Monday, June 12, 2006
Does anyone know how to get White Out off of a three-year-old boy and a queen-sized comforter? Not necessarily in that order.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Zarqawi Killed in Airstrike
How do you say "More Cowbell" in Arabic? Oh yeah, like this:
Right about now, he's learning he was a tad misled about that whole "72 virgins" thing.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
The Face of Cowardice
Apparently, being a soldier is more than just putting on a uniform.
Monday, June 05, 2006
For My Wife's Benefit
Sunday, June 04, 2006
No Terrorist Threat, Redux
I'm not sure if Elzbth caught the reference in my last post. It was a direct quote by Michael Moore, insisting there is no terrorist threat. So the quote was used ironically, see? To show that now, everyone will have to acknowledge that there really is a terrorist threat, right? Because multi-culti liberal paradise Canada has never done anything to provoke Muslims, right?
Ahem. Ace has a massive post showing that, with the single exception of basically a throwaway link at Daily Kos, not a single liberal blog managed to mention the arrest of 17 terrorists, in Toronto (which, for those of you who ignore Canada even more than I do, is pretty darn close to America), with three times as much ammonium nitrate as Timothy McVeigh used to destroy the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. How can Michael Moore say there's no terrorist threat? Simsple -- he (and his lefty fellow-travellers) completely ignores all evidence of terrorist threats.
Oh, unless of course it's the fascist right-wingers who are the real terrorists. That's right, the lefties at Democratic Underground who actually acknlowledged the story did so in the context of claiming it's all a set-up by conservative Steve Harper's government: it's all mind control, people!!! Those peace-loving Muslims were framed!!!
Also, now might be a good time to recycle this old picture:
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Bush to Back Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
Last time this issue came up, the critics correctly predicted it would die in the Senate. The surprise was that it came a whole lot closer to passing than anyone believed it would. Since that time, we've seen three important developments:
1. The passage (with no successful legal challenges) of numerous state constitutional amendments. This is critical, because the poll numbers show extremely wide support for gay marriage bans, and even when politicians forget principle, they remember polls.
2. Primary challenges to Republican incumbents. This is crucial. Grass roots Republican effort are underway to get moderate Republicans out of office, in favor of more conservative Republicans. Of course, the drive for the primary challenge effort is not gay marriage -- it's actually immigration -- but that could push incumbents fearing insurrection to tighten up their conservative credentials on other issues. Such as gay marriage.
3. We've also seen that the Democrats do not have a monopoly on craven self-interest and political tone-deafness. In other words, while the first two factors listed above might tend to increase the odds of the amendment passing, the willingness of national Republicans to say "screw the voters, I'm the boss around here" might actually create a decline in support for the amendment.
What the ACLU of Indiana is Doing These Days
From Jay at Stop the ACLU: ACLU Defends Pedophiles’ “Right” To Easy Access For Children
Obviously they don't phrase it that way. A city ordinance (I assume Indianapolis, based on a quote, but the article doesn't make it at all clear) forbids convicted sex offenders from coming "within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, recreation centers, swimming pools, sports fields or facilities when children are around."
From the article: "Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director, said the city ordinance effectively restores the long-discarded, punitive practice of 'banishment,' because it is virtually impossible to travel the streets and highways of Marion County without passing within 1,000 feet of a public playground or other prohibited site."
Which is kind of a wierd thing to say, because the article says the legal challenge is based on vagueness. The vagueness doctrine, in a nutshell, is that a law or ordinance is unconstitutional if it doesn't put reasonable people on notice that their conduct is illegal. As an example, if Nevada passes a law that says "whoever does bad stuff is guilty of a class B misdemeanor," that law is unconstitutionally vague, because no reasonable person can read that and know what is tolerated and what is forbidden.
Is that the case with Indiana's ordinance? Probably not. Falk's argument makes a certain amount of sense -- if you can't even drive on major interstates without violating the ordinance, maybe that's a little extreme.
Here's another interesting little tidbit: "'You see all the stories almost every day about a child falling victim to a molester,' Democratic City-County Councilman Vernon Brown said. He said this was one of the few things the council could do to save at least one child 'from that horror.'"
That's part of the reason Dems can't win the heartland in national elections. Can you imagine, say, Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer making a statement like that?
Also: From the same article, other recent ACLU of Indiana cases:
• "The group represented inmates in a class-action lawsuit that said a state prison policy prohibiting visitation between child sex offenders and minors violated the U.S. Constitution. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to that policy."
Agreed. If the inmate is currently serving time in prison, there is every reason to believe his rehabilitation, if any, is not yet complete.
• "In November, in response to a suit filed by the group, federal Judge David Hamilton barred prayers that mention Jesus Christ, or endorse any specific religion, from opening the daily session of the Indiana House. Speaker Brian Bosma has appealed that ruling to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals."
Agreed, so long as there is no rule or regulation prohibiting any other religious group from offering the prayer as they see fit.
• "In April 2005, the group sued to overturn the state's voter identification law, arguing it would drive the poor, elderly and others away from the polls. The law was upheld in both state and federal court."
Agreed. That's a completely ridiculous justification for trying to strike down the law -- since when do old people have a harder time getting ID than young people? Other than the natural effects of aging, that it.
• "With help from the civil rights organization, Thomas E. Jones Jr., a practicing Wiccan, successfully challenged a 2004 ruling in Marion Superior Court that Jones and his wife, who were divorcing, could not share their religion with their son."
Agreed. I don't believe in Wicca, but the government has no business in that matter.