What goes around...

In a kinda sorta update to this post, I found this bit of tasty news on Drudge.

Under the recent ruling from the Supreme Kangaroo Court that paved the way for private property to be taken from private individuals and given to private corporations, it seems a company has decided it wants to put a hotel on Justice Souter's property, and is attempting to have it taken for just that purpose.

The action is an undisguised attempt to punish Souter, but is delicious nonetheless, and the claims of greater tax revenue and benefit to the community are real and true. If there is any justice for the Justice, I'll book my reservation in "The Lost Liberty Hotel" one day, and enjoy dining in the "Just Desserts Café".

The man behind it all says it isn't a prank.

The Supremes

It saddens me when a bunch of old people are making major decisions dealing with new technologies. The Supreme Court, continuing their trend of garbage rulings, ruled that I can't share my shoestring budgeted home video camera movie (well if I had one, anyway) over file sharing networks. This time, the idiocy was unanimous.

I'm sure, the Supremes didn't actually ban file sharing networks from sharing my own little slice of craptv, but the effect is probably the same. File sharing networks will almost certainly have to exclude all audio and video files now as they can be held liable for criminal use (meaning downloading those crappy theater screen video captures, and crappy mp3 music).

Applying Supreme logic, it is like someone legally buying and owning a gun, then committing a crime with it, then holding the gun company liable. Substitute gun with car, coffee mug, book, scissors, etc. You get the picture.

Along with shaky-cam wannabe Michael Morons, crappy independent bands trying to get their music heard, or crappy poets (is there any other kind these days?) could be left out in the cold.

The entire Internet is nothing but a file sharing network. Legal use of a legal product is the responsibility of the user, and the user is to blame when they abuse it. Why don't the Supremes get that?

While I disagreed with banning it for this reason, the original Napster shared only mp3 files and it was reasonable to assume that the vast majority of use was for illegal purposes. New file sharing systems share every kind of file. If they are responsible for how it is used, then I want some punitive money from the Internet regulatory bodies for all of the illegal spam showing up in my inbox. The intent of the SCOTUS may be honorable, but the ruling is far from it.

9/11 and the war in Iraq

Democrats scoff at President Bush's assertion that pulling out of Iraq would be failing to learn the lessons of 9/11. I guess Democrats don't acknowledge the argument that part of the reason we had 9/11 was, in no small measure, because America didn't help rebuild Afghanistan after the Soviets were defeated (though I thought Democrats loved that argument as it puts some blame on America).

"The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like [Abu Musab] Zarqawi and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like [Osama] bin Laden. For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch."

Democrats evidently don't agree, but Bush is, of course, right. Pulling out of Iraq would be stupid and dangerous. According to recent polls, most Americans realize this.

And all of this is beside the fact that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq! Now, can someone please tell me again why the previous Bush quote was wrong?

Getting it right in Iraq would be a huge victory in the war on terror. One that Democrats would deny us in the name of politics. They lost us Vietnam, we won't let them lose us another war.

China and Europe

"Let's all wake up. The post-Cold War peace is over. We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States."

This quote is from an article in The Washington Times. It refers to China. I'm afraid the realization of all of this will come too late. And Europe wants to sell China weapons!

These plans were briefly and embarrassingly put on hold after Chinese saber rattling, but give it a few more months to breathe and Europe will be back to wanting to sell China advanced weapons.

If I'm not mistaken, it is common practice to destroy the factories that produce the weapons of one's enemies in a time of war. If we end up at war with China in the future, then that could include bombing France. As if we needed any more reason.

But then, Europeans have a more favorable view of China than America right now. Why? Because we removed a thug from power and installed a democracy in his place. And we call them our allies.

Are we the only adults left?

Protectors of the little guy?

The liberals on the Supreme Court have ruled that land seizing under eminent domain allows for taking land for private corporate use. The 5-4 decision was opposed by the three conservative justices, as well as sometimes conservative O'Connor. The four liberals along with flip-flopping Kennedy were the majority.

The case in question was Kelo v. City of New London, and now among the properties to be destroyed are some Victorian homes and small businesses that have been in families for generations, and will make room for private development including a hotel and a Pfizer Corporate office.

One year on

It has been one year now that I've blogging here. I'd like to thank both people who have read my blog :)

Yay.

Just what the Democratic party needs, even more criminals

You've heard it from Hillary, and you'll be hearing it more and more from Democrats. Felons should be (and in some cases will be) allowed to vote. It isn't compassion that drives this. No, it is, of course, politics. I've said before if Republicans want abortion banned they should give every fetus an automatic Democrat vote.

I guess the double-voters and dead voters weren't enough to overcome this map for the Democrats, so let's allow the felons to vote. Maybe children 12 and older will be next.

Dean vomits more rhetoric

Republicans are "pretty much a white, Christian party" according to Howard Dean. I guess being a Republican who is not Christian puts me in the sliver opposite the "pretty much" part, but he is almost right. Just leave out the white part. Of course that would make it hard to be so divisive and would hamper their race-baiting. Dean says that Democrats are more diverse. Really? So the Democratic Party is pleased and proud to have people with the following values:

anti: abortion, affirmative action, gay marriage, entitlements and

pro: abstinence teaching, Iraq war, tax cutting, capitalism, death penalty, personal responsibility?

Yeah, I thought not. Democrats are like Republicans in that way. They welcome those with similar views, regardless of race or sex. The amount of influence and power that conservative women and minorities have under Bush should prove that out, but that evident truth is hardly useful to Democrat power grabbing, so back to race-baiting. But who can blame the Democrats? Hispanics have begun to vote along ideological rather than racial lines, making it somewhat harder for Democrats to win elections. If black people were to do the same, where would that leave the Democratic party? Whites already vote on ideology (for the most part), so the vote grabbing will be mostly one way. If one pays attention to one's history books, you see Republicans founded as an anti-slavery party. You see Democrats attempting to filibuster civil rights legislation, and Republicans voting for it in larger numbers than Democrats. As minorities become more affluent and begin to worry more about building upon and passing on to their children what they have accomplished, they will vote Republican more often. It is already happening to some extent. If you believe that, then which party truly has a greater interest in keeping minorities downtrodden? Essentially, "I feel your pain, and it's not your fault, so vote for me because help begins in Washington DC" trumps "Let's openly talk about and solve your problems, it begins at home". Just ask Bill Cosby.

It may be safe to say Democrats are today more racially diverse, but they are not more ideologically diverse. I can name some Republicans who have some fairly liberal social views, and they are prominent enough in the party that a first name will suffice. Arnold or Rudy ring a bell (first names have to do anyway, because I'm too lazy to look up how to spell their last names)? How many conservative Democrats are so prominent in their party? One such Democrat (though I'm not sure how prominent he was in his party), a senator, spoke at our convention. Would the Democrats, in their infinite diversity, have welcomed Zell Miller so openly at their own convention?

Duh, abortion is legal

I hate abortion. I believe that if you cannot medically prove beyond reasonable doubt when a fetus becomes a human life, you should not be allowed to terminate it unless it is to save the life of the mother. The law, as it is now, disagrees. That being the case, this case is ridiculous.

A 19 year old man helped his girlfriend kill her unborn child. She asked him to do it. She punched herself in the stomach while he stepped on her stomach. He gets life in prison, she gets nothing. Democracy loses.

It is an absurd contradiction to claim that the unborn is not a child, then have laws that call the killing of these non-children murder if done without the mother's consent (or, in Texas, even with the mother's consent if it is a boyfriend doing it). This is what happens when judges make law as they did with Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court overstepped its authority and rendered irrelevant the will of the people. Some states would almost certainly make abortion illegal if the will of the people were carried out, but instead they must resort to such absurd and contradictory laws that protect a fetus as a human life while simultaneously denying protections as a human life, all depending on who is taking that life.

Lifetime appointments for judges have their upside, but the downside of having them be unanswerable is becoming increasingly disturbing. Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and the states should decide for themselves. So long as abortion-on-demand is legal, a 19 year old who helps kill his girlfriend's unborn child at her request should be guilty of nothing.

More Aznars, please

Imagine for a moment (and read this article) that there were folks like former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in charge of several major European nations. What you would have now is a free and democratic Iraq, much farther along in progress, an Iran and North Korea that are really feeling the heat, and far more likely to give in, and an Israeli/Arab peace process far more likely to succeed.

Terrorists have been very successful at using to their advantage Western division over Iraq, as well as differences in how to confront (or not confront, as is the case for Europe) the problems of the world. For example, a terrorist attack in Spain robbed that nation of what backbone they had. Had it happened in America it would have strengthened our resolve and forced our leaders to take tougher measures. Europe is still locked in the Kerryesque view of terrorism as a law enforcement problem. If Europe were in lock step with America over Iraq, troop levels would be higher, as would support for Iraq's elected government. It would also be far easier to pressure neighboring nations on their open-border policies that allow terrorists (a good first step is for the MSM to quit calling them insurgents)to flow into Iraq. Iraq's movements toward democracy would have far greater legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

Iran and North Korea know that if it comes down to it, America will be alone in the dark in dealing with the trouble that those axis of evil nations cause. Many even complain about the expressed opinion that the leadership of those nations constitute an evil axis. Maybe we should have called them the "axis of carebears"? If Europe were taking a harder line on these nations it could make a huge difference. Iran is calculating that if they keep the Europeans on the hook long enough by offering to allow inspections, then saying they won't...saying they'll consider stopping their program, then they won't...they can play the Eurowimps long enough to finish their WMD programs. If Europe had helped us shitcan Saddam without remorse, then European negotiations with Iran and North Korea would be coming from a much stronger position, and they would be taken far more seriously.

Finally, the US is always accused of being one-sided when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. To say we favor the non-terrorist side would be wholly accurate, but we are not so nearly one-sided as everyone else. Terrorist bombings target and kill Israeli children, and the UN says nary a word. Israel responds with targeting a militant and kill a few innocents by accident and the UN is all over it. How many vetoes of resolutions in the UN has America shot down simply because those pushing the resolution refused to include condemnations of Palestinian terrorism? We would allow criticism of Israel, but Palestinian terrorism must be condemned also. Yet we are the one-sided party? If Europe were serious about terrorism, including Palestinian terrorism, the peace process would stand a far greater chance, and Israel might take Europe more seriously (refer to article linked at the top).

Alas, Europe has few like Jose Maria Aznar, and the Europeans don't often put them in power. It seems that to them, the problems of the world are best solved by ignoring them, talking about them endlessly, or letting America solve them while Europeans just complain and blame America for the problems to begin with.

Stop whatever you are doing, a Koran was abused!!!

After a poorly sourced Newsweek story about "Koran abuse" was discredited (following riots and protests that killed over a dozen people), the mainstream media has begun to work tirelessly to find evidence of Koran abuse. Meanwhile, Muslim fanatics (of the variety that riot, kill, and call for jihad when a book is abused) have murdered scores of innocent people in cold blood.