William F. Buckley R.I.P.

A sad day indeed. Yesterday it was reported that William F. Buckley, founder of National Review, probably the greatest political magazine out there today died. The political world is worse off with his passing.

He is being honored at National Review and the Corner at National Review and hope readers will stop by and relive Buckley's life and works.

William F Buckley - 1925 - 2008

OS

Are humans just another animal?

The debate over humans/animals has been going on probably before Darwin and I recall one of my classes in Intellectual History the question was posed to the class to list the differences between man and beast. Many of the more progressive thinkers maintained that there was little difference, going so far as to cite some obscure studies that bolstered the point that we (Man) are just another animal. I recall my teacher after the discussion stating how worried and pessimistic he felt after hearing so many voices maintaining the equivocation.

So in reading the news (when all my rants usually come to me) I see that this debate is still raging (or as many scientists apparently believe - the debate has been settled, the debate is more over where in the development chain Man really is?) and saw that as late as last year, there were still talks with titles such as “Is man just another animal?” Which promised to explore the "the similarities and differences between human DNA and that of our relatives and will examine Gilbert and Sullivan’s claim that “Darwinian man, though well behaved, at best is only a monkey shaved”."

This topic has always frosted me as I recall hearing how great the dolphins were compared to Man and all that (War is a human construct for example) and it sickens me that we as a people are so ashamed to actually beleive we are better than the chimp or the gorilla or the cockroach for that matter. Well Yahoo News comes to the rescue again. In today's Top Stories I see this little gem - "Fake flipper sought for sea turtle". Yes that is right, here is a national story discussing some big hearted tourists who found a bloody sea turtle and brought it to an endangered species hospital and there is a current move to make a prosthetic flipper. From the story:

"The wounds have healed very nicely. The problem is she doesn't swim very well,"said Jeff George, curator at the nonprofit Sea Turtle Inc., a 31-year-old turtle conservation facility that treats and returns injured sea turtles to the wild.

Now, her caregivers hope to make her what's believed to be the first sea turtle fitted with a prosthetic flipper.

Three-flipper turtles can return to the sea and two-flipper turtles can survive in captivity. But those left with only one after predator attacks or run-ins with boat propellers are usually killed.

So until I hear about monkeys finding a cure for AIDS or dolphins giving us a cure for Cancer or the gorilla setting up a hospital for humans, I will maintain that we humans are a breed apart, something a little different and very special and an overall good force on this planet. In your face Darwin!!

OS

Global Warming equals Giant Burmese Pythons colonizing the US?

Hat tip to the great Newsbusters site for this one. Newsbusters is reporting a USA Today story that touts that "Global Warming Will Cause Giant Snakes to Take Over America". Now I know that the climate change folks are really trying to stir up cataclysmic repercussions but now we have to worry about a python invasion in the lower US states?

USA Today's story found on their website states:

As climate change warms the nation, giant Burmese pythons could colonize one-third of the USA, from San Francisco across the Southwest, Texas and the South and up north along the Virginia coast, according to U.S. Geological Survey maps released Wednesday.

To quote Indiana Jones "I hate snakes..." and I can't find this news to be more unwelcome but come on - Climate change? Thanks to Noel Sheppard over at Newsbusters, you find out that the real culprit is not climate change but people "...dumping pythons they don't want in the wild". Seems like a good place to start to prevent this great catastrophe is to work to stop this illegal dumping (can you imagine if the owners were smoking while they were getting rid of the unwanted reptiles - then we would have a the full power of the federal government brought down on these lawbreakers). What a hoot.

Read Noel Sheppard's post on Newsbusters here.

OS

What is the State of the Black Union?

It is time to go back to talking about Culture and the craziness that currently passes for race relations. There really is no winning this one currently as there are too many people who benefit from promoting racial discord. I had an excellent post on this about Katrina a while back here (in my humble opinion at least). If Obama gets the nomination for the Democratic candidate for Presidency and doesn't win, the analysis from CNN, MSNBC and the Boston Globe will be that he lost because of his race (America wasn't ready for a black president, etc.) not that the American people rejected his extreme liberal positions on the issues facing America and his empty rhetoric (Change for change's sake and all that).

So I was reading CNN's website and saw the following story - "Obama takes heat for skipping State of the Black Union". So what is the State of the Black Union. Well thanks to Google I found out that the State of the Black Union is is an annual event which is held in a selected city in the United States (2008 found the conference in Post-Katrina New Orleans) and focuses on topics close to the African American community. The topic this year was "Reclaiming Our Democracy, Deciding Our Future", the website can be found here. The obvious question has to be - what would be the uproar if there was a state of the White Union (I checked Google and Wikipedia - no such event is planned).

The continued emphasis on defining some people by the color of their skin and allowing "issues" that are only of a concern for a segment of the population (Gay issues, Black issues, Hispanic issues, etc.) will continue the disunity and balkanization that apparently is still accepted as the norm by so many in this country (note the story I quoted from was CNN). The issue with Obama not going to this conference is small compared to the sad state of affairs that a conference like this reveals about the current climate of race relations in America. Read the Covenant with Black America (http://www.covenantwithblackamerica.com/) and replace many of the "covenants" with a different race - Education, Health Care, Economic Prosperity - aren't these issues of concern to all races?

The Covenant with Black America states on its website:

The Covenant with Black America is a national plan of action to address the primary concerns of African Americans today -- from health to housing, from crime to criminal justice, from education to economic parity. The frustration and angst felt by Black Americans post-Hurricane Katrina, from California to the Carolinas, is palpable. As we move toward the national elections of 2006 and 2008, Black Americans are entitled to have questions answered and visions shared of where our leaders want to take this country and a blueprint for how we get there.

I would add that any American is entitled to have questions answered and visions shared with the leaders of this country regardless of race. It is a shame that the supporters or members of this Covenant feel that the focus always come from a racial perspective. Why don't other ethnicities feel the need for a conference such as this (State of the Asian Union, State of the Hispanic Union?).

Until we can move away from issues that are "Black" or "White" or Purple, the original vision of the United States seems distant. Does this bother anyone else?

OS

Fox News Host - Limbaugh endorses Obama

Having my first cup of coffee and watching the Fox News morning show - Fox and Friends and I heard Steve Doocy talking about the current "discontent' that conservative talk radio hosts have with John McCain who has just gotten Mitt Romney's endorsement (story here). The hosts had Mike Gallagher on to discuss this and Doocy said to Mike that "Rush Limbaugh had endorsed Barack Obama on this radio show", presumably over the presumed Republican candidate.

Let me correct the record here as I listen to Rush when I can and I actually heard the endorsement on the air. The transcript from Rush's website states:

Barack Obama, ladies and gentlemen, is a blank canvas upon which anybody can project their fantasies, or their desires. You look at Democrats in the audience, and they're swooning. He's saying nothing. He's saying nothing better than anybody in my lifetime ever has. The reason he says nothing so well is because everybody thinks that he's saying what they want. So they're able to project onto Obama their fantasies.

It was a joke! Obama uses words like "change" and "hope" and injects his speeches with soaring words that have little to back them up (including any real experience) but Rush's point is that is why he is leading in the polls. He is appearing to be everything to everybody - so why not appear to be the more conservative candidate? Again, to Mr. Doocy, it was a joke. You should issue a correction.

This current dust up between conservative talk radio and McCain should also put to rest any notion that those who listen to Rush or Sean or Mark Levin or Laura Ingraham are sheep who get their marching orders on high from talk show hosts and don't think for themselves. But I doubt the media will get to that story. It is so much easier to report how talk radio listeners are a bunch of mind-numbed robots then actually understand that talk radio (like the internet) is a source of intellectual discussion and dispute on a wide variety of issues. Talk Radio hosts are not king makers or leaders of some mob and surprisingly, there is a real diversity of thought on the radio spectrum. I wonder if listeners to the Liberal talk radio network were considered to be led around by the on air hosts? I am betting not.

OS

The Senate has voted to ban waterboarding.

Americans - we can sleep easier tonight as the AP is reporting that the Senate has voted to prohibit the use of waterboarding or other "harsh interrogation techniques" on suspected terrorists. The story also notes that the bill that included this prohibition passed 51-45. Thank God there is still common sense in the House which had previously approved the measure.

So what is waterboarding? Well according to Wikipedia:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.

This technique makes the subject feel like they are drowning and facing imminent death. Ok - sounds rough. But also recall that the CIA has stated that this practice has not been used for 5 years and when used was apparently legal, thanks to then White House Counsel Attorney General Gonzales and others as the Geneva convention did not apply.

I suppose I sound like a Cro-Magnon here but shouldn't those people charged with the protection of this country be able to push the boundaries a little with regard to terror suspects such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Waterboarding has given the Intelligence community valuable information and now the Senate is moving to take away this tool that appears to be instrumental in protecting Americans. Why the hell is the Senate involved in this? Don't they need to get to the bottom of whether or not Roger Clemens used steroids? I always find it funny (in a sad way) when Senators start pontificating about how damaging topics like the use of waterboarding are to the United States personae. The AP story notes:

Arguing for such restrictions, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the use of harsh tactics would boomerang on the United States.

"Retaliation is the way of the world. What we do to others, they will do to us—but worse," Rockefeller said. "This debate is about more than legality. It is also about morality, the way we see ourselves ... and what we represent to the world.

Does Senator Rockefeller know what our foreign aid is to the world? Current reports for 2007 on the USAID.gov website list our foreign aid to Africa and Asia about 5 Billion a year in Foreign Aid. Yes, 5 Billion. That is just Africa and Asia and does not count all the other $ of American Dollars going overseas. You can see the entire 2007 numbers at the USAID website and the budget is also available as a .PDF document here. So my question to Senator Rockefeller is what does he think we are getting for that money? What sort of positive retaliation is the US reaping for its generosity? I wonder next time there is a bill to increase the amount of our money going to some place in Africa or Asia (the largest amount of foreign aid goes to these countries so this is nothing about race) if Senator Rockefeller will question his philosophical questions about US morality and how we are seen in the world. I would bet not.

Not to be outdone, on GoErie.com (an Eire, PA newspaper site), the current editorial takes the President to task writing in part that:

After Hayden's admission that the CIA used waterboarding, the administration said it has not used this torture technique in five years. But, incredibly, Bush reserved the right to use waterboarding again.

So this president is willing to stain the reputation of every American by endorsing torture techniques.

And these are torture techniques that virtually every reputable intelligence agency in the world acknowledges don't work.

It's just plain wrong.

Oh man, forget for the minute the obvious joke about staining the reputation of every American and the obvious Bil Clinton joke. Agents that led waterboarding actually admitted that vital information was gained by waterboarding. Quoting from an ABC News story here:

A former CIA interrogator said waterboarding has saved lives in the war against al Qaeda.

John Kiriakou, who now works in the private sector, told several U.S. news outlets that suspected al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubaida started cooperating after being waterboarded for less than a minute by CIA officials in 2002.

But I prefer the response Tom Tancredo gave when asked if he felt there was a line he wouldn't cross to keep Americans safe and would he approve the use of torture if he felt it would prevent a terrorist attack during one of the Republican Presidential debates on Fox News:

I don’t believe that that is, quote, "torture." I would do what is necessary to protect this country. That is the ultimate responsibility of the president of the United States. All of the other things that we do, all of the other things, all of the other powers vested in him are -- pale in comparison to its -- his responsibility to keep these -- the people of this country safe.

Not once did he mention how this practice would make us look in the eyes of the world. Instead he was focused on protecting American people. That is a leader. The Senate should listen to him and follow his example.

OS

Should we be bothered if there are executions at GITMO?

Yahoo News has an AP story reporting that executions may be carried out in Gitmo if the six suspected terrorists are sentenced to death for their part in the Sept 11 attacks (yes - I said attacks - not retaliations!). The execution method would not be being blown apart like our countrymen and women were on 11 Sept, rather lethal injection would be used.

Does this bother me? Actually no. I am in favor of capital punishment and am glad to see it applied to people like Saddam Hussein and creeps like this. But the AP story does not that executing the criminals would somewhat diminish the US more in the eyes of the world:

Any executions would probably add to international outrage over Guantanamo, since capital punishment is banned in 130 countries, including the 27-nation European Union.

Why is this our concern? Are we bound by the dictates and whims of these 130 other countries? Let's face it, the EU is not our friend and most folks throughout the world don't think much of us (and I don't think I would either if I read the AP). We not only have a duty to see justice done but an obligation to see it done quickly. I don't recall Europe having big problems with the execution of the Nazi war criminals and quite frankly this is our call to make not the U.N. I am all for trying to get along with our global neighbors and fostering peace and fellowship, but not at the expense of US Sovereignty or the will of the American People.

But the whiners can take heart. It is reported that the trial for these 6 accused detainees will be lengthy with the verdict being delivered probably after Bush has left office. So, a question has to be asked. Will our next choice for president have the stones to execute these folks providing they are found guilty in court? Don't you think he (or she - perish thought) should be able to and more importantly should sign the execution order? That is a situational question I would like asked at the next debate and the answer would be telling of the true character of the person.

OS

A lot to catch up on.

So, what have I learned from the past couple of weeks? I stink at predictions.

1. I predicted that the Pats would win the Super Bowl. Didn't happen. I have never seen Tom Brady eat so much dirt. Needless to say it was a disappointing loss but I am happy to say that I didn't hear of New England fans rioting and causing costly property damage? I wonder why not?
2. I predicted that Giuliani would take the Republican nomination. Unfortunately he followed an extremely risky strategy that based his chances on Florida which he lost which I also commented on here. So I am not doing so hot with my predictions.

Well to avoid any sort of prediction that includes the words "President Clinton" is a real challenge today as I see what is going on in the Republican Party. In separate occasions I heard Ann Coulter announce that she would campaign for Hillary if McCain is picked as the Republican nominee for President (see Slate blog post here or look on Youtube. It is all over the place). Ann went so far as to call Clinton more conservative than McCain. Then I have heard Rush Limbaugh since the McCain candidacy talk about how a McCain presidency will change the Republican Party forever (not in a good way) and that he feels McCain would be disastrous for the country and since there is little difference between Obama and McCain or Clinton and McCain, he would rather see ruinous policies laid at the door of the Dems (more on this you can check out Howard Kurtz' interview with Rush here). Rush is quoted in the Washington Post as saying:

"If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit . . . rather than a Republican causing the debacle," he said. "And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative."

Wow. Ann and Rush are not the only anti-McCain voices. Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin are also against the McCain Presidency. I am trying to grasp the logic that it is better to lose than get a candidate who is (in my opinion) better in so many ways than the Democratic choice whomever it may be. I came of age in the 90's and saw the Bob Dole candidacy and heard Rush and others say that we had to unite behind Dole (who was anything but a conservative) for the good of the party and the purist conservatives should their nose, put Dole in the White House and hope for the best. This same thinking brought us the current President who quite frankly is not the conservative stalwart we were lead to believe. I didn't buy it for Dole (whom only seemed to try and purchase votes with his promise of tax cuts) and I didn't really get the greatest message from Bush so I understand the conservative mind that is saying basically to vote their conscience and really try and push the Republican party back to its roots but the question is do we do it to get a Clinton or Obama president?

I know, there is always a reason to not stand on principle (and there will always be occasions like this) but consider (as Bill Bennett writes in National Review):

McCain voted to defund Planned Parenthood last year, Clinton didn’t and would likely expand Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding.

McCain voted to ban partial-birth abortion, Clinton didn’t and would likely reverse the partial-birth abortion ban.

McCain voted for Roberts and Alito and made the case for them in the media, Clinton didn’t.

McCain has never voted for a tax increase, Clinton will increase taxes.

McCain will continue the Bush tax cuts, Clinton will end them.

McCain will end pork-barrel spending, Clinton supports the endowment of projects like the Woodstock Museum with taxpayer funding.

McCain will not cut and run in Iraq, Clinton will work with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid to do just that.

McCain sponsored legislation to keep the Fairness Doctrine from rearing its head again, Clinton has not and has signaled moves to revive it.

McCain supports school choice, Clinton does not.

Clinton will mandate health insurance, McCain will not.

McCain voted to convict Bill Clinton on impeachment, Clinton was a witting accomplice in President Bill Clinton’s scandals.

McCain has an ACU (American Conservative Union) rating of 82.3; Clinton has a rating of 9.

McCain has 0-percent rating from NARAL; Clinton has 100 percent.

I would have liked to see Romney in there but that is not to be (maybe a VP choice)?). I did not think John McCain was the best choice put forth by the Republicans but if this is the choice that is given, I would think that we have to go with John McCain.

Outspoken Roman

Where is the real diversity?

So everyone is getting ready for the Super Bowl or Super Tuesday depending on your focus (maybe both) and I was reading Yahoo News and saw that Hillary has stated that "... she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance." Yeah, this is a really free market approach to the problem. I can't believe that a potential majority of Americans will vote based on either what will be given to them by the Government or what will be taken away from someone else by the Government. But as the saying goes "Hey, I got mine..."

So I had wanted to write about this a little earlier (while the presidential field was a little more open) but I have always heard from my progressive friends how much they welcome and champion diversity. Well, in this election period where do you find the richest, diverse set of candidates? Well submitted for your approval, my thoughts on this.

On the Democratic side you had as your front runners, three lawyers who mostly corporate experience. None had military background that I aware of but all have been elected Senators but have very little legislative experience outside of the Senate. All three are extremely pro-choice, against the war (vowing to withdraw from Iraq ASAP), anti-gun, pro illegal immigration, environmentally extremists, pro-big Government solutions, encourage class warfare and are in favor of rolling back tax cuts to higher confiscatory rates to pay for universal health care. Oh and they are for Gay Marriage, repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and would allow Homosexuals to serve openly in the Military (Doing away with Don't ask/Don't tell). Obviously with John Edwards out of the race, there really isn't much of a difference between Hillary and Obama. Either way the country loses.

On the Republican side we have a experienced Senator who is also a decorated veteran, a successful business man who not only has been involved in some high profile business ventures but also was a successful Governor of a very Blue state. We have a accomplished Mayor of New York City who was the national face of 9-11 during the days after the attack when all Americans were comforted by his handling of the situation, another candidate is a medical doctor. The positions that these candidates held were (to repeat the word) diverse. One candidate was against the Iraqi War (and against many of the interventionist measures this administration has undertaken), many of the candidates were pro-life but one maintained his pro-choice stance (a matter of personal belief). There were candidates that were for civil unions and candidates that were for enacting tough global warming legislation (just as there were candidates that were against such measures). There were candidates that had opposed the President's tax cuts and there were those that felt that the tax cuts were too little. The candidates differed on stem cell research, parental notification laws, assault weapons bans, and many other areas (including religion with candidates being Roman Catholic, Mormon and Evangelical as well).

This data can all be found at the Family Research Council Voters Guide - found here. The interesting this is that there is so much more diversity on the Republican side and the Democrats are much more in line with a single set of issues. I don't think though that this is a good thing for the Republicans who have eschewed core values for the designate of a "Big Tent" Party. How do you resolve issues such as abortion, gun control, War on Terror within a party such as this? Is it worth it to have the Media talk about diversity while the party message gets diluted since there are so many factions within it? I don't see the Democrats worried that they will be seen as a party not very diverse (where is their pro-life candidate?). I have heard that Reagan built this great coalition and brought all these diverse groups together. Well there isn't someone out there currently that can do that in my opinion and I feel the Republican party will not unite behind McCain which will guarantee a Democrat in the White House. Next time someone tells me that the Republican party needs to encourage such a big tent philosophy I have to ask why the Democrats don't seem too concerned about the Dems who might be Pro-life or pro Second Amendment. Why don't they have a few conservative speakers at their convention when the Republicans fall over themselves to have people like Colin Powell bellow out how they are pro-choice and for affirmative action. Why does the Republican Party feel it needed (needs) to sell its soul and message? I got no response...except that John McCain is reminding me a lot of Bob Dole...and we all know what happened to him.

OS