he wouldn't get from a small dog or a cat. Contrast that with the reasons Ali and I have our cat. We don't have him to show off and impress people. We have him because he's a sweet little guy who brings pleasure and a sense of fulfillment to our lives. It's our relationship with Calvin that's important. What other people think about him is not important. (Of course we want people to like him, but that's not a necessary factor.) This, of course, is not to say that he doesn't have the right to have that dog. However, in the case of this article, the dogs in question were actual pit bulls, which are known to be potentially dangerous. Which brings me to my next point.


• The woman whose dogs killed the victim should be charged, tried, and sent to jail. She is responsible for the actions of her dogs, even more so than the actions of her children should she have any. It's her responsibility to control the dogs and she let them get away. It's like having a trio of guns that can move around and shoot people on their own. This, by extension, makes these dogs far more dangerous than any actual gun. I don't know if she should be charged with murder, but at least manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Publicity stunt?

If you believe President Bush's visit to Iraq for Thanksgiving was just a glorified photo op, read this and then ask yourself if you still believe it.

Email from Participant at President Bush's Thanksgiving

Of course it was an opportunatity to have some good pictures taken. But I don't believe that's why he went. I believe he went because he genuinely cares about the troops that are serving in Iraq, and everywhere else. Like it says in the linked post, he spent 17 hours in the air, each way, to fly into the most dangerous airport in the world and spend a couple of hours with the troops.

I don't agree with everything the President has done (though in my case it's because he hasn't acted as enough of a conservative on certain issues) but, when it comes to acknowledging those to whom we owe our freedom, the man gets it.

Quote of the day

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... [I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." --Albert Gallatin

This includes the Second Amendment. Those who think that amendment guarantees only a collective right (i.e. the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), simply haven't read the other writings of the people who wrote the Bill of Rights, or deliberately choose to ignore them.

*Update* The quote above was incorrectly attributed to Benjamin Franklin. The quote is actually from Albert Gallatin, Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury. I have made the correction.

Pacifism and responsibility

A short essay on how pacifism (as defined by the author) is equal to the abdication of personal responsibility.

Pacifism and Personal Responsibility

One of the main reasons I carry a concealed pistol when I can is because it is the ultimate act of personal responsibility. I am taking my safety into my own hands and not depending on others to protect me. This is not to say that I deliberately go looking for a situation in which I will need to use my gun, quite the opposite actually. The knowledge that I have the capability to take a life by performing a series of uncomplicated actions ending with a simple movement of my right forefinger leads me to be more cautious and work even harder to avoid that type of situation.

But if it comes down to it, if I or someone else is being threatened with physical harm or death, I fully intend to draw my weapon, aim it, and, if necessary, pull the trigger. I used the word "intend" deliberately. I recognize that I've never done it before, so I can't say with 100% surety that I will be able to do it if and when the time comes. I hope I never have to find out.

Ultimately, the only person responsible for my safety is me. The police increase the safety of the population as a whole by serving as a deterrent to crime, and by capturing criminals. However, they can only capture criminals after the crime has been comitted. Only rarely are the police on hand to prevent the crime in the first place. As I've said before, the police have no legal obligation to prevent you from being the victim of a crime. This has been upheld time after time in court cases throughout the years. Only if you have a "special relationship" with the police (i.e. you're in protective custody) do they have such a responsibility.

If you don't want to carry or own a gun, that is your right. I don't have a problem with that as long as you don't try to take away my right to do so.