SOLDIER’S FUNERAL TEXAS STYLE just north of San Antonio.
February 13, 2004
Supreme Court
I’ve thought more about this presidential election than any one previous. I don’t like the political process, and deplore the fact that we’ve been in this election cycle non-stop since Bush was inaugurated.
But I’ve been involved intellectually because I think this election is important. Most of our history we’ve muddled through regardless of the quality of our President. The writers of our Constitution bequeathed that stability in their structure of the Federal Government. We could survive a Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon without permanent damage.
This time, however, there are two extremely important issues in which the President will have lasting impact. The first is one which gets a lot of attention in vague ways, and that is the War on Terrorism. Most Americans see this as a necessary task, although they differ on the best way to handle it. And for most of us, it is a distant thing.
For years we’ve played the old fashioned diplomatic hand. The world tradition of diplomacy has been war or bribes. Or war AND bribes. Our foreign aid program has followed that tradition ever since we grew out of the imperialism phase at the turn of the last century.
Bush changed that with a different focus–end terrorism by ending support of terrorism by others. The choice is that, or a return to the old school of bribes and ocassional war after we get hit. On this issue alone, I see nobody running against Bush who will continue this war as I believe it needs to be done.
The second issue of greatest importance is one that is spoken of only among true believers: Supreme Court appointments.
At least two Justices were expected to retire during this first Bush term. Neither Rehnquist nor O’Connor did. Justice Stevens has made it clear he will not retire until a Democrat is in the White House. He is 83. Democrats are willing to fight hard to ensure Bush doesn’t appoint anyone to the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court Action Center at the DNC web site says:
President Bush has already tried to pack the federal courts with extremist right-wing ideologues. Bush and his ultraconservative allies will not miss this opportunity to shift the direction of the nation’s highest court far to the right. See how Bush’s record so far on judicial nominees ensures that his choices for the nation’s highest court will be way out of the mainstream.
What they mean by ultraconservative is someone who has read the Constitution and makes decisions based on that document rather than how they feel. Their definition of extremist right-wing ideologues is neither right-wing nor extreme. Following the nation’s charter as written seems like the correct course for a Justice to follow.
But the word “extremist” brings visions of horror to the minds of Americans, and that’s precisely the vision these people want to convey.
I consider myself to be a constitutionalist. Neither party completely fits my view of how the government should operate and what programs it should fund. I believe the Constitution is a “living document” as leftists claim. But it is alive in the sense that it is changeable. An Amendment is the tool for change.
Fortunately, that change is difficult. It was always intended to be difficult. A Constitution easy to change would eventually grow to thousands of pages, as has the proposed EU constitution. It would encompass every facet of American life, and restrict liberty. So, difficulty in amending our Constitution is one reason we have survived as a republic longer than any other in history.
Because it is so hard to change, “extremists” want a judiciary who will interpret the text in the way they wish. Abortion illegal? Find a court sympathetic to declare the law unconstitutional. Uncomfortable because the guy next to you says a prayer before his meal? Find a court willing to disallow such activity in a public place. Mad because your favorite restaurant allows people to smoke, and you really like that restaurant? Get a lawyer to sue and find a court willing to listen. After all, it is your restaurant!
Look, I’m a smoker, but I don’t smoke indoors. I think it’s rude. If you want the restaurant to change, quit going, and let the owner know why. He’ll eventually change if he wants to stay in business. But that means you’ll be inconvenienced in the interim, and that’s your real complaint. But the Constitution was not meant to deprive someone else of their liberties so that you can impose your own values.
With all the campaigning yet to be done before November, this issue may come out. But I’ve seen no sign of it yet. And it affects our lives in the future every bit as much as terrorism. In fact, it is far more noticeable to most of us.
The two most important issues: War on Terror, and Judicial appointments. Don’t forget either one.
More at Blog o’Ram.
February 12, 2004
The Presidency
I was discussing the Presidency with someone at work today and recalled two photos of Abe Lincoln I had seen years ago. One was taken after his inauguration, and another at the end of the Civil War, just before his death. The contrast was startling. I couldn’t find those specific photos, but found two and combined them:
We both wonder why anyone would want the job.
Buick Invitational
Bogey is giving me grief for the plethora of political postings and the dearth of golf topics. I must comply.
John Daly is 3 under at the Buick. That is more exciting than any of the other stories at Torrey Pines as far as I’m concerned. I’m a Daly fan. He’s been a yo-yo over the years, but it is thrilling to watch someone built like him take that big long swing and send the ball 320 yards. He can then take a wedge and make the ball dance.
His all-out approach to the game has given him Major wins, and big numbers. More than once he’s walked away from a green and written “18” on the scorecard. But when he’s on, he’s a joy to watch.
If ever I got the opportunity to play in a Pro-Am, Daly would be high on my list of partners. I hope the TV coverage actually includes some of his play this time around, but with Tiger in the field, it won’t happen unless they’re in the same group.
Comments Off on Buick Invitational
You must be kidding
Is this necessary in a war zone? These guys get this training every year at home.
Comments Off on You must be kidding
Land of the Free
I ran across this and had to put my own thoughts down. I don’t know Tom Blodget , who is identified as a writer and college instructor. He calls his list “In the Land of the Free.”
In the land of the free, people are so brave that they freely speak their minds without fear.
Yes, that?s how it is here. Oh, you mean fear of embarrassment or a contradictory opinion.
In the land of the free, the average person has access to the media.
Let?s see…how much does it cost to operate a radio or TV station? Should that all be donated by the owner?
In the land of the free, people are free to be educated.
True in every community in this country. Many don?t take advantage of it.
In the land of the free, all citizens have access to health care.
Nobody in this country is turned away from needed care
In the land of the free, there are no homeless.
Except by choice
In the land of the free, no one is chronically hungry.
Again, except by choice
The land of the free does not invade other countries without provocation.
Obviously, my definition of provocation may differ from yours. Is that okay in a free country?
The land of the free does not need a standing army in over two-thirds of the world?s countries in order to defend itself.
The standing army in two-thirds of the world?s countries is there to defend them. We certainly don?t need them there except to support allies and their economies.
The land of the free does not have over one percent of its population in prison.
Regardless of reason? What percentage is acceptable?
In the land of the free, the earth and its life forms are responsibly respected so that people may continue to live, generation after generation.
Is your definition of respect different than mine?
In the land of the free, diverse lifestyles and harmless behaviors are appreciated or tolerated.
Tolerated. I don?t need to appreciate them for them to be free.
The land of the free is known by the freedom of its people to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for the redress of wrongs.
Kinda like WTO protests? How about the Watts riots? Or do you mean in the Martin Luther King tradition?
The land of the free reminds others, anywhere in the world, of justice and an honest search for the truth in all matters.
Some just don?t want to hear the truth. That?s why we have diplomacy and armies.
In the land of the free, the common person is free to live simply, and simply live.
Reasonably possible. Most don?t want to live simply. Is that okay, too?
In the land of the free, people are free from fear.
An impossible task. Were you afraid of monsters under your bed?
In the land of the free, people feel secure in their homes.
As long as I can reach my gun, and that one percent is in prison.
In the land of the free, people can walk anywhere at any time of day or night without fear.
As long as I can carry my gun, and that one percent is in prison.
In the land of the truly free, doors are not locked, and possessions are left lying about in the open.
As long as that one percent remain in prison.
In the land of the free, children are sacred.
Not aborted?
In the land of the free, people worship God as they please (or not).
And let others worship God, or not.
In the land of the free, the elderly are revered and listened to.
When they deserve reverence and being listened to.
In the land of the free, everything is constantly being improved for everyone.
Except by that one percent in prison.
In the land of the free, people live in community as a fish swims in water.
Huh?
In the land of the free, everyone has an intelligent opinion, as a result of a culture which rewards truth-seeking, honesty, common sense, and open-mindedness.
If they take advantage of the free education offered in every community.
In the land of the free, dialog, open-mindedness, and honest inquiry are the norm.
As long as only facts are presented as such.
In the land of the free, political decisions are mostly local.
As soon as we eliminate political parties.
In the land of the free, the people elect their leaders directly, and by “instant run-off” voting — where people?s second choice will be counted if their first choice fails — in a balloting process that is transparent and rig-free.
Never worked where tried. Direct democracy is mob rule.
In the land of the free, money is a means to and end, not an end in itself.
He who dies with the most toys…
In the land of the free, micro capital loans are available to all.
Shouldn?t we just make money free? Who can?t get a loan today except those who have shown an inability or disinclination to repay loans?
In the land of the free, people freely share; philanthropy, goodwill, volunteerism, and service are the norm.
Worked well until the government began sticking its nose into society?s business.
The land of the free does not tolerate corruption, secrecy, selfishness, arrogance, or aggression.
Except when someone we like is corrupt, secretive, selfish, arrogant, or aggressive.
The land of the free functions as if without effort, as a harmonious, self-regulating system.
Except for that one percent in prison and those people we like who are corrupt, secretive, selfish, arrogant, or aggressive.
Upon arriving in the land of the free for the first time, all pretense and neuroses disappear; all worries wash away, and all restlessness comes to rest.
Isn?t that the definition of Heaven?
The land of the free is at hand, and is always at hand, would that people see it, and take up residence there.
And quit being so selfish as to want to decide for themselves how to spend or save or donate what they earn.
Yes, the world would be a wonderful place if not inhabited by people. Oh. I guess nobody could enjoy it then.
Settled?
Letters to the Editor – The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED Online. If you want to believe Bush shirked his duties in the ANG, don’t bother reading this; It won’t change your mind because you don’t want it to be changed.
Thanks, Sarah.