We Win, They Lose
The Wit and Wisdom of Three Guys Named Brent, Mark and Mike
Monday, February 28, 2005
Overthrow of Marriage
If anyone doubts what the objective of same-sex marriage proponents is, they need only look to Canada. David Frum notes that in Ontario "the words 'wife,' 'husband,' 'widow,' and 'widower' are now all to be stricken from the law. The words 'mother' and 'father' cannot be far behind." According to Frum, this is evidence that "we are debating not marriage's change - but marriage's overthrow."

Here is the link provided by Frum about the change in Ontario law.

If marriage is overthrown, the family will be overthrown. How is this happening? It is because most of society has become complacent and/or complicit.

Thursday, February 24, 2005
A judge who knows his place?
A New York judge ruled against a group of same-sex couples seeking the right to wed, saying it was a job for lawmakers, not the courts, to extend marriage rights.

The 25 couples learned Wednesday that State Supreme Court Judge Robert C. Mulvey had rejected their arguments, upholding the state's position.

"Social perceptions of same-sex civil contracts may change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best," Mulvey wrote. "If that day comes, it is within the province of the Legislature to so act."

What a radical -- who is he to let the People decide such an important issue?

Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Mitt Romney's Choice
is the title of this piece by W. James Antle III over at the American Spectator. As usual, he is excellent.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Gay Blood Donors
What do you think of this:

Students at the University of New Hampshire are taking a stand against a Red Cross policy that bans gay men from donating blood.

Monday, UNH's student senate adopted a resolution condemning the policy, which they say discriminates against gay men. They want the federal Food and Drug Administration -- whose rules affect the Red Cross -- to change its policy on blood donation.

The Red Cross asks potential donors to say whether they have sex with men before allowing them to give blood.

I don't know what to think -- I am all for people donating blood, and it is a generous and needed act. However, there is no denying that gay men are at a significantly increased risk as a group of transmitting tainted blood.

I certainly don't think that asking whether you have had sex with another man is in any way discriminatory -- do these students think that the question was merely dreamt up just to discriminate against gay men?

BONUS: Go check out Lance's take down of UNH at Ragged Edges. Ouch!

Romney visits SC
Massachusetts governor and possible 2008 presidential contender Mitt Romney visited South Carolina yesterday. The State newspaper carries this article which plays up the Mormon angle, beginning with this:

Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, a devout Mormon, flew into the heart of the South Carolina Bible Belt on Monday to test the climate for a possible presidential run in 2008.

Later, the article states:

Concerns also were raised about his association with the Mormon church.

“Good luck,” said Clemson’s Woodard, a Republican and an evangelical. “I don’t think that will play well at all.”

Furman University analyst Don Aiesi, a Democrat, said, “This puts conservative Christians in the South in a real bind.”

Dinner guests were divided.

“It doesn’t bother me that he’s a Mormon,” said Gary Towery of Woodruff. “He believes in Jesus Christ. That’s all that matters.”

Silas Wright, a party activist from Spartanburg, said Romney’s faith might “cause me some problems.”

Others downplayed his religion, maintaining it is more important for Romney to focus on such hot-button issues as gay marriage, the death penalty and stem cell research. Religion can be divisive, they argue.

Saturday, February 19, 2005
Sad, just sad. And scary.
This story is unbelievable -- apparently, in Texas, a hospital has the right to kill a patient (that is, remove him or her from life support) even if the family objects.

Texas law allows doctors and hospitals to make some decisions involving life support, even against family wishes. The law requires a hospital's ethics committee to approve a doctor's recommendation to end life support if the patient's family disagrees.

Now, I am somewhat conflicted here, because I would not normally like the idea of compelling a hospital to pay for expensive treatment it deems unnecessary. But this is the slipperiest of slopes. I have not found the statute in question, but from the article it appears that the hospital can make the decision even if the family has the resources to pay for the treatment.

That is scary. If the hospital can determine that the treatment is not going to help, can they do that in other closer instances? This is a human life, after all. If he is going to die soon anyway, as all the doctors assure us, why are they so adamant about accelerating the process?

Texas Children's doctors have said they believed "it was immoral to subject a terminally ill child to unnecessary life-sustaining medical procedures."

Friday, February 18, 2005
This post notes that a:

senator called homosexuality a sickness and said "It's not a cure for the sickness allowing them to marry". When confronted by an openly-gay colleague, he backtracked. Then he explained:

"I feel bad they took the word `sick' as derogatory," Colapietro said Monday. "It wasn't meant that way."

I'm sorry. How was it meant then? A compliment? Is it a compliment to call someone sick? Did I not get that memo?

As I noted in the comments, if the homosexuals can redefine marriage, why can't this guy redefine "sick"?

Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Gay Senator
Ah, those kooky college kids. Check out this college, which doesn't elect senators to represent the student body, rather they have a special senate seat for each group:

Currently, the Student Senate has a position for a student from all seven college departments along with 12 other seats for traditional, nontraditional, veteran, students with disabilities, African-American, Hispanic, Native American, Asian/Polynesian, Residence Hall, Davis Campus, Honors/BIS and International students.

Gee, how diverse. Funny, I don't see a "Christian" senator -- wonder if the campus Christians outnumber the homosexuals?

Tuesday, February 15, 2005
I am not a very big fan of Hollywood. Some may call me prudish, but so be it. I don't need sex, amorality, bad language, etc. thrown in my face. I don't like many so-called romantic comedies because romance, according to Hollywood, appears to be nothing more than illicit sex. Therefore, when my wife said she wanted to go see the new movie Hitch starring Will Smith, I was somewhat resigned to the fact that it would be like so many other Hollywood films. I went, expecting to have some objections to the movie. I have to say, however, that I truly enjoyed this movie.

Will Smith's character, Hitch (aka The Love Doctor), has as his main goal to create opportunities for true love to blossom. He has, as mementos of his success, wedding announcements from happy clients, not stories of one night stands. I won't say that the movie is great, because such things are always so subjective. I will say, however, that I liked this movie. I am curious as to whether others will find it better than most "romantic" comedies put out by Hollywood. There is some objectionable language and some sexual references (lest you forget that Hollywood did produce the film), however, the objectionable content was much less than many, many other movies, and the story line, dialogue and acting was superb. I'd recommend it to friends and family.

New Website by FrontPage Magazine Tracks Liberals
Frontpagemag.com has announced a new website "dedicated to exposing the interconnected web of left-wing activists, organizations, and financiers that wage political warfare against the United States and her founding ideal." Sounds like an interesting site. Over the years it has been interesting read about some of this "interconnectedness" particularly in what I will call the war against Bush.

What A Moron
Senator Reid, you are an idiot. This Washington Times story confirms it. It begins:

President Bush officially resubmitted to the Senate yesterday 20 judicial nominees, including seven U.S. Circuit Court nominees whom Democrats filibustered in the last Congress.

Senator Reid responded:

Diplomacy is not likely to work, said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who told reporters last month that if Mr. Bush renominates the same judges, the Democrats will block them again.

"To replay this narrow and completed debate demonstrates the Bush administration's failure to craft a positive agenda for the American people," Mr. Reid said yesterday after the renominations were announced.

Hey everybody, did you hear that? The Democrat leader just said the debate is completed. Guess that means we can have a vote now. Right?

What a boob.

Sunday, February 13, 2005
Gay rebels marry in Philippines
Reuters carries this article which begins:

Two communist rebels in the Philippines truly became brothers in arms when the men were married in a jungle camp, a newspaper has reported.

Draped in a red flag with hammer and sickle in gold sequins, they exchanged vows, walked under an archway of assault rifles and were serenaded with revolutionary love songs by a choir of New People's Army comrades.

Guess they don't have a communist version of "don't ask, don't tell." And I thought the red flag with the hammer and sickle was the state flag for Massachusetts...

Saturday, February 12, 2005
FLASHBACK: December 19, 2003
Below is my post from that date. I want to follow up on this and see if anything ever became of it.

"We have to fight a little harder, be a little dirtier."
So says a leaked pro-abortion memo from the Center for Reproductive Rights. This really is an unbelievable story. Several groups, including the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute and LifeNews.com have been threatened with lawsuits by the Center for making public the leaked memo.

On December 8, 2003, Representative Chris Smith had the documents placed into the Congressional Record (pdf file here, html digest here). The documents establish the radical nature of these abortion zealots.

Just one example of many -- the memo notes (Congressional Record, p. E2540) that CRR wishes to work "to secure the fundamental right of minors right to access all reproductive health services confidentially."

What this effort entails is then laid out:

This includes:

(1) undoing the notion that parental rights are an adequate justification for imposing additional burdens on minors seeking abortions or other reproductive health care;

(2) staving off efforts to require parental involvement for minors seeking contraception and abortion;

(3) undoing child abuse reporting requirements with respect to non-abusive sexual relations;

(4) ensuring minors' ability to consent to all reproductive health services;

(5) establishing minors' right to comprehensive information about reproductive and sexual health.

The memo then notes that:

We will likely have to confront the politically difficult issue of whether minors have a right to have sex (and more generally, whether minors should be treated as adults).

As I have previously noted, these radically pro-abortion groups (such as CRR and Planned Parenthood) are WAY outside the mainstream. What percentage of the population do you think supports this sexualization of children? These people are sick -- why on earth would they promote the sexualization of children? Children, for crying out loud!!!! And why are they trying to cut the parents out of the child's life?

This is just one tiny portion of the memo -- there is much, much more. This should be front-page news ... hmmm, I wonder why no newspapers are covering it? In fact, when was the last time you saw any media coverage which portrayed an abortion advocate as outside the mainstream?

Gayest Valentine's Dance
I wonder:

Does this school have a dance specifically targeted for "straights"?

Does it allow 22 year olds into its other dances?

How did this school do on the SAT last year?

Just wondering.

Gay Code
What do you make of this:

The existence of the code became public this week and angered the gay and lesbian community, which said it was an offensive reference to days when homosexuals were considered mentally disordered.

Sounds like these guys need some counseling to deal with their anger. Wonder what the billing code for that is?

Friday, February 11, 2005
Wuss of the Week: Bruce Ackerman
Yale University's Bruce Ackerman wins this week's Wuss of the Week award for his essay "The Art of Stealth." It's as long as it is silly, so I doubt if any of you can make it all the way through it. But if you do, you'll find these little nuggets of wisdom:

There are two very different kinds of conservative. The worldly statesman, distrustful of large visions and focused on the prudent management of concrete problems has long been familiar. But Bush has more often relied on neo-conservatives with a very different temperament. They throw caution to the winds, assault the accumulated wisdom of the age, and insist on sweeping changes despite resistant facts.

Yeah, that describes conservatives all right. What a loon. Especially when discussing judicial philosophies, to declare that conservatives "assault the accumulated wisdom of the age" is simply ludicrous.

Let's see, which sort of judges have given us the sorts of things that "assault the accumulated wisdom of the age", such as, oh I don't know, abortion, sodomy, same-sex marriage, etc? Conservatives, or liberals? Since the beginning of time, marriage has never been viewed as a same-sex proposition. That is until those nasty "neo conservative" judges instituted it, right, Professor Ackerman?

Later, in discussing President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the supreme court, he writes: "Bork's defeat served only to confirm the breadth of popular support for the Warren-Burger Court's interpretation of constituional rights."

Well Professor, if there was such "popular support" for all the items that the court foisted on us over the years, then why did the Court have to implement them? Why didn't the people simply enact these things through their elected legislators? It makes more sense to state that Reagan was elected in two landslides at least in part as a backlash against the court's interpretation of constitutional rights.

There are so many examples of this sort of crap that it's hard to keep them straight. However, he really went beyond the pale when he suggested that "conservative" justices such as Justice Kennedy "have been far more deferential to legislative decisions than Scalia and Thomas." He followed this with the biggest whopper of them all: "Their defence of fundamental rights is part of a discriminating philosophy of judicial restraint."

WHAT?! Justice Kennedy? Restraint?

To demonstrate this, Ackerman then cites the worst passage (and that is saying a lot, believe me) from Kennedy's Lawrence decision:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Raising oneself above the Framers of the Constitution and those who drafted the 14th amendment is "judicial restraint"? Maybe at Yale Law School, but not in the real world.

I wonder if Professor Ackerman is aware that Justice Kennedy once used those same words ("judicial restraint") to declare that Bowers v. Hardwick (the decision he later overturned in Lawrence) was correectly decided?

Yep, that's right -- in his speech entitled "Unenumerated Rights and the Dictates of Judicial Restraint," Kennedy stated that "[t]he Due Process Clause is not a guarantee of every right that should inhere in an ideal system."

However, once he got to the Court, he wrote in Lawrence that it was "[t]heir right to liberty under the Due Process Clause" which gave homosexuals "the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Anyway, the rest of the essay is the usual liberal garbage -- judges (and law professors) know what is best, only they can interpret the Constitution properly, blah, blah, blah. He even states at one point that "Only the court's openness to professional critique keeps it honest and diustinguishes it from an organ of naked political power." Yeah, only "professionals" have the power and authority to "critique" the court, not "the People," and then only because the court is "open" to it. This guy is pretty full of himself, and of his place in society. (Oh, thank you Professor Ackerman, for undertaking the yeoman's work of critiquing the court, and thereby preserving us wee people from judicial overreaching by .... neo conservatives -- aaaahhhh!!!!)

He ends with his thoughts on what the future Bush Court will look like should the "Democrats allow the Senate to confirm two or three stealth nominees who secretly endorse all the positions presently advanced by [Justice] Thomas in his separate opinions." He says if this happens, "it is easy to imagine the likely future."

The court grants the president the power to strip citizens of their presumption of innocence, but doesn’t look on the powers of Congress with equal indulgence. The commander in chief makes war on his own citizens, but Congress is prevented from passing the Endangered Species Act. Sceptical of progressive health and safety regulation, the court requires that each initiative be tested rigorously to determine whether it has a ‘substantial effect’ on interstate commerce, and it is the court, and not Congress, that makes the crucial fact-finding decisions.

Americans are stripped of their constitutional rights to privacy, and women die in back-alley abortions.

The Bush Court will "strip citizens of their presumption of innocence" and strip "Americans of their constitutional right to privacy"? With all this stripping going on, it sounds like Ackerman thinks Bush might appoint Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court. And of course, women will once again be found dead in every "back alley." For good measure, the court will also guarantee "rich people" the right to give virtually unlimited political contributions. (Like George Soros -- egad!)

What a clown -- no wonder he's at Yale. This guy imagines that the American people hate everything he hates, but if that were so, then why do they keep electing Republicans? And why does everything that he holds dear get imposed, not by the People, not by legislatures, but by liberal activist judges? Hmmm?

Professor Ackerman, I dub thee Wuss of the Week.

UPDATE: I see that Stuart Buck didn't like the piece, either.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Monsters Are Real
So says Jonah Goldberg in a commentary at NRO today. The first set of real monsters identified are John and Linda Dollar who were picked up this week in Utah. You hear stories like this and it is almost unfathomable. My baby boy (15 months old) weighs almost as much as some of the dollars young teens. People like this provide all the justification we need for the death penalty. What is it Christ said about those who offend little ones--that a millstone should be hung around their neck and they should be tossed to the sea. Not a bad idea.

Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Steyn on Bush's climate change
Mark Steyn is far and away the best columnist going right now. In this piece in the Washington Times, he has some darn funny lines (as usual):

Social Security is the so-called third rail of American politics, but Mr. Bush has seized it and right now it's the comatose Democrats who look like they could use a jolt or two. As for the wider world, if one had to nominate a third rail of global politics, attempting to democratize the Middle East would be pretty much a shoo-in. But Mr. Bush has made it an explicit and urgent goal of U.S. foreign policy. This is a president who wants to leave his mark on more than a cocktail dress.


But what's the betting on the lie of the land three years hence? Moving in the Bush direction? Or more in line with the Kerry-Carter-Vedrine-Fischer-Patten view of things? Democrat Senate colossus Harry Reid — who makes Tom Daschle look like Reese Witherspoon — said in his first major speech of the week, "With yesterday's elections in Iraq, President Bush has a golden opportunity to change course," which means ... well, to be honest, I haven't a clue what it means. But it sounds a lot like Mr. Reid's terrific speech from June 1944: "With yesterday's successful D-Day landings, Gen. Eisenhower now has a golden opportunity to change course and surrender."

Anyway, in his second major speech of the week, Harry Reid said we need a "Marshall Plan for America." Apparently, the United States of the 2005 is in as dire condition as the Europe of 1945 — its great cities reduced to rubble, and its people starving and desperate for work. Maybe it just seems that way from the ruins of Democratic Party headquarters.
In his third major speech of the week, Harry Reid said ... . Well, at the time of writing, he hasn't given a third major speech, but I do hope he does. Every year this guy's on TV as the official face of the party, you can kiss three Democratic Senate seats goodbye. Right now, the Dems are all exit and no strategy.


This week's U.N. report on Sudan nicely captures the alternative to Bush-style climate change. After months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan managed to persuade the U.N. to set up a committee to look into what's going on in Darfur. They've just reported back that it's not genocide. Phew, thank goodness for that. It turns out it's just 70,000 corpses who all happen to be from the same ethnic group; could happen anywhere. But it's not genocide, so don't worry about it.

The guy is simply awesome.

Monday, February 07, 2005
I'm Back, Again
Over at National Review Online, Neal Gorsuch asks whether liberals will stop relying on lawsuits to push their agenda. While his article takes a hopeful tone, I am much more cynical. In the past two weeks, a New York state judge ruled that the State's prohibition of same-sex marriages violated the New York Constitution, and a Federal judge ruled that the U. S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment Due Process guarantee applied to prisoners of war. So long as judges continue to inject their personal views and biases and overlook the historical and plain meaning of State and the Federal Constitutions, liberal groups will continue to try to force their agenda on an unwilling populace.

That reminds me, I heard Mark Levin on Hannity and Colmes talking about his new book, Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America. It sounds like a good read. Of course, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I agree wholeheartedly with his premise, that the courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court in particular are destroying America.

I apologize for the long absence. We canceled our internet service awhile ago, and I thought I would still be able to get on from time to time at other locations. I was wrong. I am glad Mark was able to get his friend Mike to join in. Hello, Mike. Nice to meet you. Anyway, we are back online, so I should be able to make some contribution to the site again.

Where is Louis Farrakhan?
I was just thinking to myself: "is Louis Farrakhan still alive?" Why haven't I heard anything from him in so long?

I did a few searches, and I guess he is still alive -- check out this page which has reprints of several speeches and articles.

I remember when the Million Man March was taking place, I watched part of Farrakhan's speech on C-SPAN (I think). Here is the part I remember, only because it was one of the most incomprehensible ramblings I ever heard:

I'm looking at the Washington Monument and beyond it to the Lincoln Memorial. And, beyond that, to the left, to your right, the Jefferson Memorial. Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of these United States and he was the man who allegedly freed us.

Abraham Lincoln saw in his day, what President Clinton sees in this day. He saw the great divide between black and white. Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton see what the Kerner Commission saw 30 years ago when they said that this nation was moving toward two Americas -- one Black, one White, separate and unequal. And the Kerner Commission revisited their findings 25 years later and saw that America was worse today than it was in the time of Martin Luther King, Jr. There's still two Americas, one Black, one White, separate and unequal.

Abraham Lincoln, when he saw this great divide, he pondered a solution of separation. Abraham Lincoln said he never was in favor of our being jurors or having equal status with the Whites of this nation. Abraham Lincoln said that if there were to be a superior or inferior, he would rather the superior position be assigned to the White race. There, in the middle of this mall is the Washington Monument, 555 feet high. But if we put a one in front of that 555 feet, we get 1555, the year that our first fathers landed on the shores of Jamestown, Virginia as slaves.

In the background is the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorial, each one of these monuments is 19 feet high.

Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth president. Thomas Jefferson, the third president, and 16 and three make 19 again. What is so deep about this number 19? Why are we standing on the Capitol steps today? That number 19 -- when you have a nine you have a womb that is pregnant. And when you have a one standing by the nine, it means that there's something secret that has to be unfolded.

What in the heck was this guy talking about?????

In his recent speech, he continues his fixation with numbers (and incoherent rambling), saying this:

We are standing on a planet that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught us is 196,940,000 square miles, with a weight of six sextillion tons, traveling at the speed of 1,037 1/3 miles per hour as it makes its revolution around the sun and its rotation on its axis. As it makes its revolution, it makes four dips, giving us our seasons—which is change. But what produces these changes in seasons? It is the Earth responding to light. The light of the sun—traveling 186,000 miles per second, striking the Earth at its equator—causes the Earth to spin. As the Earth is spinning because it is in submission to the power of the light, it produces spring, summer, fall and winter.

He also stated:

The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said the judgments against America would be unusual rain, unusual snow and unusual earthquakes. He referenced the Book of Job in the Bible and snow treasured in the north. He referenced the fierce cold and strong winds that were used in the ancient times to destroy the wicked. Snow fell recently on the West Coast, with drifts that were 10, 15 and 20 feet, and winds of 168 miles an hour. If it were a hurricane, it would be five, in terms of its ferocity. But the media is not reporting these occurrences; instead they keep the people focused on what is happening in Asia, while you are blind to what is happening right under your foot. But what happened in Asia is coming to your door.

It seems odd to me that this comment was not reported in the media -- imagine if a figure on the right (say Jerry Falwell, or James Dobson) had stated that "what happened in Asia is coming to your door" -- think it would have been mentioned in the press? And what does he mean by that?

Anyway, it's good to see Crazy Louie is still alive and kicking, even if he still doesn't make a lick of sense.

These guys are tone deaf...
The Weekly Standard carries this article by Noemie Emery, who has this to say about John Kerry:

He isn't a statesman, but he plays one on TV, and so there he was on Meet the Press the Sunday morning of Iraq's election, looking properly somber and careworn, saying a great many words to no purpose, and displaying too much of the cluelessness that went far toward helping him lose. In fact, as to losing, he seemed in a state of denial, talking up the (fairly) close race in the state of Ohio, and claiming he came so near to winning that it hardly was losing at all. He won the popular vote in the battleground states, he said proudly. A mere switch of 60,000 votes in Ohio, and he would have been writing the State of the Union. (Never mind that Kerry lost the national popular vote by nearly four million, while Bush was gaining four seats in the Senate; and that if he had managed to pull out Ohio, people now would be saying what a fluke it had been, and wondering how he would govern with a Republican Congress and a public that had so clearly voted for Bush.)

Too funny. Read the whole thing, it's good.

Check out this guy....
An attorney who had the cajones to bill for 94 hours in a single day was whacked recently with a richly-deserved $1 million fine.

According to the civil claims against him, on Feb. 17, 2000, Spayne billed Electric Boat for 94.75 hours in a 24-hour period. "On that one day he supposedly reviewed 113 files, made and received 91 phone calls and wrote 72 letters," according to the government's March 15, 2004, complaint against Spayne.

During the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, Spayne allegedly charged the company for more than 24 hours of work in a single day 135 times. During that same time period, the complaint contends, Spayne billed between 13 and 24 hours in a single day approximately 226 times.

In 1999 as a whole, Spayne billed Electric Boat for 5,096 hours, which equates to approximately 17 hours a day, according to federal prosecutors, assuming Spayne worked six days a week and 50 weeks a year. In 2000, Spayne billed for 6,479 hours, or 22 hours a day, they alleged.


Saturday, February 05, 2005
The Return of Brent??????
Yes, he is still alive, and a little birdie told me he may be rejoining the blogging world soon. Cross your fingers....

Bartleby Democrats
is the title of this interesting editorial of The Washington Post. It compares the Democrats stance on social security to Bartleby the Scrivener's stance on, well... everything:

HERMAN MELVILLE'S "Bartleby, the Scrivener" tells the tale of a lawyer's assistant who inexplicably stops doing his job, instead spending his days staring blankly at a brick wall. "I'd prefer not to," he invariably tells his employer when asked to copy a paper, go to the post office or even answer a question. "No: at present I would prefer not to make any change at all," Bartleby says when asked to leave. In their response to President Bush's State of the Union address Wednesday night -- indeed, in much of their reaction to Mr. Bush's push on Social Security -- the Democrats share a disturbing resemblance to Bartleby.

The Endless Party
Click here for an excellent essay on the Democrat party. It concludes with this:

Ruy Teixeira says that after 2004, "The bigger question is: What do the Democrats stand for?" Here's a better and bigger question still: What do the Democrats stand against? Tell us, if indeed it's true, that Democrats don't want to do for America what social democrats have done for France or Sweden. Tell us that the stacking of one government program on top of the other is going to stop, if indeed it will, well short of a public sector that absorbs half the nation's income and extensively regulates what we do with the other half. Explain how the spirit of live-and-let-live applies, if indeed it does, to everyone equally—to people who take family, piety, and patriotism seriously, not merely to people whose lives and outlooks are predicated on regarding them ironically.

Until those questions are answered, until Americans have confidence about the limits liberalism will establish and observe, it's hard to see when the Democratic narrative will again have a happy ending.

Friday, February 04, 2005
My goodness
Seems a power-drunk Manhattan judge has declared that New York's law forbidding same-sex marriage violates their constitution.

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the words "husband," "wife," "groom" and "bride" in relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law "shall be construed to mean 'spouse,' and all personal pronouns ... shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women."

Click on the article -- If you get the same advertisement with the article I did, you should get a laugh. When I read the article, it showed an ad for cars.com with a man hugging his car -- I wonder how long it will be before he will have the "constitutional" right to marry it? Whaddaya say, Judge Ling-Cohan?

The opinion is here (warning: it's a doozy, beginning with Romeo and Juliet and ending with a cite to Vice-President Cheney's statement that "freedom means freedom for everyone" top enter "into any kind of relationship they want to.")

With legal principles like that, the guy should be able to marry his car real soon.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Still #1, Baby!!
Kudos to my Fighting Illini for the smackdown they laid on Michigan State last night. 22-0!!

What a Loser This Guy Is
Michael Newdow, I nominate thee WWTL's inaugural "Wuss of the Week."

With an acoustic guitar and harmonica, constitutional activist Michael Newdow stood before a crowd of students in Hutchins Hall yesterday afternoon and crooned his song “Pledge of Allegiance Blues.”

What a granola-eating, class A, L7 weanie.

“I have the Constitution on my side. When it was written, it was clear the founding fathers wanted the separation of church and state,” he said.

Funny they didn't actually put those words into it, then. And that several states actually had state religions. Don't let the facts get in your way, though, wuss.

Wuss. Wuss. Wuss.

Ragged Edges
A good friend of mine has finally started his own blog, Ragged Edges, which promises to be very interesting and no doubt entertaining. Go check it out.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Queer Beer
That's right -- a trio of Swiss businessmen have launched a new drink for gay people called Queer Beer.

Moel Volken, from gay rights organisation Pink Cross, said the beer was an excellent idea.

"I'm happy to see that homosexuals are being taken seriously as consumers. I just hope that the beer tastes good," he said.

Naming a product Queer Beer is "being taken seriously"?

Powered by Blogger

WWW We Win, They Lose