We Win, They LoseThe Wit and Wisdom of Three Guys Named Brent, Mark and Mike
Friday, July 30, 2004
They Should Have Picked Dean
So says Debra J. Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle. She hits on an obvious note, and something which I've been wondering all week, namely: when did all the Democrats turn into Rambo? Answer: they didn't. Well, not really. They just can't say what they really believe.
Item: According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, three-quarters of Democratic voters opposed the war.
Item: The same poll found that 86 percent of convention delegates opposed the war.
Item: 100 percent of the Democratic ticket voted with GOP President Bush on Iraq.
Nonetheless, this convention is packed with politicians who are boasting about the tremendous party unity they see everywhere. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said that the party is more united than she has seen it in 40 years. Three in 4 Democrats disagree with the nominee on the biggest issue out there -- and that's unity?
It must hurt. The delegates can't argue their most deeply held belief -- that the war was wrong -- because they nominated a man who voted to authorize it.
Think: America is in the middle of a war, and speakers at the Democratic National Convention can't really address this war in an honest manner. Many can't say what they really believe.
They have to pretend they will go along with positions they detest.
They threw out their principles when they picked John Kerry. They wanted to win so badly that they have been willing to stake their party's future on a man whom they must attack in a matter of months, if he stays true to his words of today.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
I haven't watched a lot of the Democratic convention, but I did watch Obama's speech on Tuesday. He was darn good, too. I have often thought that in politics, it's really not what you say, but how you say it. For example, I have met many people who lean to the left, or even who are outright liberal who have told me that they love Alan Keyes.
I saw a little bit of the same thing Tuesday night. Some of the things that Obama said would have gotten him booed off the stage if he were a Republican, but the crowd responded very favorably when he said them. For example, at one point he implied that the Republicans were dividing the country, saying:
[T]here's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.
I wholeheartedly agree; I just didn't know the Democrats did, too. Surely they would have booed someone like George W. Bush or Trent Lott saying this, but they wildly applauded the line. Despite this, the very next day, their schedule included the following caucus meetings from 10-11:50 a.m.:
African American Caucus: Grand Ballroom, Sheraton Boston Hotel
Latino Caucus: Constitution A&B Ballrooms, Sheraton Boston Hotel
Asian Pacific Islander Caucus: Republic Ballroom, Sheraton Boston Hotel
Native American Caucus: Back Bay D Ballroom, Sheraton Boston Hotel
Ethnic American Caucus: Back Bay B Ballroom, Sheraton Boston Hotel
From 12:00 -1:50 p.m. they had the following caucus meetings:
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus: Constitution B Ballroom, Sheraton Boston Hotel
Disabled Caucus: Republic Ballroom, Sheraton Boston Hotel
Veterans Caucus: Room TDB, Sheraton Boston Hotel
Moreover, from 1-3:00 p.m. was the "People of Faith Caucus Luncheon," and from 2-4:00 p.m. was the "Rural Caucus." Today is the "Women's Caucus Meeting," as well as the "Youth Caucus" and the "Seniors Caucus." Sounds like a lot of different Americas to me.
He also stated the following, again to wild applause and a standing ovation:
Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. (wild applause) No people don't expect government to solve all their problems.
Again, I agree. So does Bill Cosby. And apparently so did the delegates to the Democratic convention.
I think this is due to two reasons: (1) it's true, and when you speak the truth most people recognize it; and (2) it's all in the delivery.
Obama's delivery was very smooth, and out of the speeches I have watched he by far got the best reception. He had the people on their feet applauding most of the time, and in contrast to many of the other speakers, you could see that the crowd was actually listening to every word he said, rather than just waiting for a pause to do the obligatory cheer.
However, one line which got possibly the biggest applause has left me puzzled:
If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.
The crowd came to its feet, cheering. But when did this happen? Have I missed something? Is the Bush Administration rounding up "Arab American families"?
This guy scares me a lot more than the total loons on the left -- he comes across very well, and could get a lot of people on both sides to vote for him. But I also hope against hope that he and others like him could actually bring the Democrats back to reality. He did say at one point:
Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated.
The Democrats cheered. Unbelievable. Like I said, it's all in the delivery.
(originally posted at SA)
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Time to Move to Massachusetts
I'm sure all you same-sex marriage supporters will argue that the ruling of the Florida court is wrong, and it's only animus against alternative life-stylers which drove the decision. Because no one can come down against same-sex marriage unless they are motivated by hate, right?
I have to laugh at a couple of things in the article, though. The attorney for the man who used to be a woman called the ruling "ridiculous." She also said that "Michael Kantaras is a man. Michael Kantaras has been a man since 1987 when he completed treatment. This court has just turned common sense on its head."
That's pretty funny, considering her client's past.
She also said that "This is the state saying he is not who he knows he is. It's insulting and degrading."
Now there's a good legal argument.
Looks like Kobe's team just hit the winning shot. For what it's worth, I think Kobe really screwed up by screwing around -- he's an idiot. But this is the proper ruling -- if a woman who accuses a man of rape is shielded from direct evidence that she slept with several other men shortly before and immediately after the alleged rape, this is certainly evidence that the jury should hear in assessing her credibility.
Friday, July 23, 2004
Oh, this is nice
WorldNetDaily carries this article about a sex-ed class in high school. Geez. From the Santa Fe New Mexican article (registration required):
Despite complaints from a Santa Fe mother, the state Health Department is standing by a sex-education instructor who encouraged ninth-graders to taste flavored condoms.
Lisa Gallegos said that when her 15-year-old daughter balked at putting a condom in her mouth, instructor Tony Escudero told her, "Come on, sweetie, have a little fun."
Gallegos said her daughter also told her that, when a male student suggested sex between two men is repulsive, Escudero told him, "Never say never because you never know. Someday you might like it that way."
Get this -- the Health Department stands by the instructor:
Escudero did not return messages seeking comment. But Dorothy Danfelser, deputy director for the public-health division of the Health Department, said she wrote Gallegos last week to say Escudero did nothing wrong.
"It had been investigated," Danfelser told The New Mexican. "There was no wrongdoing. I have no more comment. ... (Gallegos) may or may not agree with that, but that's her prerogative.
Ah, government agencies. What a sweet lot.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Same Sex Marriage Warning
Stanley Kurtz has another good article (with links to other materials) on the dangers of allowing same sex marriage. Go read it.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Good Post at SA
Over at Southern Appeal, I have posted some thoughts on the nutcase in the New York Times yesterday.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Several blogs have linked to my article on Justice Kennedy, including the wicked smart Curmudgeonly Clerk, WorldMagBlog, my friend Bill Watkins at Southern Appeal, and the wonderful A Soft Answer. Tim Bayly says:
Trapp's piece is a case study of the betrayal of our Constitution by our nation's judiciary, most specifically the Supreme Court, as that betrayal has been perfectly illustrated by Justice Kennedy who, over the years, has hopped all over the place on the matter of whether or not sodomy is a private act protected by our Constitution. Here in a short piece Trapp perfectly illustrates the "growth" we've seen in most of the Republican appointments to the Supreme Court over many years, now. In fact, Kennedy himself was appointed by that revered father-figure of all things conservative, President Ronald Reagan.
UPDATE: Reductio Ad Absurdum saw the piece, too. It looks like a pretty good site, I'll have to check it out. Also, Life According to Jordan linked to it, and nothingoriginal labeled me a "reactionary" for pointing out that Kennedy apparently abandoned his advocacy of judicial restraint. Nothingoriginal points to a 1980 opinion written by Kennedy while still on the Ninth Circuit as evidence that Kennedy did not do a 180, as Clayton Cramer says he did. But I don't see how one can make the case that Kennedy has not changed course when in 1986 he specifically stated in the context of sexual privacy that the Due Process Clause was not a guarantee of every right, and then in 2003 grounded the Lawrence decision in the Due Process Clause. Nothingoriginal at least acknowledges that in the 80's Kennedy was "defending judicial restraint," but seemingly does not take issue with the argument that he has abandoned this, the main point of my article.
Here is an article from The Hill describing a possible attempt to strip the courts of jurisdiction regarding gay marriage. Richard G. Wilkins has this to say about the idea at Meridan:
The proposal seems slick enough. But it will not preserve marriage and will not reprimand an out-of-control judiciary.
Article III of the Constitution indeed provides that Congress can eliminate the jurisdiction of lower federal courts (and the Supreme Court) over marriage. But nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the power to prevent state courts from invoking the Due Process Clause in relation to marriage. The Supremacy Clause provides that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” Accordingly, whatever Congress’ power over federal courts, Congress cannot prevent state courts from deciding what the Constitution says about marriage. As a result, relying on DOMA and then “stripping away” federal court jurisdiction would NOT preserve marriage.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
The American Spectator has picked up my latest piece, which discusses the evolution of Justice Kennedy from conservative strict constructionist to judicial activist. Enjoy.
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Passion v. Fahrenheit 9/11
Remember how outraged the left was with Mel Gibson's Passion? The fact that it was accurate and true did not save it from being labeled anti-Semitic. As this article from First Things notes:
[L]ong before his film opened, Gibson’s every comment was closely examined for signs of anti-Semitism. He was denounced by Rich of the Times and others as a “Holocaust denier” because he noted in one interview that Jews were not the only people victimized by the Nazis. “Gotcha, Mel!” was the collective response. Gibson’s disposition as a traditionalist Catholic who loves the Latin Mass and is critical of liberal trends since the Second Vatican Council was routinely interpreted as meaning that he therefore rejects the Church’s formal repudiation (in NostraAetate, 1965) of the charge of deicide against the Jews. Gibson was repeatedly visited with the sins of his father, the aged, addled, and frankly anti-Semitic Hutton Gibson. Admirably, Gibson did not allow Diane Sawyer to provoke him into denouncing his father during his hour-long interview on CBS, and with great patience entertained Ms. Sawyer’s headline-seeking question: “Are you anti-Semitic?”
Contrast that with the reaction to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which, by most accounts is purely concocted trash about Bush being in bed with Bin Laden -- patently false. Yet, the left laps it up. The truth is vilified, and falsehoods are lauded. I seem to remember something about calling good evil and evil good. Hmm.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
We are the enemy!
Apparently, some liberals view us (i.e. religious conservatives) as the ultimate enemy in modern times, as noted by Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO. Mr. Ponnuru discusses a recent article by Robert Reich in The American Prospect. (Link provided in NRO article.) It astonishes me the extent to which some people are so hostile to religion and to religious viewpoints. Heaven help us if such people ever came to power.