« July 2005 | Main | September 2005 »
August 31, 2005
Still Think the ACLU is All Goodness and Light, Glenn?
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Coalition for Darfur: What It Is All About
Here's the weekly Darfur post.
---
Last weekend, the blog Blue Girl, Red State wrote a post about a regular blog commenter who went by the name "Shameless Hussy."
Blue Girl reports that "Shameless Hussy" went to Darfur in June as a humanitarian volunteer and was traumatized by what she saw
WhatThis post receive a fair
she dealt with daily goes beyond the pale...beyond the nightmares of
most people; Children with all four limbs hacked off right above the
knee or below the elbow. Twelve year olds who died in childbirth after
being gang-raped by the Janjaweed. Women who gave birth to rape-babies
who were then cast out by their families for shaming the family name,
leaving only one avenue of survival for themselves and their children
after the camps: Prostitution.
What is f**ing her up is the
desperation, and the fact that she worked herself to death for over a
month, and she still didn't really save anyone. Now that she's gone,
it's like she was never there. Even the ones she helped keep alive, she
didn't save. You try dealing with that reality.
And women are
the preponderance of victims. Men do not leave the villages to go to
the countryside to gather firewood and other necessary items of
sustenance. Women venture out, even though every time they leave their
villages, they are at horrific risk of being beaten and raped and
disfigured. The reason they go instead of the men? The women are only
attacked, the men are killed.
amount of attention within the blogosphere (as far as posts about
Darfur go) mainly due to the fact that Kevin Drum
linked to it. And while getting bloggers to pay attention to Darfur, if
only for a minute, is a minor miracle, it is worth asking why it takes
a post about traumatized aid workers to generate any interest in
genocide.
This situation in Darfur has existed for over two
years and, if people were interested, they could find accounts of
death, disease, rape and torture occurring there on an almost daily
basis. 400,000 people have died and nearly 3 million have been
displaced and yet nobody - not politicans, not the media, not bloggers
- really seem to care.
To anyone who has been paying attention,
the atrocities witnessed by "Shameless Hussy" are, sadly, well-known.
If her story generates concern for the people of Darfur, then for that
we should be thankful. And if people who were moved by it are really
interested in Darfur, then they should start reading the analyses
produced by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Eric Reeves and the International Crisis Group, supporting organizations like Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, Save Darfur and STAND, reading blogs like Passion of the Present, Sudan Watch, the Coalition for Darfur, and Sleepless in Sudan and demanding that their elected leaders do something about it.
Our
thanks goes out to "Shameless Hussy" and all those who sacrifice to
help those in need. But we must keep in mind that Darfur is not about
them - it is about this
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
It's Time to Grow Up, Glenn
Link Looting? Don't you think that's in a little poor taste comparing someone having a, albeit heated, disagreement with you about the ACLU?
Sure, the ACLU does some good things, but they are a part of the larger encroachment of the federal government in general and the judiciary in specific, something as a lawyer you apparently see no problem with. Let's recap.
Any abortion regulation is now a federal question, even when we're dealing with . Whether or not states can protect their kids from pedophiles is now a federal question. Whether intelligent design or evolution or both is taught in the classroom is now a federal question. Whether local school boards can decide to teach students abstinence is now a federal question. The ACLU is at the forefront of federalizing every policy dispute and instead of people dealing with things democratically at the lowest level, we are left with a system where every policy decision must be approved by a judge. That is not democracy; that is juristocracy.
When you have ACLU leaders comparing religious people with terrorists and saying all prayer is immoral, is it any wonder why people of faith are suspicious? When the ACLU supports revoking the tax-exempt status of churches (despite the fact they aren't businesses and don't produce anything) is it a wonder why we question their values?
Is a mass-delinking appropriate here because of a disagreement, maybe not. But comparing people who dislink you because of your politics to the looters in New Orleans is beyond the pale. We realize as a professor you might not take criticism well, but do try to not make every disagreement a moral failing of your opponents.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:06 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
What is it with Democrats who like to Dance on the Dead?
Robert Kennedy Jr. today demonstrated why the Kennedy family has gone all down hill since JFK. He suggests on the HuffPo that Hurricane Katrina was caused by the Mississippi Governor's "anti-kyoto" and "anti-environmental" stances. The tone is almost giddy that this leftist can link dead bodies in some religious way to a Republican. We'll have to wait a few more weeks for their to be protests at their graves organized by Code Pink.
This is the problem with the Democratic party and the left in general, they can't simply try to make a point and convince people. What they do instead is gloat on any bad news and link it to some Republican policy. Tsunamis; Republicans fault. Hurricanes; Republicans fault. Train bombing in Spain; Republicans fault. Hollywood's deplorable movies; Republicans fault.
You ever wonder why they keep losing elections? They're still blaming Bush for every problem that comes along and then systematically ignoring all the good news out there. (See Good News from Iraq, or increased home ownership, and the list goes on).
Right now more and more people are seeing the Democrats and the Left for what they are, despicable elitists who have a sneering disdain for the "common man" and all things American. They could care less about America, the poor, the hungry, they just want power and they're pissed off at the voters for not giving it to them. This is just the latest episode of their downfall.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:37 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 30, 2005
Carnival of Life Debut!
Tim and I over at Pro-Life blogs are debuting the Carnival of Life. If you have posts on pro-life issues submit them.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:29 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
DI Point/Counterpoint Published: Expelling Radicals
My latest for the DailyIllini is up. It was on the question of expulsion of radical Islamic preachers who advocate and stir people up for terrorists acts, as Britain and France are already expelling them.
The fuller version of what I was asked to write on was the expulsions going on in the UK and France and whether that is ok in the United States. The online DI version doesn't reflect the question, and the print DI could have worded better.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 29, 2005
Impeachment: This is Getting Out of Hand
Pat Buchanan proves why he's irrelevant
Why is everyones solution to every policy disagreement impeachment? I dunno, here's a crazy idea, campaign on the idea. The voters buy it, you win. The voters don't buy it, you go home and cry to momma. Illegal immigration is a problem, but I have this crazy opinion that we should reserve impeachment for.... oh, I don't know... "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:14 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
9/11: Still Not the Jews' Fault
An 11 year old turns an art project into a political statement by showing Bush referring to seeing the first plane crash into the World Trade Center. The contest was organized by the San Francisco Chapter of the 911 Truth Alliance, which the main organization distributed literature that suggests Israel and/or the Mossad were responsible for 9/11. There seems to be no end of those who espouse bizarre conspiracy theories linked Bush, the Mossad, Saudis, short sellers, and insurance companies with the 19 people who actually did hijack the planes on 9/11.
With the breaking news on Able Danger one wonders if the conspiracy theories will have to be rewritten. The Clinton Administration "wall of separation" prevented the military from sharing critical information that would have prevented 9/11 years before it happened. Even when some tried to share the information anyway, the information went ignored. It looks like more and more that terrorists did hijack planes and that the CIA dropped the ball long before Bush even hit office.
The conspiracy theorists will have you believe bizarre theories about the international neocon conspiracy (closely related to the international Zionist conspiracy) but a review of the facts once again shows that radical Islamic terrorists are targeting this country, the Clinton Administration did nothing about it, and they'll keep attacking until they are stopped. Iraq is the latest front and only victory there will provide protection against future attacks.
Blogs talking about this: PowerBlog!, Strate Sphere, Captain's Quarters, et al.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:25 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Misuse of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
With rising oil prices and Hurricane Katrina, there are the usual calls for tapping the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Sen. Schumer asked Bush to release oil to "ease higher prices" which shows that he doesn't understand the point of having the reserve to begin with.
The reserve was established in 1975 after the Arab oil embargo as a means of protection when countries decide to hit us in our oil supply. Taking that protection away now would make any such efforts much greater in effect and much more appealing. The SPR was never intended nor should be used as a means of price manipulation of the gas markets in the United States.
First, let's say you get a 20 cent reduction in gas prices by tapping the reserve. Would it even be politically feasible to back off until the reserve was gone and bring that 20 cent reduction back? Doubtful. Gas prices have been inflated for a long time now and it is not likely that the price is going to come down that much in the near future, not until regulators allow the construction of more refineries.
Second, it takes 15 days from the order until the oil starts to hit the markets. The SPR can only sustain its highest rate of drawdown for 90 days and will be completed depleted in 180 days. The price affect is negligible during periods of drawdown and there are no instant real effects (save psychological). What the SPR is good for is dealing with supply cutoffs, not dealing with price manipulation. Maximum drawdown would only supply the United States with a maximum of 20% of its oil consumption per day. That would be good for dealing with a disruption of oil supplies by a hurricane not to counteract long-term market pressures.
With Venezuela threatening an oil embargo and the situation as it is in Iraq, tapping the only source of protection to our oil supplies by foreign manipulators is only encouraging them to go ahead and attack our oil supplies.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Save Our Borders Blogburst: Immigration Reform
The first issue of the Save Our Borders Blogburst has come out. I agree that we need to secure the borders but think we need to be more generous about letting in people who are coming here for work. If you lived in Mexico and had a family, you know you'd be swimming the Rio too. We need an immigration policy that generously lets in hard workers who will be a benefit to our society while sealing the border to keep drug-runners, slave-trade runners, and terrorists out.
---------------------
Lou Dobbs had it right on the money when he said, "We are a nation of immigrants, and there is no more diverse and welcoming society than ours. But we are first a nation of laws, and upholding those laws and our national values makes this great country of ours possible."
What happens if we do not uphold those laws? Dobbs goes on.
Failure to secure our borders means that we will continue to lose the war on drugs and lose a generation of Americans to those drugs. It also means the crushing burden of our failed immigration and homeland security policies will continue to fall exclusively on the shoulders of working men and women. Not only do illegal aliens and those who employ them cost the nation tens of billions of dollars in social services, principally in health care and education, they also depress wages for American citizens by an estimated $200 billion a year.
[Note: The following was written by Mustang, a retired Marine officer who blogs at Social Sense. This is reprinted in full with his gracious permission, and we'll be featuring more of his work next week.]
The number of Americans who believe that our borders should be secure from illegal entry is overwhelming. Not everyone agrees, obviously, but those who argue for open borders mostly represent organizations that have a peculiar agenda. Of those who demand (although not too loudly) a secure border, there are essentially two camps: One group worries about our security in light of terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the other group voices concern over the economic implications of illegal immigration.
I have had a number of conversations with close friends on the subject of immigration generally, and on the issue of securing our nation from those who would do our people harm. Even those who support President Bush seem to disagree with his view that people coming here illegally, no matter the point of their origin, are simply looking for work. As evidenced by the amount of attention this issue is getting nationally, however, the problem is not restricted to border-states. People throughout the entire country seem genuinely angry that our government lacks the will, or the resources, to halt the influx of people who come here illegally.
The issue of illegal immigration generates emotional rather than thoughtful debates among the so-called talking heads of our national media. Screeching at one another on national television does not bring to the table thoughtful discussion or reasonable solutions to the problem. In the first place, most people do not understand the implications of illegal immigration, including the politicians whose job it is to frame laws, and provide funding for the enforcement of those laws.
The task of problem-resolution appears to fall into three stages: (1) Determine the true affect of illegal immigration, (2) Discover reasonable solutions, and (3) Implement programs that do not demean people of other ethnic groups or nationalities.
In spite of the fact tht current statutes prohibit the employment of military forces in the pursuit of civil law enforcement duties, it may be time to reconsider such prohibitions. America's open border presents a real and present danger to the people of the United States in any number of ways, not the least of which might involve the illegal entry of Middle Eastern terrorists. In fact, at least one terrorist has been arrested, a female; it is not unreasonable to wonder how many others evaded arrest or detention. Discounting terrorists, however, Americans are harmed by “illegals” who perpetrate crimes against persons and property in the United States, and do so with some impunity.
Criminal activity along the border, according to this article, is getting out of hand. The federal government's unwillingness to address this problem is causing harm to American citizens, and of course it is the local taxpayer who has to defray the costs of increased local policing. It is little wonder that citizens have formed local groups to augment police departments, but that may not be enough. Contrary to Mr. Bush's position, these people are not vigilantes, but they could be if something isn't done — and soon.
There are also good arguments that illegal immigrants pose a significant economic danger to the United States. A source of information and discussion on this topic can be found at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Among a wide range of issues, FAIR provides specific economic information relative to illegal immigration, breaking those costs down state-by-state. One might conclude, based on the data provided by FAIR, that the costs of doing a poor job in protecting America’s borders far outweigh the costs of hiring more law enforcement or border patrol officers.
For more on this topic, check out Kleptocracy to the South — a good read. The bottom line, folks, is that until citizens are fully informed about the ramifications of doing nothing, Americans cannot approach the three-step mentioned above to resolve this problem. It’s your country, dear reader, and the choice is yours — but Social Sense demands your involvement.
----------------------------
Welcome to the first issue of the Save Our Borders Blogburst. We have started this blogburst in an effort to keep the border issues and illegal immigration at the forefront now and up through the next election. We will be featuring pieces every Monday from other bloggers, news articles, and things we've written ourselves as we blog about this each week. Members of the blogburst can either crosspost what we have, or write something of their own.
If you'd like to join, please send an email to kit dot jarrell at gmail dot com and put "BlogBurst" in the subject line. The more, the merrier!
Blogs already on board:
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:35 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
First Letter to the Editor in DI
Apparently AWARE was highly offended by my half-fragment semi-literate jab at them. C. G. Estabrook wrote in today to discuss the "errors" in my column. The reason I find their activities disruptive is that they were disruptive during Sen. Obama's talk. Canvassing the aisle with their garbage was not the appropriate thing to do while the Senator was talking, and I'm no supporter of the Senator. The anti-war movement seems to think that the more disruptive and offensive they become (see the protests outside Walter Reed) the better they serve their cause. The reverse is true. Note that Cindy Sheehan's approval ratings are the only ones falling below President Bush's at the moment.
Second, my column didn't talk about the war because the Senator didn't. If I want to write a war column, I will. Just because I don't include AWARE's pet issues, doesn't make it an error. There's only so much I can fit in 650 words and its certainly not going to cater to the demands of the radical left.
The fact is, the war has been debated non-stop for over 3 years. You've lost the debate. It's time to MoveOn.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 28, 2005
More Disgusting Protests
Lest I be accused of having double standards, I think this is crap too. A funeral is never a place for protests, right or left. Anti-war protesters should have the common courtesy to let the dead lie, as should the anti-gay protesters (which I disagree with also). That doesn't mean (like AWARE) seem to think I'm for restricting free speech. But that also doesn't mean every expression of speak is praiseworthy and free of criticism.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 27, 2005
The Left's War on Home Ownership
One of the top articles on Drudge is a link to an article that said Greenspan warned the US is heading for a housing price crash. The problem is this is somewhat of a wild mischaracterization of what Greenspan said. You can read the text of Greenspan’s speech here. Here is the appropriate quote from Greenspan:
The developing protectionism regarding trade and our reluctance to place fiscal policy on a more sustainable path are threatening what may well be our most valued policy asset: the increased flexibility of our economy, which has fostered our extraordinary resilience to shocks. If we can maintain an adequate degree of flexibility, some of America's economic imbalances, most notably the large current account deficit and the housing boom, can be rectified by adjustments in prices, interest rates, and exchange rates rather than through more- wrenching changes in output, incomes, and employment.
Here is what the Times Online characterized this as:
WALL STREET shuddered yesterday after Alan Greenspan, the United States’ central banker, warned American homebuyers that they risk a crash if they continue to drive property prices higher. He said that the US house-price spiral had become an economic imbalance, threatening stability like the country’s trade gap or its budget deficit.In a pre-retirement speech to fellow central bankers at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Mr. Greenspan said that people were investing in houses as if they were a one-way bet, not allowing for the risk of price falls. He said “history had not dealt kindly” with investors who kept ignoring risks.
Those on the left are quite literally hoping for a housing crash so that they can gloat. They are wishing misery on their fellow man. And we have a British media outlet toeing the party line. There are those waging a war against middle class people owning homes. Is it because they cannot succeed when people become affluent? You make the call.
The quote about ignoring risks was in a section of his talk having nothing to do with housing. This very liberal interpretation of his talk is nothing but scare-mongering intended to talk down the economy.
However, no where in his speech does he mention a housing price crash. Adjustments sure. Markets go up and down. What the impression that those on the Left are trying to generate is to make people afraid that if they buy a house at $100,000, it’ll be worth $15,000 after a crash. Isn’t going to happen. Housing is too essential of a resource where it can become worthless. The market will fluctuate, houses may become more difficult to sell but there isn’t a housing crash coming. Even if housing prices take an extremely unlike 20% hit, what does that mean? People will continue to pay on their mortgages and the market will go up again giving them their value back.
It pays to remember that the much celebrated dot-com bust happened just a few years ago and the market is about at where it was before that crash. If you invested in a Dow Jones Index fund in 1928 before the Great Depression and stayed in the market 30 years, you still beat inflation. The sky is not falling, people just need to be reasonable about their debt loads which is something to take greater concern in.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:26 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
MT 3.2 Upgrade
I've just upgraded this blog to movable type 3.2, looks great so far and hopefully will cut down on the spam.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:58 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Woot, I'm #85 in TTLB Ecosystem
Of course, it's broken though. We'll see where it lands when it clears out.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 26, 2005
A Victory for Free Association at SIU
The Seventh Circuit of Appeals issued an order on August 22nd requiring SIU to restore a Christian group's organization status after the University revoked it because of the groups requirement that the leaders of the Christian group actually be Christian. The ruling also clarifies that nothing in state or federal law requires religious groups to not require members be part of the religion.
Many universities, including the University of Illinois have similar rules that which are just as unconstitutional yet continue to exist out of fear of students not wanting to rock the boat. These rules which are a part of "antidiscrimination policies" go far beyond and cognizable interest in maintaining order on campus. Having a group of Christians who get together and talk about the Bible is a far cry from race riots.
Universities routinely try to pre-restrict certain kinds of speech based on (usually) religious content. The University of Illinois has the same rules that prevent free association and also adds in that speech that is "evangelical" in nature cannot be funded. Talks are routinely had on why religion is a bad thing, but the religious are unable to respond because those views are not allowed on campus. This is called "viewpoint" discrimination. This is the campus that brings you "Sex Out Loud" each year, but the mere positive mention of religion apparently threatens the University to its core.
Liberty demands that people be allowed to say what they want and organize how they want unless there is a very significant reason to regulate. Only on campuses do these attempts to regulate free associate and free speech exist and finally the courts are starting to put an end to it.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Eugenics at Carle Foundation Hospital
(Note: Thanks to Pro-Life Blogs for hosting the PDF)
Eugenics is the sterilizing of the "unfit" so that only the fit can breed. This was all the rage in the 30s until Hitler took it to its logical extension and it fell out of style. Many states allowed courts to order sterilization of criminals or others that those in power deemed not fit to procreate. The laws were eventually overturned.
That brings me to this story. On March 10th, 2005 a woman was admitted to Carle Foundation hospital. She was several months pregnant and was admitted for complications to her pregnancy and for apparent drug abuse. At admission, the staff identified "Communication Barriers" on a form even though the patient speaks fluent English (Page 1 in the linked PDF document below). Page 2 is an authorization form for sterilization "signed" on March 12th. Page 3 and 4 are the nursing charts that show on 3/11 the "pt (patient) would not wake up", on 3/12 that the nurses could not do a consultation with her because the drugs (which included the ones given by the hospital at this point) have not worn off, and that on 3/13 says the "pt (patient) finally 'waking up'". The patient was admitted on the 11th but unable to communicate until the 13th, yet signed a form authorizing sterilization on the 12th. How precisely can a patient unable to communicate and unable to "wake up" sign a consent form to have her tubes tied? The law in Illinois for medical treatment is "informed consent" and based on the nurse's own statements, this patient was in no position to consent to anything and certainly not do so in an informed matter.
Here are the excerpts of the medical records which have had identifying information redacted except the patient number so Carle can verify these records should they so choose.
After receiving this information I tried to see if this has happened to other women. I received 2 reports that women were pressured into signing these forms and refused but nothing quite on the level of this. This could be one nurse who took matters into her own hands or an institutional policy, I just don't know that right now and I have been unable to successfully dig deeper. I'm of the opinion that if this has happened once in such a flagrant manner, what's to say it hasn't happened before or won't happen again. Only some public prying will be able to determine it which is the intention of this post.
One may argue that sterilization of women with drug problems is a good thing, to them I say why not wait until she is awake and convince her? Sure, I'm against sterilization but it is legal in this country. Why not deal with the drug problem instead of sterilizing the woman and dropping her back into her bad situation? What happens when the woman breaks free of her drug problem and later wants to have children when she's clean? What happened here was a hospital staffer trying to slip through this sterilization because they wanted to impose it on her. Luckily, this time they got caught and the authorization was revoked. The courts and legislatures have decided that they have no place controlling who should breed; certainly nurses in hospitals shouldn't be making those decisions either.
CLARIFICATION:
Apparently I was less than clear... once she "came to" she told asked the nurses about this thing she signed, they told her, and she eventually (with difficulty) got the permission revoked. They just got the form signed so when she delivered, they would be able to "take care of it" with no questions asked.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:38 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Abortion Advocates Fight Against Choice
Abortion advocates are in a fight over the current HHS appropriations bill and whether hospitals, doctors, and medical personnel can be forced to be involved in abortion or risk losing any federal funds they may receive. This comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed by the State of California to overturn such provisions.
Here is another example of the "pro-choice" crowd fighting against the choice of medical providers in what services they want to provide and attempting to nullify their consciences. They argue that they aren't pro-abortion but then insist that every doctor must be jumping to perform abortions on demand. Any provider who refuses on the basis of conscience to provide any abortion-related services will likely face a revocation of their licenses.
The pro-abortion crowd not only wants to prevent medical providers from having a choice on what services they provide, they also want to exclude the religious from not only public life but even private jobs (with the ACLU trying to eliminate tax exemption for churches). If you're religious not only do they not want to allow you the choice to follow your conscience, they want to prevent your choice of profession.
So much for choice.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:44 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
The .XXX Top-Level Domain
There has been a bit of talk about the .XXX top-level domain (TLD) and whether it should be approved. When I got around to writing something, I thought it was stale news, but apparently discussion is making the rounds.
In short, the TLD is meant for, you guessed it, porn. The Bush Administration doesn’t like it because it will create a virtual “red-light” district on the web. There are some concerns that it will legitimize pornography.
I think it’s a good idea, honestly. One, pornography is already legitimized if you are using the strict meaning of that word. There is nothing illegal about it (save some sparse regulations) and, let’s be honest, it’s ingrained into the culture. It doesn’t make it a good thing, but the Supreme Court has made it the law of the land that it gets to stay. Even if US laws were able to stop it, it would still come in from overseas and I don’t think we want a China-like Internet setup with the government censoring what we can see on the web. Pornography is bad for the soul and for that matter even bad for society, but it is up to people who believe that to make the case on an individual basis at this point.
Two, this makes it that much easier to block some porn. Anything that ends in “.xxx” gets denied. Very simple, doesn’t require any new filtering technology or anyone to scour the web to put sites in the filter. If anything, it makes it that much more obvious when someone is looking at porn (a.k.a. your kids) and dealing with it. It would be great if all porn (or at least most) could be kicked to the .xxx TLD, it would make filtering it for those who don’t want it that much easier.
When I was in Milan a few years ago, I was struck by the constant array of “sex shops” in otherwise respectable neighborhoods and essentially pornographic ads on TV (usual telephone commercials, I don’t know why). A red-light district at least lets you know where to avoid if you don’t want to be exposed to it. The same is true for a TLD.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:32 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Tell Me This Doesn't Look Like It's From a Movie
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:55 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Column Up: Barack Obama - Falling Star
My First column at the DI is up.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:02 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 25, 2005
More AP Bias
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - A former state senator pleaded guilty to mail fraud Thursday and admitted accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from three companies that had an interest in bills before the General Assembly.
This was the header to an AP article just recently that hit the wire. No where in it does it indicate that this guy was a Democrat. You had to go to an old article by the Boston.com.
AP, dropping the ball again when it is their boys that are caught up in corruption.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The ACLU Declares Jihad on Abstinence Education
In a direct attack against common sense, the ACLU has waged a relentless war against teaching kids the simple fact that if you don’t have sex, you don’t get pregnant or get STDs. The ACLU applauded a recent decision by the federal government to suspend funding to Silver Ring Thing because it was using the money to evangelize and convert people. While they are very correct that this was a misuse of funds, it is part of a larger campaign to kick abstinence education out of the schools as inherently religious. In fact, a recent study by Rep. Waxman (that has been debunked) cited religion as a primary concern about these programs. The ACLU agrees.
They cite evidence that abstinence education programs do not work. History disproves this as we haven’t had anything close to the rates of single mothers, teenage pregnancies, or STD infections before sex-ed was taught in schools. For centuries, if not millennia, telling people to reserve sex for marriage worked. If they want proof, look back 100 years. Abstinence works every time it’s tried.
The irony is that while suggesting there is proof that abstinence education does not work, Planned Parenthood (through their research arm) has inadvertently shown that sex-ed and easy access to birth control has not slowed unintended pregnancies, reduced abortion, or reduced STD infections. Their recent report says:
“54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.”
Easy access to contraception has INCREASED the rate of infections of AIDS in Africa. Condoms are unable to protect against the single biggest cause of cervical cancer, HPV. Sex-ed in schools is based around teaching children “Hey, its ok, go out, have fun, just use a condom and you’ll be ok.” There is no attempt to deal with the emotional maturity issues regarding sex which leaves children so unprepared that the rate of kids committing suicide increases with sexual activity. They talk about moral programming and how it is ineffective at teaching youth abstinence, but rely on moral programming to teach them to use condoms.
The facts are these: abstinence education works and throwing condoms at kids doesn’t. If you aren’t ready to be a daddy you might want to think about not having sex which is the only effective way to not become one.
Thanks to OTB, Stop The ACLU, Basil's Blog
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:31 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Got DI Comments?
Let's be honest. I'm writing for the DI to pimp my blog. Give me hits... click on sponsors... go crazy.
Go figure, I've really enjoyed writing columns and I plan to do it for some time to come.
If you have comments you can send them here if you'd like either in a comment or an e-mail, subject to those policies. However, my employment with the DI is wholly independent of my status with the University. Those comments and feedback do not belong within the University. Thank you for your cooperation.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:17 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
MSM Refuses to Take Genocide in Darfur Ad
Think Progress has the news that NBC, CBS, and ABC affiliates are refusing to run Be a Witness ads covering the genocide that is going on in Darfur. They haven't covered any of the news during the year except for token sound-bites because apparently Natalee Holloway takes precedence.
Turns out that for every 100,000 dead in Sudan, the issue gets 1 minute of press. To add insult to injury they won't let people even pay them to cover it.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:08 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Anti-War Protestors Tormenting Iraq War Wounded
CNSNews has broken the story on anti-war protesters outside Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C. This is the facility where those with significant injuries are sent to from the battlefield. They are there holding up signs such as "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton". The organization organizing this is Code Pink, the same organization that has funded terrorists with the apparent knowledge of Rep. Waxman.
For the most part the anti-war crowd doesn't see a problem with this, mostly because it garners attention which is what they are seeking. They think by kicking around a few wounded soldiers that they'll be able to change people's minds about the war. They also seem to think that the wounded are oblivious to the debate on the Iraq war and for that matter the rest of the nation. This war has been debated 24x7 since about 14 months before we went in to Iraq. The rush to war included having the Army camp out for months in Kuwait waiting for the order and turning away Iraqis who wanted to surrender.
Everyone knows what the war has cost because the press covers it endlessly. These protesters are looking for more than that, they want some gimmick, some stunt that will convince people because all of their arguments have been rejected or disproved. They need the one mother of a slain soldier in Crawford and conveniently ignore the approximately 1900 other mothers who aren't protesting and do support the troops. They aren't covering that the insurgency is over and the remainder of fighting is mostly people from Iran and Syria and the targets are Iraqis.
That brings us to Walter Reed where to point is precisely to irritate people and get press. Should the protest somewhere else? Absolutely and they know it. If the Pentagon has to sneak people into Walter Reed it is because of those protesters trying to dance all over the body in celebration that they have another club to try to go after the President with. In closing, I have to wonder what these people do for a living because I don't have time to run out to a VA hospital and be kicking around wounded soldiers for fun.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 24, 2005
The Words You Are Looking For Are "I'm Sorry"
Can no one apologize anymore? Two words: "I'm sorry". How about "I apologize"?
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:02 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Coalition for Darfur: Genocide and Statistics
Cross-posted from Coalition for Darfur Genocide and Statistics Last week, International Studies Quarterly published a study by Matthew Krain, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the College of Wooster, examining "the effectiveness of military action on the severity of ongoing instances of genocide and polititcide." According to the press releaseThe study reveals that only overt military interventions that explicitly challenge the perpetrator appear to be effective in reducing the severity of the brutal policies. Military support for targets, or in opposition to the perpetrators, alters the almost complete vulnerability of unarmed civilian targets. And these interventions that directly target the perpetrators were not, on the whole, found to make matters worse for those being attacked ... He finds that even military intervention against the perpetrator by a single country or international organization has a measurable effect in the "typical" case. When a single international actor challenges the aggressor, the probability that the killings will escalate drops while the probability that the killings will decrease jumps. Each additional intervention by another international actor raises the chance of saving lives.In the introduction to the study, Krain notes
Policy makers faced with situations like those in Rwanda or Bosnia, Kosovo or Darfur, are forced to rely on past experience with interventions in other types of internal conflicts, often with disastrous results. This study is a step toward a better understanding of the effectiveness of potential responses by the international community to genocides and politicides.Krain goes on to examine various intervention methods of dealing with on-going genocides and politicides (the "impartial intervention model," the "witness model," the "bystander model," etc...) and notes that not one of them is capable of reducing the severity of such situations. After conducting a statistical analysis of the various models, Krain concludes
Policy maker concerns that intervention on the behalf of target populations will escalate the killing appear to be unfounded. The only overt military interventions that appear to be effective in reducing the severity of genocides or politicides are those that explicitly challenge the perpetratorHe then discusses his finding as they relate to Darfur, writing
Intervention against the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed within the first year of the genocide would likely have had a measurable effect on the severity [2003] of state-sponsored mass murder in the following year.Kraine does not claim that military intervention is the "only" option. In fact, he notes that "policy makers have a range of options available to them in the face of an ongoing genocide or politicide" and that his study "only examines one of those options." Keeping that in mind, it is hard to argue with Kraine's basic conclusion
If actors wish to slow or stop the killing in an ongoing instance of state-sponsored mass murder, they are more likely to be effective if they oppose the perpetrators of the brutal policy.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Democratic Party Crackup Coming: Stay-Tuned
At the Daily Kos, they're upset with the DLC. They don't think the DLC is Left enough and they're tired of it. So a few days ago they had this to say:
Two more weeks, folks, before we take them on, head on.No calls for a truce will be brooked. The DLC has used those pauses in the past to bide their time between offensives. Appeals to party unity will fall on deaf ears (it's summer of a non-election year, the perfect time to sort out internal disagreements).
We need to make the DLC radioactive. And we will. With everyone's help, we really can. Stay tuned.
I'm not sure whether this is childish ranting or the real McCoy but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. This is a similar attitude displayed by MoveOn when they said, "We bought it, we paid for it, it's ours". (About the Democratic Party).
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 23, 2005
Welcome to Part-Time Pundit
I've changed the name of this blog from Ravings to Part-Time Pundit. Why? Well it's a better name I think. I was going to change the template too, but didn't find anything good and there didn't seem to be that many MT sites for templates anymore. Oh well.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 22, 2005
What was she thinking?
I'm back from celebrating my 4th wedding anniversary and I'm still wondering whatever was my wife thinking when she said yes...
More posts to come including a surprise for those in C-U this Friday, changing the name of my blog, and some random garbage that usually clutters this space.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:44 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 19, 2005
Al Qaeda Attacks US Navy Ships in Jordan, Come Up Short
Today Al Qaeda terrorists fired three rockets at US ships. According to a post on the website they threaten additional attacks:
…we warn the Americans, who are spreading theirfreedomcorruption throughout the world and who have stolen the wealth of the Muslim nation, to expect even more stinging attacks.
A source in the US Armed Services who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the press had this to say:
Buwahahahahahahahaha! Stinging attacks? They can't even hit a big fat boat docked at a pier.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 18, 2005
La. ACLU Head Compares People Who Believe in Higher Power to Terrorists
On Monday, the school board of Tangipahoa Parish in Louisiana had their meeting and was asked by the ACLU to remind teachers not to allow prayer at school functions. In an astounding aside, the First Amendment has become a restriction on private individuals on where and when they can express their religion. The statement was not school sponsored prayer but prayer at all, including presumably spontaneous prayer by students. How the Louisiana ACLU can reconcile the position that no one be allowed to pray in school with their belief in the right of free expression and freedom of religion is left to the reader.
On this occasion the head of the Louisiana ACLU, Joe Cook, had this to say about people who believe in religion (HT: Lone Star Times:
”They believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country, and the people who did the kind of things in London.”
No amount of parsing can take the meaning of this quote away. The head of the ACLU in Louisiana believes that if you believe in God you will eventually be led to fly planes into buildings, become a suicide bomber, or decapitate people on TV. You may believe that religion should be stricken in the public square even when the expresser is a private individual but the statement that people who believe in a higher power are on the road to terrorism should be offensive.
This was spoken by the head of the ACLU in Louisiana and therefore can be taken as an official position by that unit, if not the entire ACLU as a whole. If you are outraged by this, contact the Louisiana ACLU and the National ACLU to get them to repudiate such hateful and bigoted remarks.
ACLU of Louisiana
PO Box 56157
New Orleans, LA 70156-6157
(866) 522-0617
National ACLU Feedback Form here
Others talking about this: Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway, StoptheACLU
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:37 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
August 17, 2005
Great Post on NYT Bias
You can find it at Countercolumn
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Coaltion for Darfur: Plagued by Techincalities
Crossposted from Coalition for Darfur
Last week, David Loyn of the BBC wrote about the crisis in Niger and
asked "How many dying babies make a famine?"
Famine is a troublesome word with a very specific meaning to the professional aid community.The debate over "famine" is much the same as the debate over "genocide" in DarfurIt is usually taken to define a situation in which a high proportion of the general population are vulnerable to death by hunger-related disease.
This describes a much more intense situation than the loose way that famine is generally understood - and the pictures of starving babies in Niger certainly look like "famine" to the outside world.
In technical terms Niger's President Mamadou Tandja may be right to say that this is not a famine.
"For those who are dying from acute malnutrition and related diseases, the debate about whether there have been enough deaths to justify the famine label, and the extent to which this exceeds the normal hungry season mortality rate is not helpful.Last September, the US declared that genocide was taking place in Darfur, but three months later, the report (PDF file) of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur concluded that it was not, though it also stipulated"Avoiding the famine label has often been convenient for those seeking to justify slow or failed responses."
The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Government authorities, directly or through the militias under their control, should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region. International offences such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide.But the press responded, not with headlines reading "Massive Crimes Against Humanity in Darfur," but rather with headlines such as "U.N. report: Darfur not genocide."
But the point was essentially moot, as one thing quickly became clear: overwhelming evidence of massive crimes against humanity could not get the world to act, nor could a genocide declaration. In fact, it seems that nothing could prod the global community to act to address the situation in Darfur, be it genocide, quasi-genocide, or "merely" crimes against humanity.
As Loyn reports of Niger, warnings of an impending food crisis have been raised since November, but nobody paid attention until it was too late
They did not respond to the requests on paper as they did to pictures of dying babies.The reverse is now occurring regarding Darfur. It has become, in the words of Eric Reeves, a "genocide by attrition," and the world has stopped paying attention.
Last month, the UN reported that violence in Darfur had diminished over the past year, mainly because militia have run out of targets after destroying hundreds of villages.
As Reeves has written, the genocide in Darfur is now
[M]ore a matter of engineered disease and malnutrition than violent killing. In other words, disease and malnutrition proceeding directly from the consequences of violent attacks on villages, deliberate displacement, and systematic destruction of the means of agricultural production among the targeted non-Arab or African tribal groups became the major killers.It is entirely possible that Darfur will not begin to receive sustained coverage again until this "genocide by attrition" has taken the lives of tens of thousands more and footage of dying babies in Darfur begins to show up on the nightly news.
And then, in lieu of actually addressing that problem, we can have debate about whether or not this new situation meets the technical definition of "famine."
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 16, 2005
Cleaned Up Right Side Bar
Finally cleaned it up a bit...
Comments?
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
McCain-Feingold Imagery
Awesome.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
NARAL: All Legitimacy Left Behind
NARAL has hit rock-bottom...
And they've started to dig.
They pulled the commercial but are still insisting Roberts supports violence against abortion clinics. Read more from Culture & Cosmos below.
=================
NARAL Website Still Portrays Judge John Roberts as Defender of Violence
Despite their decision to pull a misleading television ad that accuses Judge John G. Roberts of defending violence against abortion clinics, NARAL Pro-Choice America remains strongly opposed to Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court. Their website, ProChoiceAmerica.org, features a special section devoted to providing talking points and other documents designed to hurt Roberts' confirmation chances including one that continues to portray him as a defender of clinic violence.
NARAL has come under intense criticism for a recent television ad that implied that Roberts defended the perpetrators of 1998 bombing of a Birmingham, Ala. abortion clinic. The accusation stems from an amicus curiae brief Roberts co-authored seven years before the bombing when he was Deputy Solicitor General in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. In a brief for the case Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, Roberts argued that protestors at an abortion clinic could not be prosecuted under a Civil War era civil rights law. In his oral argument before the Supreme Court, Roberts makes it clear that the protesters should be prosecuted for any state laws they violated such as trespassing, disturbing the peace or inciting a riot.
The ad came under a barrage of criticism, including from supporters of abortion like Frances Kissling, president of "Catholics" for a Free Choice. After a letter denouncing it was sent to NARAL by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who is pro-abortion, the ad was pulled. In a letter to Specter, NARAL president Nancy Keenan did not apologize for the ad's content but did say she regretted "that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record."
The day after pulling the ad, NARAL communications director David E. Seldin announced he was resigning immediately. In an e-mail to coworkers he said, "I've been thinking for a while that I would most likely leave after the Supreme Court nomination fight was over, and by leaving now I can spend the next two weeks in Cape Cod with my family relaxing, instead of trying to find a place with good cell phone reception." A Washington Post report said Seldin was among a group of Democrats who thought they should be tougher on Roberts.
Despite pulling the ad, NARAL is using the same rhetoric as the ad in its online campaign to stop confirmation of Roberts saying he "argued in support of the violent clinic protesters at Operation Rescue who have tried to block women's access to basic health care services with bombs and threats of murder." The document accuses Roberts of being "so driven by ideology that he will excuse lawless conduct against women and other Americans."
In a list of talking points on the website, NARAL says that the "Bush administration owes it to the American public to disclose all relevant information about John Roberts, including his taxes, records from his job as Deputy Solicitor General, and the radical right's role in his selection."
Copyright 2005---Culture of Life Foundation.
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500
Fax: (202) 289-2502
E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org
Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:46 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Catholic Humor
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 15, 2005
Why You Don't Piss Me Off...
I come home today and find my front lawn cut up and a new unmarked utility box sitting in my lawn. Is it cable? Is it power? I just don't know because it isn't marked.
So I checked the eminent domain laws and made sure. They have to give notification, period. And for good reason, you don't want people driving on your grass dropping strange boxes in your lawn. (John at StoptheACLU thinks it's Big Brother watching me... maybe it's just the ACLU).
Extra fun part, it's not on an easement either. So looks like I'm filing an eminent domain lawsuit to dog them for a few grand in legal fees and kick them around a bit.
I just gotta figure out who this box belongs to first.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Morality and Liberty
In order for a society to be and remain free the citizens must be sufficiently moral and community-minded. That statement will offend most libertarians but the fact remains liberty presumes a moral people. An immoral people will eventually squander their liberty as a strong government will need to restrain them. A Hobbes-ist state of nature is not conducive to a functioning society.
There are human concerns and needs. There are also human duties that need to be performed. The more that people don’t meet the two above items, the more government will be happy to step in and make a half-hearted half-baked attempt that will more than likely make things worse than better and waste a good deal of money to boot. Traffic laws are a good example of this principle in action. If people paid sufficient attention while they were driving there would be (1) a lot fewer accidents, (2) a lot less laws on things like (don’t talk on your cell, do your makeup, beat your kids, while driving). Traffic tickets have become less of maintaining safety and more of a government profit center. It would not exist if people took due concern while driving. FEMA wouldn’t need to be in the business of paying for funerals (and the associated fraud therein) if neighbors and communities would step up on their own.
The Left, if nothing else, does a good job at reminding us there is people with legitimate needs that are going unmet. It is society’s job to make sure others have a minimum standard of living. The Left’s ultimate downfall is the fact they believe the solution to the problem is more government. Human history proves that this solution will always and everywhere fail. What sets America apart is that when we were founded as a country, the state was not the provider of human needs.
Throughout human history various governmental forms have come and gone where the people had to rely on governments to get basic needs met. Those stories are case studies in failure with a very rare occurrence of an official having real compassion on his charges. People can rail against the disparity between the rich and the poor in capitalistic societies, however, history has shown that disparity has always existed regardless of the governmental form. The difference in America is that owning your own home is not out of reach for most people, and even though the government can take your home and give it to someone else with more money (thank you Kelo), they still have to pay you for it.
While the Left points out these problems and tries to solve them with solutions that will never work, to often on the Right people don’t think of them at all. If those on the Right wish to maintain limited government and ample liberty, they need to step up and help in their own communities and provide for some of these needs. There are legitimate functions of government that should remain with government (national defense, law enforcement, interstate commerce) but for those things that the people can do, they have a duty to do. As long as their exists problems that people are too selfish, lazy, or careless to do anything about, there will always be ready and willing bureaucrats who are willing to increase their power and cash flow who will step in and waste money. It’s up to those wanting to defend liberty to prevent them.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:54 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Big News over at StopTheACLU
StopTheAclu has big news. First, it is gaining greater visibility as the public reacts more and more to the ACLU jurisprudence that is being imposed